Sian Berry

6 comments from readers

Weggis
19 March 2007 at 14:15

Isn't the Mayor thing decided by STV? In which case how can a vote for you, along with a second preference, "let in the Tories". If a Tory wins it will be what Londoner's want!

GeoffreyBrown
19 March 2007 at 19:29

Sian writes: “Some of last week’s comments are from obvious Labour Party hacks, peddling the old ‘Don’t stand, you’ll let the Tories in’ line. I find this kind of thing disgusting and profoundly undemocratic. Without new parties springing up out of new ideas and challenging the comfortable, ‘no alternative’ status quo, we’d be hearing now how we have to vote Tory to avoid another Whig victory.”

Well, I’ve read the comments that you criticise, Sian, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that you shouldn’t stand as the Green Party’s mayoral candidate. One of the merits of the first-and-second-preference system is that radical minority party candidates can contest the London mayoral election without splitting the progressive vote. What is being questioned here is the sort of campaign you’re going to wage, specifically in relation to Ken Livingstone.

The reality is that, while you will be able to use your candidacy to raise the profile of the Green Party, educate the electorate about environmental issues and perhaps even strengthen the Greens’ representation on the London Assembly, you have zero chance of becoming the next mayor of London.

In 2004 your party’s candidate Darren Johnson got 2.99% of the first preference votes, compared with 35.70% for Livingstone and 28.24% for the Tory, Steven Norris.

Realistically, therefore, the alternative we face in 2008 is either the re-election of Ken Livingstone or a victory for the Tory candidate, whoever that might be. The latter outcome would be a disaster for all progressive people in London.

Obviously there are political differences between Livingstone and the two Green members on the Assembly, but there have also been grounds for co-operation over environmental policy. You were quoted in last week’s Camden New Journal as saying: “Ken Livingstone has become more green as he has gone along. He listens to our members and respects them.”

Do you really think the Greens will have a similarly productive relationship with the mayor if Livingstone is defeated and a Tory is elected in his place? For all Cameron’s BS about his party having genuinely embraced green issues, a Tory victory would result in the current mayor’s environmental agenda being dumped and the Greens would be given the elbow.

The Green Party, and its mayoral candidate in particular, have a basic choice in 2008.

EITHER you wage a hostile campaign against Livingstone, and refuse to call on your supporters to cast their second preference vote for him, which can only assist the Tories in defeating him and destroy any prospect of implementing a green agenda for London.

OR you wage a more nuanced campaign in which you emphasise the importance of keeping the Tory mayoral candidate out - which means advocating a second preference vote for Livingstone - while at the same time calling for increased Green representation on the Assembly so that you can exercise more pressure on the mayor to implement your policies.

If you wage that sort of campaign it will be to the Greens’ advantage, because I’ve no doubt that many Livingstone voters who share your environmental concerns would be prepared to vote for the Green Party on the top-up list. They’re much less likely to do that if you form a de facto bloc with the Tories in waging an anti-Livingstone campaign.

So what’s being argued here, Sian, is that we should have a united front of progressive forces in London to defeat the Tories. That way everyone stands to benefit.

shart
19 March 2007 at 20:17

From a spokesperson for the Mayor of London:

Sian Berry wrote that although the London Plan has 'reasonable' targets for affordable housing, 'the Mayor has yet to enforce them properly in any development.'

In fact, the London Plan sets challenging targets for affordable housing delivery.

Far from the mayor being 'yet to enforce them in any development', a large number of major developments have in fact exceeded the mayor's London Plan targets for 50 per cent affordable housing.

To take some examples, the mayor recently agreed plans for new homes at the Hammersmith Embankment development, of which 57 per cent are affordable and 53 per cent of this is social rented. The target has also been recently met or exceeded in developments at St Giles Circus and Stockwell Green. And, thanks to the mayor’s intervention, proposals for a major development at the former Prestolite Factory in west London now include 35 per cent social rented homes within an overall provision of well over 60 per cent affordable housing.

The policy that is being pursued in London is to increase the supply of affordable housing. This stands in contrast to the preceding decade and a half when London was without its own city-wide authority and the supply of affordable housing fell short of the needs of a growing population. This is why the mayor has taken such a robust line on this issue and will continue to do so, as the recent Prestolite debate has shown: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=10...

DarrenJ
20 March 2007 at 01:11

For a candidate to get a second preference endorsement from the Green Party they are going to have to work bloody hard to earn it. Ken Livingstone's record in his first term (2000-2004) was pretty dismal in many respects - climate change barely figured in his list of priorities, the resources allocated to tackle it were pitiful and rather than seeing major increases in the cycling budget Green Assembly members had their work cut out simply fighting off CUTS. I will be the first to say, however, that there has been a dramatic improvement in the Mayor's performance in the second term. But there's no such thing as a blank cheque in politics. My view is that the Greens should only be making a decision on second preferences when we have seen the manifestos of the key candidates. Lets compare Ken's manifesto to the Tory and Lib-Dem manifestos and see how each stand up alongside the Green Party's. If Ken wants a second preference endorsement he's going to have to work hard to earn it.

Darren Johnson

(and by the way Geoffrey I got 3.1% of first preference votes not 2.99% - outrageous slur on my political standing!)

Banner
22 March 2007 at 14:54

Darren Johnson wrote: 'Ken Livingstone's record in his first term (2000-2004) was pretty dismal in many respects - climate change barely figured in his list of priorities, the resources allocated to tackle it were pitiful and rather than seeing major increases in the cycling budget Green Assembly members had their work cut out simply fighting off CUTS.'

You don't mention the congestion charge. That's because your analysis is way off beam.

With all due respect Darren this is why, by taking this line, the Greens went from 3 members to 2. Ken Livingstone had just introduced the most radical transport measure with regard to the private car that Britain had ever seen - the congestion charge - leading to a shift from car use to public transport. (He had also presided over a huge increase in cycling, the conversion of the bus fleet to clean engines, etc). The congestion charge had been the biggest single achievement in making the case for greener transport measures and dealing with the tyranny of the car. The entire right wing press raged against this and predicted disaster. The Tories promised to abolish it out of sheer opportunism. As far as I know that is still their line. Following this Ken Livingstone then proposed in the run up to the 2004 election that he would extend the congestion charge to the west. But none of this features in your analysis of his first term or the 2004 election. The public could see clearly that Livingstone was by far the most radical politician on these matters - because of his actions, not his words - and voted for him.

Your entire policy during this period constituted denial of the real nature of the debate.

Failing to align the green party with this progressive development, and instead constantly denouncing ken Livingstone, was just a green version of ultra-leftism that cut you off from Ken's supporters. The result was a collapse in your assembly vote.

Darren wrote: 'My view is that the Greens should only be making a decision on second preferences when we have seen the manifestos of the key candidates. Lets compare Ken's manifesto to the Tory and Lib-Dem manifestos and see how each stand up alongside the Green Party's. If Ken wants a second preference endorsement he's going to have to work hard to earn it.'

It's the other way round, Darren. If the Greens want the support of Ken's voters for the top-up list then you need to show you are not part of a de facto anti-Ken bloc assisting the Tories. If you cannot choose now between a mayor who has introduced the congestion charge, extended it, proposes transforming it into an emissions charge, expanded cycling, led the world's cities on climate change, opposed the renewal of Trident, opposed nuclear power, opposed the war in Iraq, apologises for slavery, defends multiculturalism, fights racism, uses his powers to fight homophobia, introduced a living wage, on the one hand, and the fakers and right wingers of the Tories then you are just doomed to repeat your mistakes of the last mayoral election all over again.

Progressive Londoners will not forgive the green party if you assist the Tories by not saying clearly that Londoners need to use one of their votes for Ken.

You certainly won't get my list vote at this rate.

I hope that Sian Berry hasn't appointed Darren as her campaign adviser.

Sian, you've made lots of points here some of which, like on housing, were incorrect. Can you please now clarify if you will be urging Green voters to use their second prefs for Ken?

SheriffLittle
22 March 2007 at 15:02

Sian wrote: 'The London Plan has reasonable targets for affordable housing and renewable energy but the Mayor has yet to enforce them properly in any development.'

It is a pity that the Green Party is engaging in this kind of spin.

The statement from Ken Livingstone's office here shows that this is just factually wrong.

In fact Livingstone is engaged in a big fight with Tory and Tory-LibDem councils all over London who are refusing to accept his affordable housing targets. He recently had a huge run-in with Hammersmith on this point, which is referred to here.

Greens should be in an alliance with him against the Tories and LibDems on this point, instead of misrepresenting the situation. It is a key issue in London politics.

It reinforces the concern that the Green campaign will in effect assist the Standard and others by not joining with Ken Livingstone on the most important dividing lines against the right wing parties.