Sian Berry

13 comments from readers

rhino2106
12 March 2007 at 17:34

i'm all for lords reforms to be 100% elected, but unless the chamber is given substantial constitutional powers to scrutinise the government's actions, then the lords elections are going to suffer from even poorer turnout than general elections, and mandates can't be claimed.

happy days.

Broxrider
12 March 2007 at 20:18

Congratulations on getting the mayoral candidacy, you were my first preference vote. Your performance on Question Time last week came across really well, so I think you could give Ken some real opposition. It's a shame you didn't get the number 3 slot on the GLA list, four seats would be a really good achievement though, and it gives us more incentive to continue to defeat the LibDems in Croydon next year.

Mike

http://fairfieldlife.blogspot.com/

mrwilf
13 March 2007 at 09:23

Are you the same Sian Berry that after ignoring my emails about your dictatorial, ill thought out policies about gas-guzzling 4x4's roaming the streets of London, then emailed me asking if, as my surname was Williams, I spoke enough welsh to represent your side of the argument on a welsh radio programme? If you are then we can say goodbye to a proseprous capital city.

greenladywell
13 March 2007 at 18:30

Mr Wilf - wouldn't be surprised if Sian ignored your e-mail if it was as rude as your comment was!

sianberry
15 March 2007 at 13:28

Well, of course I do ignore those abusive emails, just as you would a stranger shouting at you from across the street. Some people think that different social rules apply when you aren't speaking face-to-face - people best avoided in my experience.

I think I can dimly recall that such an email was sent to everyone on the 4x4 campaign mailing list about 2 years ago. So I congratulate Mr Williams on his memory but I believe it was nothing to do with his surname. And why would he join our mailing list??? Odd!

Banner
16 March 2007 at 13:30

Sian wrote: 'I’m thrilled to get the chance to take on Ken Livingstone next year. He started out as an independent, ‘man of the people’ character but is increasingly turning into an agent of New Labour’s business agenda.'

This reinforces the suspicion that the Green Party is willing to put at risk a Tory victory next year by campaigning against Ken Livingstone instead of mobilising the progressive vote to keep the Tories out.

The Ken Livingstone you describe is in fact the Mayor who opposes a new generation of Trident, opposes nuclear power, opposed the Iraq war, is proposing emissions-based charging for 4x4s and other band G vehicles, has overseen a shift from car use to public transport, established the London Living Wage, defends multiculturalism.

You are making the same mistakes as Darren Johnson who spent his mayoral campaign last time by attacking Ken Livingstone, only to see the Greens go down from three members to two. You are distorting and caricaturing Ken Livingstone’s administration out of all recognition from the truth in order to justify running against him. You should be part of the progressive majority to keep the Tories out, not a green flank attacking Ken Livingstone to assist the Tories.

The real choice at the mayoral election will be between Ken Livingstone and the Tories, who stand for abolishing the congestion charge, opposing emissions charging for 4x4s, cutting the bus subsidy, cutting fares concessions, reducing the supply of affordable housing, cutting back transport infrastructure projects.

If in this choice the Green party cannot see the need to ensure Ken Livingstone’s re-election then you are objectively helping the Tories.

If you really insist on standing you will need to convince progressive Londoners that your campaign is not sabotaging such important matters as congestion charging, the bus subsidy, travel concessions, emissions charging and the peace agenda. To do this you should be unequivocal in recommending a second preference vote for Ken Livingstone to keep London on a progressive policy agenda.

Sian, can you clarify that in the choice between the Tories and Ken Livingstone you back the re-election of Ken Livingstone and that you will be calling for a second preference vote for him in your campaign?

SheriffLittle
16 March 2007 at 14:09

'Our top three are, again, our excellent team from 2004 – Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson (current AMs) and former AM Noel Lynch. I’m next on the list, so it’s up to me now to make sure we get enough votes to win four seats this time round. No problem!'

Sian, it is a problem. The Greens got three members in 2000 and two last time. You will have to double the Green representation if you are to be elected. I cannot see how you can hope to do this if your campaign is going to alienate people like me by attacking Ken Livingstone. I want Ken Livingstone re-elected as mayor, and I am pleased that he has worked with the Greens on the assembly. Your campaign should be appealing to people like me whereas you are just slagging Ken Livingstone off.

I cannot see how you are helping the green agenda by pretending that Ken Livingstone is some kind of New Labour pro-business toady when I only have to pick the papers in the morning or the evening to see him being relentlessly attacked for his most progressive policies.

The only anti-Trident mayor or anti-Iraq war mayor who's going to win is Ken Livingstone. Alternatively we could get some hideous Tory.

If you want my vote on the list for the Assembly then you are going to have to stop misrepresenting the political choices in London.

As has been said elsewhere here, it would help if you could start by calling for a second preference vote for Ken Livingstone.

Personally I think it is a mistake for you to stand against him and I hope that Respect don't follow suit. We cannot afford to have a Conservative mayor in this city.

Banner
16 March 2007 at 14:32

Just to add to my point that Sian has caricatured the nature of Ken Livingstone's administration, here is what she was saying in her last thread on this site only a couple of weeks ago:

'Greens are so impressed with Mayor Ken Livingstone’s new Climate Change Action Plan that I took part in the press launch this Tuesday and even wrote a foreword for the 232-page document.'

http://www.newstatesman.com/200703010003

And yet this week we are being told he is an 'agent' of New Labour or some such codswallop.

Greens need to make up their minds on this issue because the Tories are going to go hell for leather to get rid of Ken Livingstone and you can either give them succour by joining in the attack or you can show leadership by setting out in clear terms why a Tory mayor would be a disaster and why Ken Livingstone should be re-elected.

greenladywell
16 March 2007 at 23:15

For goodness sake guys, calm down. The election is over a year away - a lot can happen between now and then and it's way too soon for the Greens to make any statement on second preference votes. In any case, we are a democratic party, it's not for Sian to decree on behalf of us about this, though she's perfectly entitled to her own views on it - it'll probably be discussed and voted on at a future London Green Party meeting - until then, chill! I also think Greens are perfectly entitled to support/opose Ken on an issue by issue basis ie support the climate change strategy yet point out the contradictions in planning to spend millions on a six-lane bridge in Thames Gateway which will increase car use and carbon emissions in the area.

SheriffLittle
17 March 2007 at 00:09

greenladywell says: 'it'll probably be discussed and voted on at a future London Green Party meeting - until then, chill!'

Probably?!

This underlines the point. The Greens have gone marching off selecting a candidate who's not just disagreeing with Ken Livingstone on a policy -by-policy basis but characterising his mayoralty totally wrongly. They clearly haven't thought it through at all. But the election is too important to be left to such a whimsical approach. If it takes a Green party meeting to work out who in a battle between Ken Livingstone and the tories they would prefer then this does not exactly encourage a positive attitude towards the party. I actually think it means they are out of step with the vast majority of green-minded voters who will take one look at this choice and back Ken Livingstone.

Sian Berry could open up the Greens' Assembly campaign to a symapthetic hearing from Labour supporters if she were to clearly state that in the key choice - between Ken Livingstone and the Tory party - she wants Ken Livingstone re-elected.

Banner
18 March 2007 at 13:42

Steve_Barker wrote: 'Further, should we blindly support one unacceptible politician, because he has a few nicer policies than his rival?'

No, you should support him because if the Tories win they will abolish the congestion charge, halt the move to emissions-based charging, halt the anti-nuclear stance of the mayoralty, cut bus services and put an end to the investment in public transport.

And because the Greens are working with him to make London a better place to live and a city at the cutting edge of the environmental debate.

Furthermore, not supporting him will cut the Greens off from the vast numbers of people who want to keep Ken Livingstone as mayor and depend on the improvements he has made to public services, but are dissatisfied with Labour in general and would be willing to give the Greens their votes for the Assembly if the Greens put they right policies forward.

Furthermore, you do not have to make one of those choices that many Greens find so objectionable. You can vote Green and for Ken, because in the mayoral election you have two votes. All I am saying is that if the Greens want to reach disaffected Labour voters who agree with Ken Livingstone over climate change, the war, Trident, nuclear power, multiculturalism and so on then it's necessary to be clear on the key issue which is whether London stays on the right course. This means openly recommending a vote for Ken Livingstone so that Green voters are part of the progressive green/left majority in London.

SheriffLittle
18 March 2007 at 13:51

@Steve_Barker:

'I recall being told right through the 80s that we were keeping the Tories in power, and should be campaigning for Labour. Once, Labour were elected they have done a few positive things, but have also gone beyond what Margaret Thatcher would not have dared.'

Maybe, but you can hardly accuse Ken Livingstone of such an approach. As he has shown with the congestion charge, or his plan to tax 4x4s £25 for driving into central London, or a host of other things, he is doing what he said he would do and making a huge difference.

Perhaps some of this debate here has been too harsh on Sian Berry's statements since she was selected as the candidate - although her blog here wrongly characterised Ken Livingstone's mayoralty, her interview in the Camden New Journal this week is much more balanced.

I think if she takes that approach she will get a fair hearing from Ken voters who may consider using their Assembly votes for the Greens, especially if Respect go on a bender and just attack Ken (as they are doing at the moment).

But for me, if the Greens don't get the issue of their attitude to Ken Livingstone right - including how they recommend people use their second vote - then they will not get a hearing from Ken's supporters at all because stopping the Tories is just too important.

Steve_Barker
18 March 2007 at 18:10

Greens need to make their points at all levels. I have seen Vote xyz posters (General election) next to Vote Barker posters (Local election), and been pleased. The option of being able to vote at two levels often results in "tactical" voting at the upper level and "ethical" voting at the lower level. Alas, the nature of UK media coverage is that the focus is always on the upper level.