9 Feb 2010

Green Left regrets the decision of Barking Green Party

there are good reasons and bad reasons and then reasons so obscure they look the plot of 'The Sirens of Titan'

“Green Left regrets the decision of Barking Green Party to stand a candidate in the forthcoming general election in the constituency of Barking against the wishes of the London Federation of Green Parties. While recognising the right of local parties to take their own decision based on local knowledge, factors etc, we regard this as a political mistake and a retrograde step under the circumstances where a high profile BNP candidate (Nick Griffin) is standing. While the actions of New Labour have been largely instrumental in leading to the rise of the BNP, we consider any split in the anti-Fascist vote in Barking extremely dangerous and it opens up the possibility of a BNP breakthrough.

A breakthrough by the BNP would silence any victory Greens will make in Brighton Pavilion and will act as a recruiting sergeant to the politics of hatred espoused by the BNP. The BNP is a fascist, racist and homophobic organization that stands for an all-white Britain , the destruction of trade unions and deny the holocaust happened.. Where the BNP have elected representatives that crimes against black and minority ethnic and hatred against lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people mushroom. The primary aim of the Barking Green Party should be avoiding the election of the BNP’s first MP. We agree to campaign with other organisations to maximise the anti-Fascist vote in Barking.”


Anonymous said...

Unfortunately a number of predicted election scenarios have the gap between Labour and the BNP in Barking down to around 1%. If the Greens get any more votes than that, which would otherwise have gone to Labour, and the BNP win, the Greens will rightly be blamed for letting the BNP in.

I know Margaret Hodge is a weak NuLab stooge who is pandering to the BNP mentality, but Greens should be bigger than just standing a candidate where they can't win and where they might help the BNP to win. National Greens like yourself should actively campaign to get people to vote Labour in that constituency.

Tim Roll-Pickering said...

Congratulations to the Barking Green Party. They have rejected the chance to reinforce, to reduce the alternative choice to the voters and to say to the people of Barking "Fuck you and your problems; we just want to stop Nick Griffin!" Instead they have chosen not to play into the BNP's hands.

monkey brains said...

oh goody a punch up.

Anonymous said...

Well done to Barking

Only middle class green-tinged twats could end up letting a fascist in.

Anonymous said...

Well it was leftists like no2EU standing in the north west that led to griffen getting into the EP, the 20000 odd votes no2eu got could have been green. Why should they expect others to stand down for them when they wont do the same for others?

Gary Dunion said...

I was a member of Peter Cranie's campaign in the North-West and I am certain NO2EU are not the reason Peter' was not elected ahead of Griffin.

There are all sorts of appeals a left party could make to get votes from their progressive base - a base they would share with Greens. Anti-cuts, anti-war, anti-corporate, pro-nationalisation, and so on.

But the party was named NO2EU rather than making any of these other appeals *expressly* to attract the kind of voters who might otherwise vote BNP rather than the kind that might otherwise vote, e.g., Green. Opposition to the EU is a core motivator for BNP voters and by appealing to that issue, NO2EU were trying to draw some off and split the BNP's vote.

I believe for the most part they were probably successful, and that of their small number of votes a much higher proportion would otherwise have been destined for parties of the right than for the Greens.

They did not cost the Greens the election. Now, if you want to contend they might have cost *UKIP* the election, you may have a point. But I'm not totally convinced, and in any case it could not have been predicted at the start of the campaign that UKIP were in as strong a position to stop the BNP than the Greens. Furthermore it is not absolutely clear that a UKIP MEP is significantly preferable to a BNP one.

Anonymous said...

Gary with that opinion then mabye it could be argued that quite alot of people with a concern in of the environment would also vote BNP to 'preserve the british countryside' or whatever spin they put on it. Mabye if the Greens stand they could take some votes away from the BNP? Completely ridiculous ofcourse but exact same arguement as the NO2EU

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

May I infer from your post that the Greens endorse the mass-immigration that has occurred over the last thirteen years and transformed places like Barking?

How do you reconcile this with The Optimum Population Trust's conclusion:

'The Optimum Population Trust believes that...the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.'

What about the environmental impact of vast numbers of people coming to Britain eg. building on green belt land destroys natural habitats and CO2 absorbing foliage? Additionally, immigrants from the Third World will massively increase their carbon footprint by coming to the UK where they will consume food which travels hundreds of miles and is wrapped in plastic, drive a car, visit their homeland (air travel), use far more electricity, etc, etc.

Imperialism Is the Arsonist: Marxism’s Contribution to Ecological Literatures and Struggles

Derek Wall ’s article entitled  Imperialism Is the Arsonist: Marxism’s Contribution to Ecological Literatures and Struggles , argues that Ma...