What the Greens get out of it is (assuming it works) there being less chance of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. Second preference votes are only going to count for either Boris or Ken, and the Greens chose Ken. Also remember the letter doesn’t attack the environmental policies of the Liberal Democrats, it attacks the environmental policies of Brian Paddick, which I think is entirely justified.

If Brian Paddick is formulating policy in some kind of silo, it’s news to me and I’m on the London policy committee. You should attack Lib Dem policy all you like (responses to the Greens’ specific policy criticisms are on my blog) but do it honestly and we can thrash out the problems. This supposed bifurcation you’ve bought into is a cynical attempt to sow division and detract attention from the simple fact that the Greens have allied with a party who stand opposed to some of their most cherished principles. The Lib Dems refused to do this, which is why I find the current sneering attempt to take the moral high ground rather vexing.

Alix,

Well, firstly I think its a mistake to conflate Ken’s policies and ideas with Labour in general. He’s more like John McDonnell than he is a Blairite/Brownite.

Secondly, from a Green perpsective, it makes sense to join a ‘anyone-but-Boris’ campaign since he is decidedly less green than any of the other candidates.

I actually applaud this proposal because its more about choosing an environmentally friendly mayor than about tribal party politics. I wish we had more PR so the Greens can throw their weight around, but in an STV system, I think their idea makes sense.

Ken may like to pretend otherwise, but he is a Labour mayor and those are Labour policies. I take your point about his personal convictions being removed from Brown’s, but he has still, basically, decided to endorse them. To believe his PR about his renegade status to the point where we don’t consider the Greens’ move in the context of Labour policy as a whole is, I think, an equal mistake.

Re: anyone but Boris – I totally agree, so what’s with the “Brian’s as bad as Boris” line? If it’s all so high-minded and supra-political, why within days of the alliance being announced are the Greens turning up at Cowley Street with placards (well, one; and it didn’t have a stick) and getting their photo taken for the Evening Stannit, and slagging off Paddick for having “celebrity” status? If it were genuinely about getting the best environmental candidate, Brian would be in the frame. The Greens’ criticisms of Lib Dem policy really are pretty short-sighted and easily answered – or certainly easily debated. Whatever the motivations behind their link-up with Ken – which is their prerogative – their manoeuvring since that point comes across as if they’re being used by him to try and smear Brian by associating him with Boris.

Alix, if you have any say at all please get Brian to get a new website, there’s still time!

Sunny, I have to take exception with your applause of this announcement, as it highlights the political ambitions of the Green Party over any green policy ambitions they might have.

I’m forced to ask what is the point of this ‘Green’ party? If they support Ken, they should join his team, if they want to remain independent and still support him they should resign from the race.

I don’t see how asking their voters to give him second preference is in any way comparable to ‘joining his team’. Sian only supports Ken so far as she doesn’t want Boris to win. Obviously she would prefer it to be her and wants to do as well as she can, but realistically the choice is between Ken and Boris.

Candidates make their stand in order to win themselves, not to stop someone else from winning. It is exactly that sort of negative campaigning that is so dishonest and undermines the whole political system.

As far as I’m concerned I’m disgusted by any fact that limits this election to a choice between Ken and Boris. Both result in criminality (that’s a harsh, but fitting description) overtaking civil society – one malevolently, the other complacently – so supporting one version against the other provides absolutely no solution to todays messes, whatever the relative cases that can be made for either are.

In reality this announcement is one party supported by trade unionist activists agreeing to support the party supported by trade union money. Since they are the same, what is the point of two?

Oh, and if you want to be realistic, even though victory may seem unlikely, by not trying to win you don’t deserve to win.
It also begs the question of what you really have to offer in the first place, and that is a track record that no political movement can withstand.

It comes down to two contrasting views: cynics view everything as a numbers game where winning elections is a prerequisite to act and change is an illusion; optimists see winning elections as the product of successful activity where cynicism is just a way of hiding your shame with excuses.

Sian Berry’s preremptory excusal of her impending loss shows her to be flawed by cynicism, which are you?

Ms Berry has publicly admitted the obvious conclusion that her loss is foregone and she ought therefore now stand aside, letting the public be in no doubt about her position – she has attempted the latter, but because UK elections don’t allow for the former (it isn’t a US primary) she has undermined the whole process and shown her and her party to be naive and anti-democratic.
She has simply failed to trust the judgement of the public, despite presenting herself for consideration, which is an insult to every single voter as well as wasting our shared public resources.
Is that the point she was trying to make?

Alix,

but he has still, basically, decided to endorse them.

Well, not necessarily. He’s always been an outspoken critic of the war, opposed Labour’s PPP plans etc.

so what’s with the “Brian’s as bad as Boris” line?

This may have to do with Brian’s opposition to the £25 charge for big vehicles, which Sian campaigned heavily on. I’m still unsure how Brian Paddick is more green than Boris for example (apart from the kyoto treaty stuff, but then Boris has no influence on that anyway). This may be partly because I haven’t seen his environmental policies detailed anywhere.

If it were genuinely about getting the best environmental candidate, Brian would be in the frame.

In a word: why?

as if they’re being used by him to try and smear Brian by associating him with Boris.

Each has their own agendas obviously. But from a green perspective, Ken is greener than Brian and thus more preferable. Unless you can show me how otherwise?

I’ve also just seen your post about Brian’s policies vs Greens.

This struck me (though I’ll have to respond better later on as I’m about to head to bed)
The aim should be to get cars OUT of Central London, not give away little treats to those who drive slightly less polluting cars.

Why not? Pollution is a negative externality that isn’t being taxed. Why not make it so people who pollute more get charged more on it? To me thats the most valid system.

Perhaps part of this fury and amazement is because in England people aren’t used to a voting system with more than one preference.

In Australia, lower houses are all elected with the alternative vote. All political parties issue ‘how to vote’ cards with their preferencing recommendations. The Greens routinely preference labor ahead of the tories. In the seats where they issue a blank htv (make up your own mind, we think labor are as bad as the tories here) there is fury and amazement that the Greens aren’t ‘supporting the progressive’.

If we do get AV here, as per recent reports, this kind of thing will become normal. It’s not hitching your ride to another’s campaign. It’s just showing your voters whose policies you think are least bad.

Incidentally, Green voters are less likely to follow htvs than other parties’ voters, being the highly educated and obstinate bunch that they are!

Sunny said:

I actually applaud this proposal because its more about choosing an environmentally friendly mayor than about tribal party politics. I wish we had more PR so the Greens can throw their weight around, but in an STV system, I think their idea makes sense.

At the risk of some pedantry, the London system isn’t STV. It’s AV, and there is a difference.

In an AV system, you get only one second preference vote. So you can pick Ken first and Sian second, or Sian first and Brian second, or Brian first and Boris second, or whatever, but you can’t pick ‘Ken, Brian or Sian – anyone but Boris’.

Because of this, if you’re voting for Sian then you have to put Ken as your second preference if you (based on the current polling at least) want to stop Boris. If Brian were ahead of Ken, then you’d put Brian as your second preference. At this point, you’re basically voting tactically rather than voting the way that you actually feel. In a proper STV system, you could vote:

1. Sian
2. Brian
3. Ken
4. Someone else who isn’t Boris

In this case, let’s assume that Sian is eliminated first. This person’s vote now moves to Brian. If enough people vote this way, Brian might be ahead of Ken at this stage and might proceed to face Boris in the final count. This would allow someone like Brian to build up a good grass-roots campaign, winning the support of ordinary voters without making the huge media splash. If people like him enough, he gets through.

In the current system, people can still say ‘I really like Brian Paddick, but I can’t vote for him because I’m a Green and I need to vote for Sian first, and I think that Ken is better placed to stop Boris…’. In all honesty, Brian is probably too far behind to win, but if he were, say, only 5% behind Ken then he would be in a position of being deprived of natural support simply because Ken appeared as a better ‘stop Boris’ candidate.

The point is that this voting system still encourages ‘gaming’, where people are encouraged to vote in ways other than their ‘natural’ preference, in order to achieve some specific outcome. It creates the possibility and the necessity for pacts, deals and carve-ups between the parties, and that’s not good. A full STV system would avoid this!

I don’t see how advocating second preference to Ken equals not trying to win, If she didn’t care then she could just drop out and campaign for Ken like Galloway-Respect did.

I don’t see why the election can’t use a STV system where you can rank all the candidates. I expect that the argument against it would be the same as it is for other elecitons, which is more or less that it would be too complicated for people to understand how the counting is done.

Hi Rob, thanks, I stand corrected.

This bit by Pippa I agree with:If we do get AV here, as per recent reports, this kind of thing will become normal. It’s not hitching your ride to another’s campaign. It’s just showing your voters whose policies you think are least bad.

I want to be assured that the Greens are thinking more broadly about how to push the environmental movement forward, and not just their own election chances. This is particularly important since green NGOs are quite strong, and I see the movement better as a lobby than the one in charge. We don’t necessarily need the Greens to be elected – only that they have a significant impact on the elections.

Alix:

You forgive me for being desperately cynical here but…

1. The Green’s have done a deal with Ken because they’ve done the ‘Stop Boris’ maths, and…

2. And your lot will now make a big show of making noises about ‘what’s in it for them’ and talk up the not quite so green elements of Ken’s policies in the hope of scoring most the ‘would probably have voted Green but don’t like them doing deals with Ken’ vote as first preferences for your candidate.

And the world of politics will continue to turn just as it always has done because whether its FPTP or AV, tactical voting will only every favour the two most likely winning horses.

Not saying it right or fair, just that that’s how it is at the moment and that pretty much dictates how things will run as not much more than a by the numbers exercise for at least the next few weeks.

With that in mind I’d like to following predictions on record for rest of the campaign.

1. Labour supporter will continue to paint a picture of Boris as a bumbling incompetent, with no experience and keep knocking out lists of his ten most amusing and seemingly racist gaffes,

2. Andrew Gilligan will keep producing at least one article in the Evening Standard every fortnight, escalating to at least one a week if not more, about ‘corruption’ in Ken’s administration,

3. And the Lib Dems will knock out leaflets full of unrealistically drawn graphs showing how close they’d like the electorate to think they are to winning and stopping either Ken or Boris – as to which of the two who could be stopped, that will depend entirely on whether the leaflets are to be delivered in a mainly Tory or Labour area.

That’s just how it rolls, I’m afraid. Campaigning has, sadly, gotten to be very predictable in recent years and I’m just in a cynical mood.

So what’s in this pact with the red devil for the Greens?

Do they get cabinet positions and lucrative advisor roles (there appear to be a couple of spaces opening up) in exchange for propping up this disintegrating administration? Or do they have a magic slide-rule kept in the secret temple to the Earth mother under Lavender Hill to ritually divine which policies are really better for the environment, which has coincidentally pronounced at an opportune moment during the election campaign?

No, the Greens are just as biased by their self-interest as all the others, and we shouldn’t make any presumptions about their politics, we should subject them to equal levels of scrutiny.

Chris – advocating anything other than first preference for one’s own party/candidate oversteps the mark of trying to win and allowing the electorate their freedom to choose. It is a move laden with political overtones and the machinations of power.

Before you get the wrong impression, I’m generally sceptical and uncommitted, and I will stay so until the last moment.

Any tactical vote based on keeping out one or other candidate is highly dangerous, as it is completely negative – and you’ll get the politicians you deserve anyway.

Unity, I’m terribly sorry if my pointing out – as a openly partisan blogger – the flaws and contradictions in another party’s position has depressed you. And yet here we are! Save your energy for refined debate more befitting you and have a beer, I should.

Alix:

You comments didn’t depress me at all, I merely find it impossible to raise any enthusiam for the finer points of an election that has long since descended into something between a farce and a Punch and Judy show.

It’s not your side’s fault and a full STV system would certainly have made for a much better contest but when you get to the point where everything seems to revolve around quibbling over second preference votes then you begin to wonder whether the best outcome all around might not be an abysmally low turnout.

The other thing that the Greens get out of the deal is that if Ken is mayor he’ll need their support to get his budget passed, whereas Boris is much more likely to have enough Tory votes to ignore them.

Don is right, of course. And the bigger picture is that Ken is trying to erect a big red, green and yellow/orange tent into which an anti-Boris coalition can be enticed. That’s what the deal with Greens is for, and it’s also why he and the Greens have been wooing green-wing Lib Dems by saying that Paddick isn’t very green at all (he’s opposed to the gas-guzzler charge and the Low Emission Zone). Paddick, for his part, has been attacking Ken non-stop whilst dismissing Boris as a twit, hoping to swing the anti-Ken vote his way rather than Boris’s. No sign of that yet in the polls, though.

I do not know who is right. Sometimes policies have unintended consequences. I hope the Left can keep out the Tories and if there is a Lib Lab coalition maybe someone can be comissioned to do an independent analysis to work out who has the best Green policies. I suppose it will seem like dithering and it will cost money, but I do not like seeing green policies being turned into a political football. I have in mind the gas guzzler charge and the Low Emission Zone.
Democracy is meant to work by having policies carefully scrutenised, so maybe doing this would be worth it.

The trouble is, even scrutiny is no guarantee against political football, because any party can emphasise any fact they wish from the results. TfL scrutinised the LEZ and found it reduced emissions by a grand total of 3%, but if you simply ignore the existence of this fact you can make anyone suggesting the LEZ should be scrapped look bad.

I’ve calmed down a lot now since writing the original post. I was just intensely exasperated – no! really? – by the notion that if something is green and nice and fluffy, it should be kept – even if it doesn’t work. I’ve just had a Green over on LDV adduce a Friends of the Earth quote saying basically, “The LEZ has good aims” as persuasive evidence that we ought to keep it. As some sort of totemic offering to the green goddess, presumably, while cars keep on piling into London and emission levels are barely held steady. It’s maddening.