Ken Livingstone was a busy beaver last week. On Wednesday 19 March he held a joint press conference with Sian Berry to announce the formation of a Labour-Green coalition. The next day, on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, he stood shoulder to shoulder with the man who signed all the cheques, Gordon Brown. So many gigs, so many faces…
Livingstone himself has always made great political capital out of the fact that he personally opposed the war. What seems to have been forgotten is that he decided to rejoin the Labour Party when he didn’t need to when Tony Blair was at his most triumphalist. It is a confusion over foreign policy that has brought us things like his trysts with misogynist homophobic cleric Yusuf al Qaradawi and his shameful defence of the Metropolitan Police over their execution of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Many Green Party voters will no doubt be appalled at this turn of events. Vote Green, Get Brown is now the party’s unofficial slogan.
Livingstone is a mere figleaf of respectability, something which he tacitly admitted to in his revealing interview with Thom Yorke over the weekend in which he revealed he was powerless to stand up against the Brown government’s relentless hostility to anything even resembling a legitimate environmental policy.
Livingstone may well pay lip service to his opposition to expanding Heathrow airport for example, but every vote in the London elections this year will be taken by the Labour government as an endorsement for pro-airport policy. It will be treated as a vote of confidence in their opposition to tighten planning regulations over the building of environmentally friendly homes and their support of nuclear power. Now, thanks for Berry’s blunder, every vote for the Green Party will effectively be an endorsement of these policies.
But the most shameful thing about this Green-Brown alliance is the fact that the actual policies they have formed their coalition over aren’t actually that green. The current Congestion Charge has run into the buffers – congestion is no longer going down. Anyone who has tried travelling across London by bus can tell you that. Yet what they are proposing is a plan to make a whole swathe of people exempt from the congestion charge while a minority of SUV drivers will be taxed even higher (perhaps Sian has not been paying attention but Alastair Darling already imposed an SUV tax in the budget earlier this month). That’s great for the sackcloth and ashes brigade but it won’t take any more cars off the streets of London; rather it will lead to higher congestion, poorer air quality and more CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, they have lined up in opposition to the Lib Dem policy of a Greater London congestion charge (from which Londoners themselves will be exempt), which is specifically designed to discourage people from commuting into the capital.
This isn’t an example of two parties coming together to promote environmentally friendly policies – it is yet another example of how the left of British politics has fundamentally lost the plot. The Green Party lining up in solidarity with a pro-war, anti-green party is simply beneath contempt. Liberal Democrats should be emboldened by this and seek to remind the electorate of this unholy alliance at every opportunity.
Peter David is a Liberal Democrat member in North London.
64 Comments
“The Green Party lining up in solidarity with a pro-war, anti-green party is simply beneath contempt”
Spot on.
I hope and pray that Green Party errors won’t set back environmentalism, which I fervently support. I hope true greens see the real way forward 🙂
Can I just draw the attention of anyone with itchy keyboard fingers to this shocking little piece of attack-terrierdom:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200803280003
She must be starting to wonder why this new alliance basically involves her slagging off Brian the whole time, rather than pursuing her party’s own agenda. Still, that’s what you get when you hook up with Ken.
“Vote Green, get Labour” is a popular refrain around these parts, too – in Sheffield the Greens
* abstained at the Annual Council to put Labour back into power
* voted for Labour’s budget two years in a row, missing out on a Lib Dem proposal for first $1m and then $1.4m extra on kerbside recycling, plus free green sacks for garden waste, plus extra money for public transport…
* helped Labour defeat a Lib Dem motion calling on the Council to protect our local parks from developers
As we all know, the Green Party has been infiltrated by lefties in recent years – one of them, self-declared “eco-marxist” Derek Wall, is now their national co-leader. The only surprise then is that they still think Labour is the left-wing party!
I don’t know who first coined the “watermelons” quote but it seems to describe the current state of the party quite aptly – green on the outside, but red to the core. 😉
It appears that the “Greens” have too brown tongue to be green.
I think this is over the top. The Greens would never support New Labour, it is precisely because Ken Livingstone is not New Labour that they support him for their second preferences.
There are lots of reasons to dislike Ken Livingstone, but when you give someone a second preference then clearly that does not mean you support everything he has done, otherwise you would have given him your first preference.
The Greens want to give Ken their second preference for the same reason I will; to stop the Tories from winning. Clearly you cannot expect any better from the Tories on Green issues than Ken is. After all, they are beholden to business interests many of whom couldn’t care less about the environment.
My first preference will of course go to Brian Paddick.
Geoffrey Payne, you might want to read this article by Nicholas Blincoe to see that everybody working for environment doesn’t agree that Ken (or Siân) is greener than Boris.
Geoffrey – it isn’t simply a case of urging people to give Ken their second preferences. Labour and the Greens have formed a formal coalition and electoral pact. You can’t pick and choose which parts of a political party you want a formal coalition with – it is all or nothing.
This is a marvellous article. Thank you, Peter. Naturally, as a Conservative, I don’t support the last few lines.
Apart from supporting Yusuf al Qaradawi and sticking up for Sir Ian Blair over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, Livingstone said he did not take any responsibly for knife and gun crimes in London. Astonishing. Two youngsters were killed on our street this week and Livingstone could only attack the media by saying, “If it bleeds, it leads”. How crass is that? Can you think of a mayor in a European or American city behaving like this?
Livingstone is an embarrassment to London. He must go.
I’ve done a deal with a Lib Dem friend; he’s going to give Boris is 2nd preference vote and I’m going to give mine to Brian.
I hope many Lib Dem voters will give their second preference vote to Boris and vice-versa.
I should add that the GLA is already run by a Conservative and Lib Dem coalition, so a Blue-Yellow pact to oust Livingstone wouldn’t be that odd.
“Vote Green get Labour” is true in Bristol too, where they teamed up with the Tories and Labour last year to remove a largest party Lib Dem minority administration and install a Labour minority administration.
The Greens have been stupid to take the short term poll boost coming from allowing leftist entryism – they will regret it in the long term.
What is the history of that photo?
It’s a spookily well-done photoshop job. Either that or Sian really should use more hand cream.
I think this is a bit of a silly thread demonstrating the kind of really petulent tribalism that you get in Election periods.
I imagine this will hurt the Green Party but is what they have done really any different to countless coalitions/arrangements in council chambers across the country?
Are we responsible for the war because we sat in coalition with Labour in Scotland and Wales?
Are we responsible for Boris because we did a deal with the Tories over scrutiny arrangements on the GLA?
Are we responsible for eco marxism because Green Councillors have kept a Lib Dem/Tory coalition in power in Leeds ?
Haven’t we in extreme circumstances stood down candidates in Wyre Forrest and Tatton ?
hasn’t the party taken part in almost every kind of rainbow coalition in Council Chambers across the country?
The great flaw/strength of a mayoral system is you are electing a single individual. I think its a little odd for a independent political party to endorse another but it is the kind of judegement the voting system asks people to make. You could just as easierly say that they have at least been open and transparent about there intentions before the election.
In any case didn’t ken endorse the green list when he was Independent and haven’t they cooperated over passing his budget on numerious occassions hardly news.
Noticeable that you are not dealing with Berry’s point that Paddick is neither a real Lib Dem nor a supporter of even mainstream green-ish policies.
Lib Dems should also be calling for 2nd pref votes to Ken surely? Over the war. Over a very good level of community leadership after 7/7. Over the Green stuff too.
Berry’s points re Paddick’s policies need a response. And wishing for a Tory Mayor also needs an explanation from Lib Dems who like to have it every which way.
Dear anonymous:
The idea that Boris Johnson has anything to do with green politics is ridiculous. He is one of the few remaining politicians in the world who praises George W Bush for refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement on climate change. On BBC London the other night he still refused to support Kyoto.
Here is what Jonathon Porritt had to say on his blog yesterday: “The prospect of Boris as Mayor of London is just so scary. Either he is a genuine, out-and-out buffoon, in which case London becomes a laughing stock alongside its Mayor, or he is a pseudo-buffoon, in which case his true ideological nastiness will soon be revealed. The prospect of Boris taking over London’s Climate Change Action Plan is even scarier. He may have learnt not to reveal his full contrarian bigotry on climate change, but he really doesn’t get it, and would rapidly scale back or completely get rid off the ambitious targets in the Action Plan. And that would be a massive set back. Internationally, London is widely recognised as one of a handful of cities showing real leadership on climate change. And Ken Livingstone has driven that personally… just as he has driven a host of other environmental and sustainability priorities. The surreal site of Boris on the TV castigating Ken for his “lack of environmental vision” was almost too much to cope with.” http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/
Peter David comments that “You can’t pick and choose which parts of a political party you want a formal coalition with – it is all or nothing.” This is really quite ridiculous and patently untrue. The Greens have agreed to co-operate with Ken Livingstone over second preferences in order to try and keep out the right-wing eco-disaster Boris Johnson. Greens have not entered into any agreement with Labour over the Assembly elections and, as you can see, both Labour and Greens are standing against each other in every constituency and competing with one another for votes and seats on the Assembly List. I certainly expect that there will be Livingstone supporters who cannot stomach New Labour choosing to vote Green for the Assembly. Further, I do expect that there will many Lib-Dem voters who cannot stomach the Lib-Dem campaign to privatise the tube, scrap the Low Emission Zone and cancel emissions based congestion charging to switch to the Green Party this time.
I honestly thought, too, that many of the contributers to this blog would have a more mature approach to political co-operation. When Labour in Lewisham embarked on its outrageous plans to close the local leisure centre Lib-Dem councillors were only too keen to co-operate with Green councillors to successfully reverse the closure. And both Greens and Lib-Dems were right to do so.
Darren Johnson AM
Green Party Assembly Member
Darren: Transport for London already runs the bus network in the way that Brian is proposing for the Tube. If you think that’s so awful, why aren’t you pledging to change the way the buses are run too?
It smacks to me of hypocrisy: you’re happy to support the policy when it suits (backing Ken over buses), but just as happy to attack the same policy when it suits you to do that too (attacking Brian over the Tube).
Under Brian’s plans fares, service levels and frequency would all remain under the direct control of the Mayor and Transport for London.
It is a model the Liberal Democrats have argued for as soon as it became apparent that this Labour government wasn’t going to deal with a failing PPP.
As for the Low Emission Zone: it will, as Transport for London itself admits, only deliver a 0.3% increase in air quality – which ain’t very impressive!
You should be joining with Brian Paddick in attacking Labour for coming up with a policy that will achieve so little for our environment, rather than defending Labour’s timid minor piece of tweaking.
I think the Greens have been unwise and appear unprincipled in their support for Ken, but Darren is correct when he ridicules this: “You can’t pick and choose which parts of a political party you want a formal coalition with – it is all or nothing.”
You can pick and choose, but the public might well not listen to your nuances.
Chris: “Noticeable that you are not dealing with Berry’s point that Paddick is neither a real Lib Dem nor a supporter of even mainstream green-ish policies.”
Berry’s criticisms are easily dealt with and at the risk of being a blog tart, I’ve done so here:
http://fabulousblueporcupine.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/exclusive-greens-were-labours-second-choice/
I’ve linked to this from as many places as I can, but a green has yet to take me up on it.
Actually, sod it. I’ll just cut and paste:
“Much of their reasoning, such as it is, is easily dealt with:
Mr Paddick has pledged to scrap the Low Emissions Zone… He would cancel the higher-rate Congestion Charge for gas-guzzling Band G vehicles
The current congestion charge policy is holding the number of cars in London steady, not decreasing it. And small wonder, because £25 is fairly traded Brazil nuts to a Chelsea Tractor driver, and some categories of vehicle currently escape the charge altogether. Why should exceptions or allowances be made for ANY kind of vehicle? Is this a Congestion Charge or not? The aim should be to get cars OUT of Central London, not give away little treats to those who drive slightly less polluting cars. And the whole place should be a Low Emissions Zone, for god’s sake! The logical thing to do if you’re serious about getting cars out of London is to replace the current staggered and time-limited system with a uniform 24/7 charge, whether you’ve got a Chelsea tractor or a biscuit tin on wheels.
The Greens naturally make no mention of the Lib Dem suggestion of a £10 charge on the whole of Greater London for people coming in from outside, which would have a fundamental effect on commuting patterns. And in response to the insinuation that Paddick is chasing Conservative votes, I can personally assure you, Greeny-Browny people, that this one ain’t playing well in the affluent Tory suburbs at all. Transport habits in London need to be changed, not validated with the odd bit of belt-tightening. Pissing about with this or that exception just isn’t getting us anywhere and that’s clear in the figures.
And he plans to privatise the Tube network to place management entirely in the hands of a single firm.
Yeah, because PPP has really worked out. Three-quarters of the Tube network is currently in administration or hadn’t you noticed? The London taxpayer is about to pick up the bill for the failings and inefficiencies of a private company – I’d say that’s pretty much a done deal on privatisation, wouldn’t you? Public-private partnership was a Labour decision made in 1999, Labour being – oh! – the party you’ve just got into bed with. The Lib Dem plan is simply to apply the same concessionary model that works much more successfully on the DLR to the tube network. Whether newspaper headline-writers like it or not, the issue is no longer private v. public, it’s shit private v. decent private. So let’s go with the model that has been proved to work, non? It’s sheer insanity to have one company managing the trains on a given line, another company doing the track maintenance, a third company staffing the stations, a fourth doing the signals and a fifth employed to generally sweep up and occasionally scrape depressed Green voters off the tracks.”
Come on, then.
Alix, the difference between Ken Livingstone’s record on the environment and Boris Johnson’s is totally clear. Boris Johnson was called by Geoffrey Lean one of the “least environmentally friendly politicians in the country”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/geoffrey-lean-today-the-plastic-bag-tomorrow-even-more-words-790212.html
But don’t take it from me, look at the issues in London. This is what Geoff Pope, Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member had to say about the CO2 charge when he was chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee:
“I am glad the Green Party are catching up with us on this side. After all, it was my predecessor some two years ago who proposed that there should be an additional charge in the central zone for 4x4s and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). This is really a development of that policy” (Mayor’s Question Time, 21 June 2006)
He also drew the analogy with Lib Dem Richmond council: ‘It’s great to see the Mayor following in the footsteps of Richmond Council and bearing down on gas-guzzlers.’
The Low Emission Zone (which already covers the whole of Greater London), and CO2 charge enjoy the support of the mainstream environmental groups.
Friends of the Earth say “The LEZ is exactly the kind of initiative Londoners need to end decades of needless threat to their health from dirty vehicles.”
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/londons_low_emission_zone_01022008.html
The Campaign for Better Transport (formerly Transport 2000) said of the £25 a day CO2 charge on gas guzzlers that they “applaud the new emissions-related congestion charges.. London’s reputation as a pioneer of progressive transport will be further enhanced by the introduction of a congestion charge related to a vehicle’s climate change emissions.” http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/node/924
Greenpeace responded to the Climate Change Action Plan, which set out a programme to cut London’s emissions 60% by 2025 by saying:
“Ken Livingstone is showing how the largest city in Europe can combat climate change. No other leader is on the same page.
‘The Government talks about cutting emissions, but is unwilling to confront the vested interests in the power sector, the building industry, the aviation lobby and the motor industry. Ken Livingstone is prepared to lead and take risks in responding to the challenge of climate change.”
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=11011
To equate a monstrously backward politician on the environment such as Boris Johnson with Ken Livingstone is just not serious.
The problem with the Green party’s stance is that the real issues with Ken are nothing to do with the environment: they are that he is corrupt, an abuser of power, and should not be in any political office. He is not excused of those things just because he is more environmentally minded than Borris.
And if the Green Party is seriously suggesting that we should ignore corruption for the sake of a piece of environmental benefit then they demonstrate why they should also never be in positions of power.
Greengirldavies, please read my cut-and-paste again.
Everything you say is very interesting, no doubt, but it’s got nothing to do with what I’ve written. I’m refuting the grossly unjust and inaccurate charges levelled by your party against Brian Paddick. Similarities and differences between Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson are neither here nor there.
One point though, on the LEZ. It’s certainly a great abstract idea, but due to various flaws in its implementation (basically, there are too many caveats that allow too many types of emission within the zone) it hasn’t worked. One of TfL’s own surveys found that it reduces emissions by a grand total of 3%. Hence the need to replace it with something more effective.
Having barked out all that, I should probably at least add “Thank you for engaging!” which is more than any other Green has done with my argument.
One thing that the Green Party supporters on this thread seem to have forgotten is that typically Lib Dems don’t choose their candidate only depending on how green s/he is, but another probably more important factor is how liberal s/he is. Siân and especially Ken has shown little evidence that they would support any kind of liberal views (and believe me, liberalism is not the same thing as socialism, though the American misconception tends to spread across the Atlantic).
Siân is claiming, that Brian isn’t a Lib Dem, but why should anybody trust a Green Party member trying to define what is a Liberal Democrat? She hasn’t even singled out what is the criteria of being Lib Dem that Brian doesn’t fullfil.
At the same time that the Green Party has been taken over by Trots, Lib Dems have been more and more embracing a policy that combines free market with social justice. I see little common between Siân and the Lib Dems. Even if her claim that Brian wouldn’t really be a Lib Dem would be true, she certainly isn’t.
Re Mark Wright’s last blog:
Boris Johnson is not only bad on some environmental issues:
– He is one of the few politicians to defend George W Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty on climate change;
– He supported the launching of the Iraq War
– He opposed repealing the anti-lesbian and gay Section 28 law but last week admitted he paid so little attention to the issue he didn’t even know what it was
– He proposes to abolish the 50 per cent target for affordable housing which would price young people off London’s property ladder;
– He proposes to close down London’s representation in the new economies of India and China, which has been condemned by every serious business organisation in London;
– It has taken him eight years to understand that it is not acceptable to refer to black people as picaninnies;
– He supported railway privatisation
– He opposed the national minimum wage
– He opposes the ban on smoking in public places;
– He supports stag hunting, fox hunting, and seal clubbing
And the Lib Dems still say they can’t make up their minds whether they
support these positions or Ken Livingstone after Brian Paddick in
London. No wonder they are losing the support of progressive minded people to the Greens.
“And the Lib Dems still say they can’t make up their minds…”
No such trouble here, John. My second preference was going to Berry until this. Now it’s going to Mr Nobody.
Hmmm, let’s see. Would I choose as my second preference a thoroughly corrupted socialist, who cosies with muslim fundamentalists who are against the rights of homosexuals and women, and with the socialist dictator Chavez, or with a Conservative, with whom I at least agree about railway privatisation, opposing national minimum wage (as opposed national minimum income) and opposing the ban on somking in public places?
It seems that I can’t make up my mind…
John Phillips, would you care to back up your assertion that the Lib Dems “are losing the support of progressive minded people to the Greens”?
I don’t see anything progressive about voting for old Trots. The communist ideals were already tested, and they didn’t work.
Any voter sees gay rights as an issue in this election – and I imagine Brian Paddick does – will not seriously consider Boris Johnson.
I think Johnson’s most illuminating quote is ‘if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.’
Ken Livingstone meanwhile has championed civil partnerships.
Yes, BoJo disgraced himself in yesterday’s interview with Johann Hari. However hard the Tories try, the man is beyond hope.
Lots of stuff to get my teeth into here. Neither Darren Johnson nor the other half-hearted green cheerleaders make any mention of a) the Lib Dem proposal for a Greater London C-Charge or b) the new CO2 rules, which they endorse, which mean that thousands of cars which were previously paying the C-Charge are now exempt. Instead, they just throw ephemera around.
I’m not surprised since the Lib Dem policy would clearly do more to reduce both traffic levels and CO2 emissions than the LEZ policy (which love it or hate it will only scratch the surface). It’s very easy to demonise SUV drivers – I’m not so fond of Chelsea Tractors myself – but the fact is the CO2-charge policy is pure populism. It is the Lib Dems, not the Greens, who are arguing that everyone will have to change their behaviour in order to tackle climate change. The Greens are simply arguing that we can blame it all of SUV and Porsche drivers. That is simply irresponsible.
Secondly, a number of commentators have objected to my lumping Livingstone in with the rest of the Labour Party. It wasn’t my decision to have Livingston rejoin the Labour Party, nor did he need to. If he’d stood in 2004 as an independent no-one seriously believes he would have lost. Rather, it was a decision on his part to put party loyalty above principles. Similarly, he knows Labour ministers will block any attempts at radical environmental policy. His platform is a policy to simply shrug shoulders and claim “not me, guv”. It is that attitude to environmental policy that the Green Party are explicitly endorsing and I fail to see why it is unreasonable to point this out.
Finally, there is a lot of flummery on this thread about Brian not endorsing Ken as his second choice means that he is effectively pro-Johnson. This is simple nonsense. It is the job of the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrat candidate to promote the Liberal Democrats, not other parties. The public can make its own mind up – it isn’t as stupid as the Green Party seem to believe.
Intriguingly though, it should be pointed out that you could level the same argument at Livingstone himself. It is, admittedly, highly unlikely that Livingstone will not make it to the final run off of top two candidates. It is even less likely however that Berry will. So, by calling on his supporters to give Berry his number two choice, Livingstone is stating that in a run-off between Paddick and Johnson he would prefer to abstain. Nonsense? Unfair? Less so than it is to say that not supporting Livingstone makes voters objectively pro-Boris.
As for how I personally would vote between Livingstone and Johnson, I have to admit I’m finding it difficult. For some reason, Livingstone supporters seem to think that when it comes down to personality, their candidate has the edge. But Livingstone’s strengths are as an administrator (both the C-Charge and Oyster schemes were rolled out relatively gaffe-free and no-one can take that way from him) not as a diplomat. Gay voters will question his uncritical support for Al Qaradawi. Anti-war voters will question why Livingstone chose to spend the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War glad handing the man who signed all the cheques. Civil libertarians will question why he endorses banana-republic-style executions by the police on London’s streets.
Of course Johnson is equally unsound. It’s a tough call. Thankfully though, who I give my second preference vote is between me and the ballot box and I can express a positive choice by giving my first preference to Brian Paddick.
Just the list of what Boris Johnson supports and doesn’t support is enough for me to know that Ken will absolutely have my second preference after Paddick. Fellow Lib Dems here are being totally self indulgent and selling out London children’s future by even to even contemplating Boris Johnson. I was very pleased to see Ken launch his green manifesto in Richmond. This is grown up politics. He is promoting the best of Lib Dem, Green and Labour policies. I consider myself part of the progressive left and the thought of Johnson wrecking London’s progresson climate change is too much to bear.
Hmm, it’s a point of view, certainly. Oh, see how I sway like a reed in the wind!
How is it “self indulgent and selling out London children’s future” to not endorse either Livingstone or Johnson? That’s just sheer lunacy.
Paddick lost any credibility for me on green issues when he attacked BMW for “dodging” the gas-guzzler tax in the Guardian’s blog. Disgusted that thy could do such a thing, I read the piece to find they were doing it by making greener cars.
In other words a London tax will have an impact on cars used across the UK. Well done Ken – and well done anyone (Greens or LibDems) who use their second votes to keep him ahead of Boris.
“Ex Lib Dem”: the point that Brian Paddick made is that by only reducing the pollution from their cars very slightly, they will be able to dodge much of the Livingstone emissions charge.
A very small reduction in pollution will produce a big cash saving to drivers, which makes for a pretty inefficient way of cutting pollution.
The Paddick piece is here and says:
“They are ingenious people, the engineers at BMW. They have managed to tweak the engine of the three-litre X5 diesel so from November 2008, all BMW 3 litre diesel “Chelsea tractors” sold in the UK will emit exactly 225g of CO2/km and will therefore only pay £8 a day charge. The result: Sloane Rangers, who would not be seen dead in last year’s model anyway, will be buying their bright new shiny three-litre X5’s from November and will be cheating the mayor and the planet. Most of them, who live in the western extension, will again be benefiting from their 90% residents’ discount and will happily be driving into central London, paying only £4 a week and emitting only 6g of CO2 less than they were before. Those less well off, who cannot afford to change their car at the drop of a hat, will be paying £125 a week for using an almost indistinguishable car.”
What exactly is it in that quote or elsewhere in the piece that you find so objectionable?
I agree with all the Lib-Dems on here who say the Low Emission Zone in its current form will not do enough to tackle air pollution in the capital. That is an argument for strengthening the LEZ and widening its scope – not for scrapping it. That is why both Green and Lib-Dem Assembly members welcomed the introduction of the LEZ but pointed out more action was needed. Of course, most party activists are not going to want to publicly rubbish their own party’s mayoral candidate, but private conversations I have had with both Lib-Dem AMs and Lib-Dem councillors reveal that a number of them are very embarrassed by Paddick’s posturing on scrapping LEZ and Emissions-Based Congestion Charge.
Paddick’s record on policing is second to none and if we had direct elections to choose Police Commissioners in this country he would certainly get my vote. But given the importance of climate change his stance as a potential mayor is shocking and appalling.
Darren Johnson AM – Green Assembly Member
Right up to the “shocking and appalling” bit there, Darren, I thought we were about to have a decent conversation…
Still, to respond to your first para. The trouble with the whole *principle* of an LEZ is surely that it is, by its nature, a staggered system with exceptions and grades built into it. There are two problems with this:
1. From a liberal perspective, it’s very hard to argue why you’re targetting *exactly* these people and making them subject to *exactly* these laws. This is something the Greens don’t contend with, but it’s pretty fundamental to the liberal way of thinking. It’s not that one can’t do it – obviously, since our tax package is half based on green taxes as choice influencers. But it does mean that where there *is* an option, it should be explored. This being an important liberal objection, since the LEZ is patently ineffective, it seems more logical to scrap it and start again.
2. A related, but less ideological and more practical point: a system based around grading and exceptions is inevitably going to become encrusted with extra little rules over time that will open up loopholes and obscure the original purpose – like tax law. That, I believe, was the logic behind stepping back and reassessing what the LEZ was trying to do, and seeking an altogether different way to go about it.
Now, I can quite easily believe your assertion that there are arguments on both sides. The LEZ is, after all, a much trickier one to call than the Congestion Charge or privatisation. (I’m pleased to see by the way that you’ve stopped trying to defend your indefensible positions on these topics; no comments on my arguments, pasted above, I suppose? I’ve linked them to places where I think top Greens might be reading at least four times, but none of you love me 🙁 ).
But then I’ve never understood why it’s supposed to be so dreadful when there are internal policy disagreements in a party – (hey I is a liberal, I wouldn’t 😉 ) At some point, it was decided by Brian and his team that scrapping the LEZ would be the better option, and I’m happy with that. The party voted him in as our mayoral candidate. That’s what he’s there for.
You’re perfectly entitled to believe in the privacy of your own head – or at least, privacy of your own press office – that this makes Brian an anti-green monster and the rest of us borderline Boris-fanciers but I’m afraid you’re simply wrong.
The one thing which can be said about the ‘Green’ party with some certainty, is that they are politically very green.
Brian is probably just a bit too pink not to clash with their prefered shade of colour on the political palate.
Darren, good to see you here again. What do you make of this quote:
‘Cut away Livingstone’s radical rhetoric and you find a bog-standard New Labour politician in the pro-business mould. Red Ken’s radicalism is reserved for issues over which the mayor has no influence whatsoever.’
That was the last Green candidate for London mayor. I don’t know if you remember him, he went by the name of Darren Johnson. Remember him?
I also note that you have again failed to explain why your party opposes a Greater London congestion charge and supports extending the range of cars that should be made exempt from the C-Charge. Why is that?
As for the LEZ, you may personally prefer a stronger policy but your party has now tied its colours to the mast of a party that is championing the existing policy. Bit late to start getting radical on us now, isn’t it?
Meant to include a link to reference the above quote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/feb/22/governinglondon.comment
Alix – happy to engage. Indeed I am doing so precisely because there is more that unites Greens, Lib Dems and Ken Livingstone than that which divides us from Boris Johnson – and these are important questions.
That is why I am surprised at the stances Brian Paddick is taking on the environment – they are so different to those normally advocated by the Lib Dems.
I think you considerably understate the benefits of the Low Emission Zone. But the real point is this – if Brian Paddick doesn’t think Ken’s plans go far enough why doesn’t he say he’d keep the zone but strengthen it, instead of proposing to scrap it altogether? Under Brian Paddick’s plans, lorries, buses and coaches – the most polluting vehicles on the roads – wouldn’t face any fines at all for the pollution they cause.
It’s the same with the CO2 charge on gas-guzzlers. If the problem is that the charge doesn’t go far enough, why not support but say it should be levied 24 hours day, rather than siding with Boris Johnson, Porsche and Jeremy Clarkson in opposing it?
Greengirldavies, I’ll try to explain it to you one more time.
Of course each individual lorry emits more CO2 than each individual car, but there are vastly more of the latter and as a whole they are making a greater contribution to climate change. You don’t seriously question that, do you?
The Lib Dem position is that we all need to do our bit. The Green position is that people with relatively fuel efficient cars (under Lab-Green proposals that is a much wider definition than Priuses and other extremely efficient vehicles) should get off scot-free while the small minority of very inefficient vehicles will pay the lion’s share. Even TfL accept that will have very little impact on overall CO2 emissions, but that’s okay because we have a scapegoat to blame.
That isn’t environmentalism, that’s green chic. Telling people they don’t have to do their bit is not what a true green party would be saying.
The sad thing is, you aren’t even adopting this stance to be popular but rather to cover up for a candidate from another political party whose chickens have finally come home to roost.
I’m amused by Peter David’s comment “Anti-war voters will question why Livingstone chose to spend the 5th anniversary of the Iraq War glad handing the man who signed all the cheques.”
Having organised public meetings and coaches to demonstrations since 2002 I have to say I don’t know anyone who is concerned by Livingstone’s activities on the fifth anniversary of the war. I think the fact that he opposed the war and continues to oppose the disastrous occupation is what people understand to be Livingstone’s position, he wrote a very good article on it for the fifth anniversary which I’m sure you’ve read.
Out of interest, what was Paddick’s position on the war once it had begun? Was it different to the LibDems official line to oppose the missiles going in, but supporting the ‘job being done’ once the first few had rained down?
Whatever it is, it must be closer to Livingstone’s clear opposition than Johnson’s gung-ho support for Bush on this…
Phil, can you provide chapter and verse for that ‘job being done’ quote? In fact, the party’s line was to oppose the war but not to attack the troops who were doing their duty. This was at a time when anti-war protesters were claiming troops should be personally hauled up in front of the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
I notice that a few months later, the Stop the War coalition started using the not dissimilar slogan ‘Support our troops – bring them home’. If you’ve organised trips to demos in the way that you claim you have almost certainly marched under that slogan. Meanwhile, five years later no-one – not Stop the War, not Galloway, not Livingstone and not even the Green Party – has called for the ICC to start prosecuting troops for their actions.
You don’t actually disagree with the Lib Dem line. So spare us your manufactured outrage.
This is history repeating itself, the Greens in Germany have campaigned on the basis of receiving second preference votes for parliamentary seats and unless my memory fails me they actively used a slogan to that effect on their campaign material. The result? A Green/Socialist (arguably New Labour) coalition for two terms. It would not surprise me if the Greens in this country had someone on their campaign team from the German Greens. It will be interesting to see how this pans out for the London wide Assembly seats.
Peter David, even considering voting for BORIS JOHNSON is self indulgent considering what the stakes are on potentially losing London’s groundbreaking work (under ken Livingston) on climate change. This is why I sometimes wonder whether I made the wrong choice in becoming a Lib Dem. We believe in PR, we believe in coalitions, Ken (as a second preference) offers way closer to anything Boris Johnson does in terms of our policies. I believe the Lib Dems who are thinking about endorsing Boris Johnson over Ken Livingstone are irresponsible and if Johnson wins I will seriously have to reassess my support for the Lib Dems.
Jenny, forgive me but I don’t feel it’s reasonable to label a vote you just happen to disagree with as “irresponsible” – we don’t have a responsibility to vote for anyone as second preference – it’s an open choice for each of us, that old ‘democracy’ thing.
Furthermore, it would be strange to blame the Liberal Democrat Party if Boris wins. This is one of the more bizarre ‘I’m cancelling my subscription’ type threats I’ve seen of late (although of course, there have been certain others).
Sure, we “believe in PR, we believe in coalitions” but I don’t see what this has to do with Ken (especially given his schmoozing with somewhat illiberal and undemocratic characters of the world).
I’m also unclear as to how a vote for Boris is “self indulgent”. Alas I was going to attempt a humourous reference to ‘indulging in Boris’ but as it’s lunchtime this would perhaps be cruel. Horrid thought, depart my mind…
This debate about whether LEZ cuts pollution or whether it is counter productive is a rather technical one. I do not see why this matter should be decided between politicians who all want to be green, but at the same time all want to justify their existance by being different to each other.
Surely what we need is some independent research that can say once and for all who is right and what the best course of action is?
Given that all sides are sincere about wanting to do the right Green thing (and no one has given a sensible philosophical reason as to why they are not), this arguement strikes me a daft. If the research shows that LEZ will cut pollution, then we should all support it.
Every time I hear a Green/Respect/Socialist Worker activist trot (no pun) out the old “You opposed the war only until it started” line it makes me less likely to support any movement they endorse. It is not only a lie, but it is a grossly irresponsible line and exposes the underlying truth that many of those people secretly wanted – George Galloway-style – for Iraq to become a long and protracted war so that the war-mongers would be shown to be comprehensively wrong. As has been seen over the last 5 years, nobody who opposed the war needs any more support about why it was a bad idea. Many of us who opposed the war would have been much happier if we had been proved wrong and Iraq did break out into a peaceful democracy. There is no joy in being right about a disaster.
Let’s be honest and grown-up now: once a war has started, the best outcome for ALL sides is for a swift and decisive outcome. In the case of Iraq, the only possible outcome that could be swift and decisive was the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime. There is nothing incompatible with opposing a war, and then once it has started to hope for one side to win swiftly with as few casualties as possible. Those who oppose this outcome are implicitly saying that they wanted the war to drag on for longer. That would have meant: more British troops to be killed (which George Galloway wanted); more Iraqi civilians to be killed by a continued air campaign; more destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. It is one thing to say that the Iraqis have the right to defend themselves against invasion (they did) but another to wish them success when that success can only result in a longer and more bloody outcome.
The outcome of Iraq war was not about winning a student politics debate. Rather, many thousands of lives depended on a swift and decisive outcome. Now, as it happens, the American’s (and Blair’s) lack on any reconstruction plan meant that in the aftermath of that swift victory, a grand defeat was snatched from its jaws, and the swiftness of the initial victory actually counted for little compared to the carnage that came after. But let’s be absolutely clear: no SANE person who was against the war really wanted that carnage and civil war to happen. That is the realm of armchair extremists who want to see death continue, safe from their own cosy democratic living-rooms in the UK.
When I see the Green Party pushing this line, it just goes to prove how they have been tainted with the worst aspects of Social Worker style campaigning. They will regret it in the long term.
Sorry “SOCIALIST WORKER”, not “social worker”!
If you could all get off your high horses for a moment, perhaps someone could explain why it is that six months ago, the Lib Dems were all saying how great the low emission zone was: http://www.glalibdems.org.uk/news/000458/london_low_emission_zone_welcome_step_to_tackle_climate_change__tuffrey.html
And now your Mayoral candidate wants to scrap it.
It’s things like that that stop you from being a credible party. It’s why you’re going to lose Liverpool and Islington – your two flagship councils.
Re: Geoffrey Payne plea for an independent assessment of the Low Emission Zone, which Ken has introduced, the Green’s support, but Brian Paddick says he would scrap. Here are a few independent assessments:
Greenpeace: “Greenpeace strongly supports the proposal for a Low Emissions Zone in London. By addressing the severe environmental problems caused by road traffic, Transport for London is showing commendable international leadership. As well as improving air quality, a LEZ is likely to encourage the use of less polluting, more fuel efficient vehicles. Over time this will help reduce climate changing carbon dioxide emissions and build on the progress already made with the Congestion Charge, which has led to a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide from traffic in the zone.”
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/congestion-charge
Friends of the Earth: “We congratulate Ken Livingstone on this initiative. The LEZ is exactly the kind of initiative Londoners need to end decades of needless threat to their health from dirty vehicles. But to protect the health of all Londoners the whole of the capital must be brought within legal air quality limits.”
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/londons_low_emission_zone_01022008.html
The Campaign for Better Transport made exactly the kind of comment Brian Paddick could make if he simply thinks the Low Emission Zone doesn’t go far enough:
“London’s low emission zone (LEZ), which comes into force today, is sorely needed. London’s air quality is the worst in the UK, causing an estimated 1,000 premature deaths a year.. But while the LEZ is welcome, it isn’t enough. The Mayor admits that even after it’s fully implemented, hundreds of thousands of Londoners will live in areas where air pollution levels are dangerous to health.
Cars are responsible for much of London’s pollution and aren’t included in the LEZ rules. Londoners must be given better alternatives to driving, particularly in outer London where traffic levels are growing.”
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/traffic_reduction/blog
Well I hope someone from my party can explain this, because the quotes from Friends of the Earth make a good prima facie case for supporting Ken’s policy.
I have never seen the Lib Dems attack Friends of the Earth before, and up until now they have not started as yet. Attacking the Greens is what you expect in party politics (regardless of whether it is the right thing to do), but how many Lib Dems are going to level the same accusations against Friends of the Earth?
I’m a member of Friends Of The Earth, and I won’t be tearing up my subscription. They were right to praise Livingstone on this issue. No, he isn’t Satan incarnate, and I dare say he’s done some things right.
But he isn’t the best candidate! 😉
This is all going round in circles. Make a reasoned argument in favour of the GL congestion charge or against the LEZ, and the Brown-Greens just parrot some quote at you. Ho hum.
I will correct Jenny Craig on one thing though: I am not contemplating voting for Boris Johnson. I’m not contemplating voting for Ken Livingstone either. I’m only contemplating voting for Brian Paddick – who I give my second preference to is frankly none of your business.
Livingstone’s performance
I stand by the criticisms of Ken Livingstone I made in the 2004 campaign. I was extremely disappointed by his delivery on the environment, in particular. In the past 4 years, however, there has been a dramatic improvement across a whole range of areas at City Hall – Green Homes Service, cycling and walking budgets trebled, Climate Change Action Plan, abandonment of pro-airport expansion policies – much of this as a result of the co-operation between the Greens and the Mayor over the GLA budget. There is much, much, more to do and there are still key areas where we disagree and many areas where we still think the Mayor needs to be bolder. But I am prepared to give credit where credit is due and have no doubt that Livingstone is much more preferable than Boris Johnson.
I did not advocate a second preference vote for Livingstone in 2004 and actually left my second vote blank. But things are different in 2008. Firstly, as I said, Livingstone’s performance on the green agenda has greatly improved. Secondly, Boris Johnson poses a much bigger threat to progressive politics in London than Steve Norris ever did, both because he stands much more chance of winning than Norris and because he is much more rightwing than Norris.
It will be a slightly odd feeling on May 1st, however, given that this will be the first time my “X” has gone anywhere near a Labour Party candidate (even as second preference!) since the 1984 Euro elections.
Darren Johnson – Green AM
Greengirldavies/Geoffrey – erm, still don’t get this, sorry. A quote from Friends of the Earth from before the LEZ came in saying that it’s a good idea (which in principle it is) is NOT an argument for keeping it after it has been proven NOT TO WORK. What on earth is the point of hanging on to ineffective policies? Is it some sort of sop to the principle behind them? Because that is just pathetic and counterproductive to the results we all want.
Likewise, David George, just think for a moment. The LEZ was a great idea. We all said it was a great idea, although we Greens and Lib Dems agreed it didn’t go far enough. Then it was introduced last month and (I’m getting tired of repeating this simple fact) it HASN’T WORKED.
So (more repetition) we have two choices – either improve it till it does (and the Greens have just teamed up with the party who don’t want it improved) or scrap it and go about the problem a different way.
And, as I’ve said above:
The trouble with the whole *principle* of an LEZ is surely that it is, by its nature, a staggered system with exceptions and grades built into it. There are two problems with this:
1. From a liberal perspective, it’s very hard to argue why you’re targetting *exactly* these people and making them subject to *exactly* these laws. This is something the Greens don’t contend with, but it’s pretty fundamental to the liberal way of thinking. It’s not that one can’t do it – obviously, since our tax package is half based on green taxes as choice influencers. But it does mean that where there *is* an option, it should be explored. This being an important liberal objection, since the LEZ is patently ineffective, it seems more logical to scrap it and start again.
2. A related, but less ideological and more practical point: a system based around grading and exceptions is inevitably going to become encrusted with extra little rules over time that will open up loopholes and obscure the original purpose – like tax law. That, I believe, was the logic behind stepping back and reassessing what the LEZ was trying to do, and seeking an altogether different way to go about it.
Normally I’d never dream of taking the piss with this much cut and pasting, but you lot are taking the piss with the total feebleness of your arguments, and no-one has provided anywhere near a convincing response to anything I’ve said.
You can’t argue sensibly with people who are ideologically programmed against admitting they aren’t 100% correct in all circumstances, even if hindsight provides a different answer.
I think it is funny that however much consensus there is over what is required, there is so much bickering over how to go about achieving it.
I also think it is dangerous to politicise issues of practical relevance out of partisan motives – nobody ‘owns’ environmental issues, because it is something that we all share equally and all have a stake in looking after.
To base a political movement on the exclusivity of intellectual means to address these shared concerns (as the Greens do) strikes me as unreservedly retrograde – it is scandalous that they can get away with painting themselves either as progressive or that they are interested in creating alliances rather than self-promotion and biased subversion to their own ends.
LEZ failed, Alix? What is your evidence?
The Low Emission Zone started in January this year, was delivered on time and on budget, and has delivered exactly what it set out to do in its first phase – stopping the most polluting lorries over 12 tonnes, buses and coaches coming into London and damaging Londoners air quality.
If Ken Livingstone or Sian Berry are elected as Mayor on 1 May, the zone will almost immediately be expanded to cover all lorries over 3.5 tonnes.
In all this will mean over 55,000 of the most polluting vehicles on London’s roads no longer clog up our lungs with their emissions.
TfL’s estimate is that that the Low Emission Zone, along with other policies like the congestion charge, cleaner taxis, and moving to a hybrid bus fleet, will mean that by 2012 nearly one million Londoners will no longer live on streets with dangerous air pollution.
We obviously have a different definition of failure!
“along with other policies”
This is key. TfL’s own figures suggest that the LEZ by itself will improve air quality in Greater London by less than 3%. This is a figure from an internal Lib Dem doc, but I’ve emailed the author for the back-up reference. I have a feeling it will be somewhere in this doc – possibly the aggregate of the figures on p112. If I am reading this table correctly, the baselines of emissions for each year reflect expected emissions based on behaviour change and other policies, and the green lines below then indicate the added effect of the LEZ. They are vanishingly small.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/roadusers/lez/LEZ/LEZ_Environmental_Report_November_2006.pdf
Given the fiddly, expensive nature of the implementation for such a tiny gain why not therefore ditch it and just keep the things that DO make up most of that effect?
Do the atrocious air conditions in central London stem from vehicles emitting high levels of pollution in that part of the capital, or is the fact that it is more noticable there just the combined result of accumulated concentrations of pollution?
Anyone who lives near major arterial routes, the north and south cirulars or any of the nation’s motorways will recognise the pollution that has a huge detrimental impact on their lives will be completely unaffected by the imposition of a single (if staged) LEZ.
In other words the general reduction of pollution resulting from an LEZ is trivial in comparison to the scale of the real problem (3% in LEZ areas, I hear you say!), and by tackling it piecemeal in this fashion not only fails to address the real issue, but may also hinder any prospect of tackling the wider problem.
Instead of taking unilateral action for limited groups of people, the politicians ought to engage in concerted multilateral decisions that work with neighbouring authorities outside the capital in order to force the hand of government. Despite holding the positions of power at multiple levels Labour has conspicuously failed to indulge in any sort of joined-up thinking.
The LEZ policy is more about image than substance – it is worthy, but is still a mere sop to the environmental lobby for the clear political aim of appealing to ‘green’ voters. This is policy tourism of the worst sort.
I dunno, I was pleased to vote Brian 1 Boris 2. THere’s been too much obsession witht he environment and not enough on security and crime. Let the Greens and Red Ken get their knickers in a twist abot climate change and we’ll be the ones working with the Tories to get policing right and fix the economy come the next general election.