Opinion: Why have the Greens fallen out love with of Brown Ken?
Written by Peter David on 15th April 2008 – 11:11 amIs Siân Berry, perhaps, having second thoughts? Two weeks ago, Siân and Ken exchanged vows. There was not a dry eye in the house.
The honeymoon however lasted less than 24 hours with Ken declaring his true love for Gordon Brown on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war (so much for his anti-war credentials). Since then, Siân has been doing her best to pretend it was all just a one night stand. In the Evening Standard last night, the most flattering thing she could manage about Ken was that he would be the “least worst” option claiming - incredibly - that “we’re not expressing massive endorsement of Ken or Labour in any way.” Huh? What’s more, despite his lack of anything resembling an environmental policy, she can even be found fluttering her eyelashes at Boris.
Joking aside, why this sudden change of plan? A quick glance at the opinion polls show you why: most of them show Berry hovering around the 2 per cent mark. That suggests that roughly a third of Green voters who supported Darren Johnson in 2004 have walked away from the party. If a similar drop in support is repeated in the Assembly elections, the Greens will struggle to get over the 5% minimum threshold. Johnson himself – second on the list – will almost certainly lose his seat.
This follows a similar pattern to the one which developed in Scotland last year where the mini-parties were all but wiped out (the Scottish Greens went from 7 MSPs to just 2 despite not self destructing in anything like the spectacular way the Scottish Socialists did).
But it has to be said that the Labour-Green deal can only have exacerbated the situation. While the stitch up has helped to promote Ken’s green credentials, it has reinforced notions that this election is just between the top two candidates. By giving the media and general public the clear impression that she is merely a cheerleader for Livingstone, Berry has effectively shut herself – and environmental issues – out of the debate. If she had not done that deal for instance, she would have had real cause to complain about Newsnight not inviting her onto their hustings last week.
As it is, she only has herself to blame. It isn’t even clear where vote swapping like this actually stands in election law; if the BBC is required to have a balanced debate would it not be unfair to have two candidates putting on a united front to present a shared agenda? It all sounds a bit too much like the worst kind of NUS politics, with candidates only standing so they can endorse their own preferred candidate from the floor.
Berry has stated that she would be prepared to work with Johnson if he was elected. However, one thing you can be assured of is that if Johnson is elected the Tories will get more than a third of the seats in the Assembly. Under the current mayoral system this means that the Tories will be able to ensure that everything they want gets through with minimal scrutiny. Even if the Greens managed to keep hold of an AM or two they will be out of the debate.
This is a bit of a first for London politics: in 2004-2008, Labour was two members short of the magic one third while in 2000-2004 Livingstone was an independent with a (relatively) hostile Labour party keen to bring him into line. With Labour unlikely to make gains in the Assembly and the Green vote collapsing, a Paddick or Livingstone mayoralty with a strong Liberal Democrat contingent on the Assembly is the best way to ensure that political balance and plurality is retained. Denying any party (even the Liberal Democrats) total control of the Greater London Authority can only be good for democracy. It might even do a better job at holding the Mayor to account than the Greens have managed holding the balance over the past four years.
Those disaffected Green voters should reflect on this. A Green vote of 4.95% would be a complete waste. By contrast, if those voters were to switch to the Lib Dems, they could lead to real Assembly members, and assure a balanced and competitive Assembly. Surely the only honourable thing should be for Siân Berry to admit her fatal error, throw in the towel and call her remaining supporters to vote Lib Dem to ensure this happens?
Posted in London Mayor, Op-eds
15th April 2008 at 12:04 pm
Re: ‘WHY have the Greens fallen out love with of Brown Ken?’ I suggest: ‘WHY have the Greens fallen out OF love with Brown Ken?’
15th April 2008 at 12:30 pm
Good article. I hope potential green voters are aware of this pact, and the 5% threshold, and that we launch a squeeze for their votes.
15th April 2008 at 12:34 pm
I think the Greens jumped at this too quickly and are now realising that it’s harming their prospects, not improving them. That’s partly why I think it would be foolish for the Liberal Democrats to even suggest who people should give as their second preference.
15th April 2008 at 1:06 pm
Is there any need for the sexist references to fluttering eyelashes? Is it not bad enough that Sian is already referred to as ‘green viagra’? Is her sex relevant here?
I don’t really see how Greens can vote Liberal when Paddick expressed sympathy for Porsche, spoke out against raising the charge to £25, and has suggested privatisation of the underground. His hostility to trade unions is hardly going to go down well with Greens either. Sian is trying to base her campaign on social justice, and Paddick has not made social justice, affordable housing, tackling poverty pay the main planks of his campaign has he? Actually, I came away from the interview with him in the Independent on sunday alarmed by how conservative he seems.
15th April 2008 at 1:09 pm
I also think the Greens have been caught out by just how much the public hates corrupt megalomaniacs like Ken. The Greens have been pushed by their growing hard-left element to back Ken because he is “like them”.
It is errors such as this that will give the Greens pause for thought as whether an explicitly hard-left, socialist and union activism dominated policy platform is really the way forward for them.
15th April 2008 at 1:59 pm
Naturally we all believe that Brian Paddick will win. But some people look at the opinion polls rather than listen to what is being said on the doorstep, and get this funny idea that the contest is between Ken and Boris. People in the Green party who think like this have asked themselves, who do we really not want to win this contest? Comparing the records of Ken and Boris, they have decided that Boris has the worst record on Green issues. Logically then they want their supporters to use their second preference votes NOT to vote for a fantastic mayor, but to vote against someone who would be worse.
Surely they have made a sensible decision? Many Lib Dems, according to a poll on this website, are doing likewise.
It may be the case that the Liberal Democrats would like to have a cosy relationship with the Greens and get their second preferences instead? But on the other hand, what some Lib Dem bloggers appear to argue is that the Greens are socialists, no Marxist, well actually Stalinists. Well all socialists are Stalinists arn’t they?
In which case, it is surely even more natural that they prefer Ken to the rest?
As far as the electorate are concerned, I suspect 99% have barely noticed all this bickering. Why not concentrate on giving people good reasons to vote Lib Dem and let the other parties sort out their own arrangements?
15th April 2008 at 2:32 pm
Dom Vine wrote:
“His hostility to trade unions is hardly going to go down well with Greens either.”
Trade unions are in favour of economic growth and higher wages. Greens are self-hating hair-shirters who believe poverty and suffering are virtuous and hanker after the glory days of pre-consumerism.
Greens might think they share common cause with trade unions, but I cannot imagine any self-respecting trade unionist having much sympathy for Greens.
Of course the primary objective for Liberal Democrats is either to elect Brian Paddick or at least ensure that he gets as many votes as possible.
The secondary (default) objective must surely be to STOP JOHNSON.
The dignity of the office, along with the future government of London require that the office of Mayor is held by a serious politician capable of doing the job, not a televisual clown and egomaniac (Alan Partridge with a posh accent).
The Greens are frankly irrelevant.
15th April 2008 at 2:40 pm
How many times does this have to be explained? There was nothing ever as formal as an electoral pact.
All that was said is that there’s a serious risk Boris will win, and that the Greens felt that would be worse than Ken winning. The Greens were never “in love” with Ken. They would simply prefer him to the unquestionable disaster Boris would be.
Whether it’s had more of an affect than previously thought is debateable. However, your claim that it’s seriously impacted on Green support in London is ludicrous. Sian polled at 2% in the YouGov yesterday, yes. But Wednesday’s Mori poll (also held after the “Stop Boris” announcement) showed her at 5%, and the Greens were polling as high as 20% in the Assembly polls. So, far from a drop in seats, that looks to be a rise from 2 to 6.
The claim that Greens should switch their votes to the Lib Dems is similarly ludicrous. There’s no solid evidence to suggest that Sian will get less than 5%, and the party potentially stands to do very well in the elections to the GLA. A vote for the Greens wouldn’t be wasted. A vote for a party whose candidate stands as little chance at winning as Sian, and whom there are serious differences with, would be.
Oh, and the comments about, “fluttering eyelashes,” and “one-night stands” are simply pathetic. Even as jokes; really, is quasi-chauvinism the best you can do?
15th April 2008 at 2:55 pm
They’re right Peter about the references to ‘fluttering eyelashes’.
If you have to resort to cranking out gender steroetypes to bolster your argument, you are in danger of looking like your argument can’t stand up on it’s own. Frankly, your points about the impact on the Green’s GLA vote are interesting enough and I hope you are right. Sian Berry’s lack of judgement has more to do with her being a ‘Green’ than her sex, gender or the length of her eyelashes!!
It’s the constant drip of comments like that that make many (not all, but too many) women think that formal politics, even political blogging is not the sort of place that welcomes them.
15th April 2008 at 3:10 pm
Sesenco - that is utter drivel! There is no desire within the Green party to return to some kind of feudal or pre-industrial age. In fact, they are the most modern of parties. They wouldn’t be doing so well in london if they were some sort of ruralist party. Hairshirts? Greens embrace technology.
Regarding trade unions, if that is the case, why does Bob Crow address the Greens’ annual conference and get a standing ovation? Why is there a Green Party Trade Union group? Why is there a socialist platform within the party, which includes Sian Berry herself and Pete Tatchell? The Greens are the party of the 21st century left.
15th April 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’ll deal with the more substantive issues later, but I thought I’d better intervene now regarding the allegations of sexism. I’m sorry that people have read it that way but metaphors about flirtation, sex and marriage are a standard part of the political lexicon. I can think of numerous examples in the context of Bush & Blair, Saddam Hussain & George Galloway, Ming Campbell & Gordon Brown. Would I have used that rather tortured metaphor if Sian Berry was a heterosexual man? Without a second thought.
So, sorry if you’re offended, but until they start banning Bugs Bunny cartoons I’ll keep mocking politicians in that way regardless of their gender or sexuality, particularly ones with selective amnesia like Sian Berry. Does anyone have any evidence to suggest otherwise?
15th April 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dom Vine, the EFFECT of Green Party policies would be a return to a pre-industrial age, as I am sure you well know.
If the Green Party is pro-technology, then presumably it will be calling for an expansion of nuclear power?
And as for Bob Crow, an unreconstructed Stalinist and supporter of the death penalty, a truly “progressive” party wouldn’t want to be seen dead in his presence.
Ah, but the Green Party is now self-consciously a party of the LEFT.
I think David Icke hit the nail on the head when he described the Green Party as “robot radicals”.
15th April 2008 at 3:46 pm
I have to say that people are always going on about the length of my eyelashes, and no-one made a comment when I made a similar comment about Vince Cable and Bruce Forsyth.
15th April 2008 at 3:52 pm
So, just because politicians have always used such language or you see it as ’standard’ then that’s OK then? You don’t have a mind of your own?
On your point about using a sexual metaphor about heterosexual men; if you did you would not be playing to gender sterotypes in the way that you are when you talk about Sian fluttering her eyelashes. The words might be the same but the outcome and impact is different.
It remains, whether you meant it or not, that language like that is off putting to many people who would be otherwise be involved in politics and more importantly the Lib Dems.
Of course that’s not your problem and possibly not a concern of yours; what I am pointing out is that if anybody is ever wondering why we struggle to attract good quality, diverse candidates in the numbers that we need then a continual drip of sexual imagery, whether gender sterotyped or not would be one contribution ot that dilemma.
Diversity isn’t just about ‘fixing’ women or minorites so they are ‘better’; it’s about having a good long look at ourselves and perhaps (shock horror) changing the political lexicon to make it more inclusive.
15th April 2008 at 3:59 pm
Technology doesn’t equate with nuclear power. It takes many different forms. Which Green policies exactly would create a pre-industrial age? I haven’t noticed Greens in power elsewhere attempt to introduce feudal policies - Germany, France, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, where they have been partners in coalition governments. The reason they do so well in places like London and Brighton, particularly among young voters, is precisely because they are a modern, largely urban, party. Greens want London to continue to be the vibrant, multi-racial, exciting city it is, but with genuine social justice and not the terrible inequality we currently have.
Crow is an effective trade union leader who fights against privatisation. His position on the former Soviet bloc is an irrelevance (and he’s not an unreconstructed Stalinist).
15th April 2008 at 4:02 pm
James, do you have very long eyelashes?!!!??? I must admit I haven’t got up that close!
My point proved, James…use it with men, heterosexual men, then the impact is very different!
15th April 2008 at 4:33 pm
Fair point Jo. It wasn’t my intention to make this a gender thing but I do see what you are saying and will be more mindful in future.
15th April 2008 at 5:20 pm
Dom Vine wrote:
“His (Bob Crow’s) position on the former Soviet bloc is an irrelevance.”
Gosh. This must be what the Green Party means when it styles itself a party of the left. I guess Crow’s support for capital punishment is an irrelevance too.
BTW. Dom Vine introduced the word, “feudal”, I didn’t. He is putting words in my mouth.
15th April 2008 at 5:23 pm
What’s sauce for the goose, isn’t necessarily sauce the gander.
Since when were Green Party policies and policy objectives the same in all the countries Dom Vine mentions?
I personally find it offensive that the Greens make a lot of noise about ingrained sexism, but simultaneously seek to profit by highlighting the gender of their candidate.
As if reverse sexism is ok, but traditional sexism isn’t?
That’s not very egalitarian is it?
15th April 2008 at 5:26 pm
I can’t see where the Greens are trying to profit by highlighting the gender of their candidate. They are running a candidate who happens to be female. That doesn’t equate to, “vote for our candidate because she is female” - which I haven’t heard them say at all.
15th April 2008 at 5:33 pm
So you didn’t mention the gender of your candidate twice in your 3 1/2 line response, Passing Green?
Not an issue? Not raising the issue?
15th April 2008 at 5:38 pm
It’s only an issue because you raised it, actually. The issue of gender was raised by the language in the article; I (and other, non-Greens) responded; you moved onto raising the issue of gender. I can’t be blamed for talking about the subject of a conversation, I’m afraid.
15th April 2008 at 6:10 pm
Yes, you (and the other Greens) can be blamed for continuing with it and tailoring your language to extract as many references to this subject as possible.
It would be more honest and gain you more credibility if you were open about what is incontravertible rather than shamefully seeking to profit from the unavoidable controversy when it inevitably arises, as it has.
As it is, stating your neutrality on the subject makes any contribution you have irrelevant to the debate. And especially when we know that Green party neutrality is a falsehood, it diminishes any trust we might have for what you do say.
15th April 2008 at 6:25 pm
“Yes, you (and the other Greens) can be blamed for continuing with it and tailoring your language to extract as many references to this subject as possible.”
I’m no more continuing this than you are. You were, I believe, the one who accused me of raising the issue when I hadn’t done so. And, frankly, I’m not tailoring my language; I’ve no on a partisan LibDem blog where I can assume clever language isn’t going to win anyone over. All of my comments have been virtually off the cuff, beyond checking grammar and spelling.
“It would be more honest and gain you more credibility if you were open about what is incontravertible rather than shamefully seeking to profit from the unavoidable controversy when it inevitably arises, as it has.”
Again, I’m not seeking to profit from this. I saw what I perceived as an unpleasant personal (rather than political) attack in the post, and challenged it as low. It’s been explained now, and I’d be quite happy to drop the subject if I were allowed to. You seem detirmined to keep it up, however.
“As it is, stating your neutrality on the subject makes any contribution you have irrelevant to the debate.”
What neutrality have I stated anywhere? I’ve said that we prefer Ken to Boris, but that doesn’t equate to saying “we like Ken.” I’ve further raised an issue of language which has been dealt with; again, I was hardly neutral there.
“And especially when we know that Green party neutrality is a falsehood, it diminishes any trust we might have for what you do say.”
The Green party has never claimed to be neutral. It would be rather hard for a political party running in an election to be on anything but its side…
Can we drop the issue of language and various poster’s (myself included) use of it, please? The initial problem has been dealt with, and in ending that line of conversation myself, I’d rather hope that demonstrates I’ve no desire to exploit it.
Althouh I imagine that’ll be (unfairly) interpreted as running away from the argument.
15th April 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think you’ve dug yourself a hole, my green friend.
You can’t say you’re not running away if you’re not continuing it and vice versa.
You also couldn’t escape the subject of gender balance in politics even were your candidate trans-gender - because this is politics. So ignoring the fact that a female candidate is female, because she happens to be so, is to highlight the irrelevance of a non-contribution to the political process.
It strikes me that between what you say and what you do there is little connection, particularly when you misdirect the accusation of neutrality (relating to gender balance issues) onto stated Mayoral preference. Then, after admitting that the Green party isn’t neutral, I find it difficult to understand how you can tally that with your previous comment denying that having a female candidate equates to a message (however implicit) to vote for her because she is female?
I feel very sypathetic towards your position, but the weakness of your argumentation is your plight.
Consequently, the subject of this thread poses a series of interesting questions - Is the subordination of Green political principle being reflected in polling figures? If so, does Sian Berry regret surrendering her political independence? Finally, if not, what point is the Green Party?
All of which concludes that either the Greens are intimiately linked to the discredited Labour/trade union behemoth, or made a terrible electoral mistake during this campaign - neither of which provides reassurance about their (and your, Passing Green) capabilities, nor a solid reason for expending a ‘Green’ vote.
15th April 2008 at 7:23 pm
I think you’re making very little sense, my Orange (I presume from the handle…) friend.
As for your argument that, simply by running a female candidate, we must be asking voters to vote for her because she is a woman - I can’t even see your logic. Sian didn’t stand for mayor because she was a woman. She stood for mayor because she felt she wanted to make a difference on social justice and green issues, and the rest of the manifesto. She’s not publically concerned with being a woman. So how does her standing constitute an argument that the electorate should vote for her -because- she is a woman?
As for arguing that we’re not neutral - I meant that insomuch as the Green party wants to win, just as every other party does, and so cannot be called strictly, “neutral.” It bore no direct relation to either of the specific issues discussed.
I didn’t shift the issue of neutrality; it was never specific enough to be shifted. You said I had stated my neutrality on, “the subject.” You did not say which subject. As such, I mentioned both. So, neither could I have shifted the issue, nor would have done had you been specific enough for me to do so.
“Consequently” - nothing, I fear. Given that the foundations of your argument are virtually incomprehensible, the conclusions lack much of a logical base.
As for my, “running away” - that had more to do with the fact this argument is getting absolutely nowhere.
15th April 2008 at 7:47 pm
It wouldn’t be so bad if Sian Berry hadn’t so self-consciously abused the public’s perception of her to her own advantage though - if you present yourself as a frivolous sex-object and play up to the “Eco Barbie” image then it’s hardly surprising people form these opinions (particularly when the man in question is called Ken!)
Sian Berry had Ken Livingstone right where she needed him - down on his luck, desperately needing a bost in the polls and she went and handed him her endorsement without extracting so much as change for a tenner - she sold her party’s independence for a headline and a smile. Politicians of whatever gender need balls - Sian Berry clearly has none.
15th April 2008 at 7:56 pm
Has she self-consciously presented herself as an, “eco-barbie”? Glancing at press releases from before her Mayoral run - the ones about the Alliance against Urban 4×4s, etc - she’s always dressed the way she has for the campaign. If that’s eco-barbie for you, then that’s what you read into it, I suppose…
Although, I suspect, the media is partially responsible for that image. Sian didn’t ask for all the “Green Goddess” “Environmental Viagra” tags - she called them “frustrating” in a recnt Guardian interview, if I remember.
As for the Livingstone thing; I’ve already said, that wasn’t anything nearly formal enough to compromise the party’s independence.
15th April 2008 at 8:03 pm
I think I agree that you can’t see logic for trees, but that’s probably a result of your partisan alliegance rather than any mental problem.
I also agree that it is a jump too far to explicitly stake a claim on any particular constituency by belonging to it, because the inference is axiomatic and implicit. Trying to invert that sort of narrative by such a widely unrecognised figure as Ms Berry would dent her ability to be taken seriously.
I fully understand that claiming gender as the prime motivation in entering a political career would undermine her environmentalist credentials to Green party membership, so it is clearly the only advisable stretegy to expand manifesto concerns to include amorphous items on the contemporary political agenda like ’social justice’ (isn’t that also used as jargon by the socialist/feminist left as a cover for restorative distribution?).
Returning to the thread: do you admit a mistake was made in tying your Serpentine pedalo to Livingstone’s Tilbury tanker, or do you think the polls are lying?
15th April 2008 at 8:14 pm
I think Sian Berry should listen to her mother’s advice, who is a Lib Dem councillor in Gloucestershire.
15th April 2008 at 8:20 pm
“I fully understand that claiming gender as the prime motivation in entering a political career would undermine her environmentalist credentials to Green party membership, so it is clearly the only advisable stretegy to expand manifesto concerns to include amorphous items on the contemporary political agenda like ’social justice’.”
Or, alternatively, she could actually care about those issues?
“(isn’t that also used as jargon by the socialist/feminist left as a cover for restorative distribution?)”
It can be, but the term is rather broader. Here, it refers to policies such as the living wage, free insulation - those designed to make life easier for the less fortunate. So not quite as extreme as that.
“Returning to the thread: do you admit a mistake was made in tying your Serpentine pedalo to Livingstone’s Tilbury tanker, or do you think the polls are lying?”
1. No, I don’t think it was a mistake.
2. I think the polls need to be treated with caution. Bear in mind that the YouGov polls have consistently shown us at this level for a while now, while the Mori poll was very favourable for us. It isn’t certain precisely what anyone’s level of support is, and, as has been shown in numerous circumstances (to draw an example from across the pond: Obama in NH…) I’m not sure it’s necessarily wise to extrapolate too much from them. They’re rough indicators at best, in my view.
Even accepting that there has been a drop in our support very recently, I don’t think it’s got anything to do with this. Both the Mori poll where we did well and this one came after the 1st/2nd pref. stuff. Instead, I suspect it’s got more to do with the “Vote Green to legalise drugs and prostitution” titles in the freesheets. The poor press coverage the manifesto launch received scared off more votes than it’s given credit for, I think.
15th April 2008 at 8:36 pm
“…or, alternatively, she could actually care about those issues?”
Which issues are those, environmental or socialist/feminist? You don’t sound too convinced that she does, or do you disagree over which takes precedence?
So, you think it is a sure-fire electoral winner to ally with Ken?
I shall look forward to the Green Party gaining as much success as the Marxist-Green ‘Rainbow Left’ alliance did in the recent Italian elections (they were wiped out).
15th April 2008 at 8:46 pm
“Which issues are those, environmental or socialist/feminist?”
Both. Although I can’t understand where feminism crept in, as I’ve not brought it up at all.
“You don’t sound too convinced that she does, or do you disagree over which takes precedence?”
Ah. My fault, I fear - I can’t have been expressing myself clearly enough, sorry. I’m fairly convinced that she is committed to them.
“So, you think it is a sure-fire electoral winner to ally with Ken?”
I couldn’t say until the election
For what it’s worth, though, I don’t think it’s lost us more votes than it’s gained, at least.
“I shall look forward to the Green Party gaining as much success as the Marxist-Green ‘Rainbow Left’ alliance did in the recent Italian elections (they were wiped out).”
I don’t think it’s a valid comparison to make, and I assume it was humourous…
However - it wasn’t just the Rainbow Alliance that did badly in Italy, it was the entire left-leaning coalition. Which, given that the rightist coalition in Italy is a vile mix of conservatives, fascists and like, would probably include the Lib Dems if the situation were transposed onto the UK…
15th April 2008 at 9:05 pm
It’s a perverse and provocative comment to suggest LibDem members would support a Berlusconi figure.
He has even shut out the Union of Christian and Centre Democrats, so I think you are mistaken to consider we would counternance any such possibility.
I’ll look forward to resurecting this correspondance after the results are announced when you have something to talk about. I hope you will have made your mind up about what you want to say by then, because the public will have spoken.
15th April 2008 at 9:10 pm
“It’s a perverse and provocative comment to suggest LibDem members would support a Berlusconi figure.”
I didn’t suggest you would; quite the opposite, I included you in the other coalition: “the entire left-leaning coalition. Which…would probably include the Lib Dems if the situation were transposed onto the UK…”
“I’ll look forward to resurecting this correspondance after the results are announced when you have something to talk about.”
As will I. Until then…
15th April 2008 at 11:54 pm
Trying to steer this back on topic…
How many times does this have to be explained? There was nothing ever as formal as an electoral pact.
I think we have wildly divergent definitions of “formal electoral pact”. What is surely not disputed is the following:
1. Berry and Livingstone held a joint press conference.
2. At this press conference they both urged their supporters to give the other their second preference vote.
3. Furthermore they unveiled five joint environmental pledges.
4. Berry repeated this pledge afterwards in her New Statesmen column.
5. On Newsnight last week, Livingstone said that he couldn’t give Paddick his second preference vote because he had done a deal with Berry.
If that doesn’t count as a formal electoral pact, I don’t know what does. The denial is itself revealing. Clearly this is causing some Greens a lot of difficulty.
Sian polled at 2% in the YouGov yesterday, yes. But Wednesday’s Mori poll (also held after the “Stop Boris” announcement) showed her at 5%, and the Greens were polling as high as 20% in the Assembly polls. So, far from a drop in seats, that looks to be a rise from 2 to 6.
Wednesday’s Mori poll is already dead in the water. Sunday’s Mori poll has Berry back squarely at 2%. Now, you could conclude from that that Mori’s methodology is flawed and thus discount both polls (their polls are notoriously volatile mainly because they weight according to likelihood of voting which can vary according to what the weather happens to be like outside at any given moment). What you cannot do and retain any respectability is claim that the older is more accurate than the newer one. Will you be trying the same line on polling day (”oh, that doesn’t count; back in 2004 we got a much higher vote and that is far more accurate!”)?
As for this 20% figure, where does it come from? It isn’t mentioned in the poll you refer to. It isn’t mentioned on the Greens’ or Sian Berry’s website. She doesn’t mention it in her latest New Statesmen column. Are you seriously suggesting that somebody published a poll suggesting 1-in-5 Londoners will be voting Green and yet no-one in Green Party HQ has noticed?!
Finally, I’m surprised that no-one has commented on the main conclusion of my article, that being that because of the vaguaries of the London Assembly’s 2/3rds rule, if Johnson were elected he would only be accountable to his own party whereas if Paddick or Livingstone were elected they would be in a balance of power situation which would be more democratic. I thought at least one Tory would come up with some tortured explanation for why that analysis is flawed. How disappointing.
16th April 2008 at 12:14 am
This is the article equivalent of one of your party’s bar charts - Greens should vote Lib Dem because of complicated and incorrect assertions about who can win (or, in this case, come third).
The Greens are not going to get less than 5% of the vote in the Assembly. If Peter or any of the other commenters think that they are, how’s about a small wager. I’ll donate a tenner to a cause of your choice if the Greens get less than 5% of the Assembly vote, you donate a tenner to the Elephant Family charity if they get more than 5%.
16th April 2008 at 8:28 am
I didn’t realise Greens were so into willy waving!
I didn’t predict the Greens would get less than 5% of the vote, although the polls are suggesting they will struggle at the moment. The closest I came to a prediction is that Darren Johnson would lose his seat and in so doing the Greens would lose the balance of power in the Assembly. I am curious as to why you aren’t offering a wager on those terms rather than some worst case scenario.
So I will accept your wager if the deal is you pay up if the Greens end up with one assembly member or less as a result of these elections, and I’ll even double the terms - £20 please to the North London Hospice please.
As for Lib Dem bar charts, they serve an important democratic purpose in that they enable people to realise that vanity voting for a party that stands no chance of getting elected won’t achieve anything while tactical voting will. I accept they are open to abuse and there are some rather silly examples out there, but you should have seen the ones the Tories were putting out in the constituency I was fighting in the last election. If the Greens were in the same position they would use exactly the same tactics (indeed, if my memory of Leeds politics is correct, they do).
16th April 2008 at 9:09 am
Trust me, Don Paskini isn’t a member of the Green Party!
Matt
16th April 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hi Peter,
I am for raising money for the ele-fant, and this seemed like a good opportunity.
Bit cheeky to claim that I’m on about some worst case scenario unrelated to your argument when you wrote that the Greens might struggle to get over the 5% threshold and that “Those disaffected Green voters should reflect on this. A Green vote of 4.95% would be a complete waste. By contrast, if those voters were to switch to the Lib Dems, they could lead to real Assembly members.”
Anyway, the North London Hospice is a good cause, so I’ll happily accept your revised bet
3rd May 2008 at 8:06 pm
Interesting to see that our Assembly vote held up, but that for the Lib Dems collapsed.
3rd May 2008 at 10:07 pm
The Lib-Dems were so busy fighting a mayoral campaign they couldn’t win and targeting two Assembly constituencies they couldn’t win, they forgot to campaign properly for Londonwide Assembly votes in the one election they could win. Result - loss of two seats and vote share down everywhere.
3rd May 2008 at 11:14 pm
Lewishamgreen (Darren?); I don’t really think you’re exactly in any position to gloat about performance in the Assembly elections - it’s not just our party that doesn’t really know how best to campaign effectively in PR elections.
The Green campaign in my area consisted of an 8 or so page newspaper delivered about 2 months before the election (many of which seemed to be going straight into recycling bins unread) and some ineffectual handing out of leaflets outside the nearest station (tip: you actually have to ask people to take the leaflets, not wait for them to ask you)
3rd May 2008 at 11:18 pm
London Green, it’s certainly interesting to see that you’re going nowhere fast. We certainly didn’t have a great time of it in London, getting squeezed - and having campaigned almost exclusively to promote our mayoral and constituency candidates, expecting this to push up our list vote (ironic when we’re usually pretty good at an effective squeeze message). But in the rest of the country we actually had a very good night - it was always going to be difficult to advance further than the brilliant results in 2004.
In London you fell slightly back and in the rest of the country you went nowhere. I know which results I’d rather gloat about.
6th May 2008 at 10:29 am
I’m amused that the lib dems are attacking the green supporter here. He’s not gloating about the country results, h’s pointing out how wrong the article is. Your attack back is typical lib dem it seems. I was going to vote for you in London and at university but was hugely annoyed by the mixed messages. In London lib dem campaigners said vote for us in mayoral, constituency elections (as well as asembly) desptie the fact you had no chance of winning either. The reason for this: vote for what you believe in otherwise you will never get it. However in Cambridge you urged everyone not to vote for Labour locally as they had no chance. Case of having ones cake and eating it too
6th May 2008 at 10:34 am
Not so Greg. Cambridge doesn’t have PR; London does. So you can vote for whatever party you want in London while you have to vote tactically in Cambridge.
6th May 2008 at 12:33 pm
Historically the Liberals have been closer to the Greens than any other mainstream party. But party politics is a competitive operation and it is tempting for some to engage in petty squables.
Trying to look beyond that, research has shown that the Greens are the second preference of 30% of Lib Dem supporters. Generally a Green advance will damage us more than any other party. This is dispite the fact that the other 2 parties are less green, and neither support proportional representation.
The Greens are not responsible for the voting system we have in this country, but their success will be at the expense of the Lib Dems and will make green policies and fair votes less likely.
If the Lib Dems attack the Greens for being a bunch of loonies, that could alienate our Green inclined supporters.
The Liberals Democrats really need to a) Take the Greens seriously, and b) Consider carefully how we relate to them.
And the Greens should do likewise.
6th May 2008 at 12:52 pm
Geoffrey Payne, I don’t call the Greens “a bunch of loonies”, I call them people who put gestures and far-left policies before the environment. And that is unforgivable. I speak as someone who admires environmentalists and has strong views on the matter, and would consider voting Green if they weren’t that way.