63 responses to “London elections – poll result”

1. 

   Jon B

   March 9, 2008 at 10:49 am

   What’s interesting is the fact that 13% of the readers of your site, who are no doubt intelligent and politically aware, chose voting combinations which throw away votes. Only the first three combinations in your table have the effect of both expressing your political preference and affecting the outcome of the election. Surely those are the ones to chose, depending on whether you first choice is for an Socialist or Labour or Green candidate.

   The point is, is 13% of the people reading this site can make that mistake, how many Londoners in general will make that mistake? As the farce is Scotland last year showed we need to encourage people to vote in an effective way, as well as standing a left candidate.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Ray

   March 9, 2008 at 4:05 pm

   Despite the majority voting for German as 1st pref I’m surprised that only only 5 people decided to vote Livingstone 1/German 2 while 18 (presumably aware of the 2nd preference) chose to vote only for Livingstone. Assuming that some of these voters describe themselves as socialists It’s highly disturbing for any socialist to vote exclusively for New Labour in this context.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   PhilW

   March 9, 2008 at 5:17 pm

   Jon B:

   “What’s interesting is the fact that 13% of the readers of your site, who are no doubt intelligent and politically aware, chose voting combinations which throw away votes.”

   While I agree there is an issue with unfamiliarity with STV can cause people in the real world to waste their votes, it is an unfair criticism of people using Liam’s poll, as only 2 preferences are allowed in that.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   ks

   March 9, 2008 at 5:53 pm

   some people don’t want to offer any support to ken livingstone so they are prepared to vote ‘1 left 2 green’ or ‘1 green 2 left’, even though they are effectively throwing away the votes.

   i imagine most of what you might dub the ‘far left’ would opt for this rather than back ken – who called for workers to scab on the rmt strike, is totally reconcilled with new labour, big business in the city etc etc. much of the ‘far left’ reject ‘lesser evilism’ so this is not surprising at all.

   ks

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   bill j

   March 9, 2008 at 6:41 pm

   Yes that’s why the tag of far left is accurate. Very, very far left in fact.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Phil

   March 9, 2008 at 8:29 pm

   PhilW – only two preferences are allowed in the mayoral vote. And (in answer to Ray) Livingstone 1 German 2 has exactly the same effect as Livingstone 1 on its own: the only second preferences which can affect the result are those cast for the two leading candidates.

   I’m with Jon B, except that he can’t add up – 28 out of 135 votes are wholly or partially wasted, or 21%.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Ray

   March 9, 2008 at 9:24 pm

   A second preference vote for German will boost her vote and for socialists that’s an important thing because we want to maximise the vote for the left and demonstrate that there is an alternative to New Labour.
   This election is not just about winning nor is it just about the two main candidates. The left need to use this election to propagandise and show that there is an alternative to Livingstone and Johnson who both champion the City over the needs of workers.
   That’s where socialists differ from those who think Livingstone is the only priority for the left and that’s why the poll on this blog which is frequented by socialists is overwhelmingly in favour of a socialist candidate.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Ray

   March 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm

   The London elections are a class issue so do we call for a 1st preference vote for a socialist candidate who is in support of workers or do we believe that class politics are now irrelevant and call for a 1st preference vote for New Labour and Livingstone?

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   cameron

   March 9, 2008 at 9:46 pm

   Ray, a second preference vote for German is simply bonkers. Why not take your logic to its absurd extreme and advocate a first and second preference for German then?

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Ray

    March 9, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    I’m advocating a first preference vote for German and second preference if someone is bonkers enough to vote Livingstone first. The point I’m making is that the majority of people who voted in this poll for Livingstone as 1st pref wouldn’t even give their second vote to a socialist candidate. That’s worrying.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 3:32 am

    My understanding (which might be wrong) is that second preference votes for candidates that don’t make it to the top two don’t count. Everyone expects Livingstone to make it into the final round, and Lindsey German not. Therefore, the second preference votes of those who vote Livingstone first preference aren’t going to count. The legitimate criticism of those claiming to be socialist who cast their first vote for Livingstone is not that they don’t make what is essentially a meaningless gesture: including German as a second preference. The real criticism is that they do not exploit this electoral system to start to build an anti-capitalist alternative, while, simultaneously, piling pressure on Livingstone to shift as leftwards as is possible for an opportunist pro-capialist politician. By not making a protest vote (when there is so much for anti-capitalists, democrats and trade unionists to protest about), by not informing Livingstone that his victory over Johnstone was dependent on transfered votes from those far to his left, these “socialists” have abdicated their right to call themselves socialists. They are nothing more than cheerleaders for Livingstone, pure and simple. Livingstone’s support for business-friendly policies (maximising the rate of profit, rate of surplus value, rate of exploitation), support for a cover-up of state-sanctioned death squads, scabbing… Unconditional endorsement of Livingstone is unconditional endorsement for his reactionary policies. As the economy goes pear-shaped over the next few years, workers will feel betrayed. Those who called for a socialist alternative will reap the benefit – as, unfortunately, will those who called for an alternative from the right: not just the Tories, but the BNP as well. Those who reduced themselves to cheerleaders for Livingstone will be squeezed out of the picture. Justly so.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    a very public sociologist

    March 10, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    That’s quite an interesting poll result. I wonder how different the result would have been had you included the Tories and LibDems. Remember, a few lefties are always willing to give the yellow bellies a punt, such is their disgust with New Labour’s antics.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Liam introduced the results thus:

    “It’s looking good for Lindsey German if the readers of this site are a typical cross section of London’s voters and we have no reason to think otherwise.”

    Did anyone take him at his word. Are any contributors to this thread blind to satire? Phil Hamilton, perhaps? He says this is quite an interesting poll result. No it’s not. We are dealing with 135 votes out of how many London voters? Not a representative sample either. How many SWPers read this site? How many would have voted, and asked their comrades to do likewise? Is it possible to have voted twice using the same IP address? I don’t know the answer to the last question, but I would not be surprised to learn that there was no automatic checking. At any rate, Liam argued strongly in favour of the result. I voted this way, only once, I hasten to add. It is clear that Liam does not take this result seriously. No one should. It is just a bit of fun. as all such polls on far-left blogs are. What is serious is whether or not socialists exploit this election to start to build a working class, anti-capitalist alternative. We won’t win, not this time. We won’t make it into the top two. However, no one waits until they can swim before dipping their feet in the water.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Liam was, possibly, being serious when he posed the following puzzler:
    “Even more surprising is just how little crossover of support there is between the various non Tory parties.”

    Actually, this is unsurprising. What does require explanation is the odd way a handful of comrades voted. If comrades believe that, for whatever reason, it is vital to stop the Tories winning, then it is essential to place Livingstone as second preference. If you think he will win without any help from socialists, then you can swap between radical candidates, or vote for one candidate only. If you believe that the final choise will be between lesser evils, and this is important, then it makes sense for Greens and REspect not to swap second preferences, which they might have done under STV, if no better choise was available. Greens and Respect voting Livingstone first and their preferred candidate second merely expose their lack of understanding of this system, or take seriously Liam’s satire about the likelihood of a massive German victory.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    Does anyone know the intentions of the Socialist Party? Do they have a list for the GLA? Have they been in negottiations with either part of the split in Respect? It would be a disaaster for Respect (SWP version) and the SP to fight each other. They need to reach an agreement to swap second preferences, if not stand on a united list. If the latter, SP members need to be given high places within the list. One obvious problem is that the SWP nailed their colours to the mast of granting Livingstone a second preference soon after the smear campaign against him from the right-wing. In my opinion, this was the right thing to do. However, obviously, the SP don’t agree with this. They won’t abide by a decision to make this a priority. Fair enough. Leave it to individuals in Respect, SP and others to vote accordingly, to recommend what they think. Second preferences is a secondary matter. Unity around a socialist first preference is not.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    andyinswindon

    March 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    Yes paul, I know the SP’s position.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    andyinswindon

    March 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    BTW , this is bollox Paul (Tom Delargy)

    ” However, obviously, the SP don’t agree with this. They won’t abide by a decision to make this a priority. Fair enough. Leave it to individuals in Respect, SP and others to vote accordingly, to recommend what they think. Second preferences is a secondary matter”

    The SP are actually caling for a vote for Ken Livingstone.

    Doesn’t it ever worry you that nearly everything you say turns out to be factually wrong?

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Phil

    March 10, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Remember, a few lefties are always willing to give the yellow bellies a punt, such is their disgust with New Labour’s antics.

    My local Lib Dem MP put down an Early Day Motion calling for the reinstatement of Karen Reissmann. Not that I’m voting for the blighter – just that there are LDs who it’s quite difficult to criticise from the Left.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    ks

    March 10, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    all the ‘far left’ are calling for a 2nd preference for livingstone i believe.

    only exception is awl who bizarely are not, despite supporting oona king and other new labourites!!!

    which list will comrades on here vote for? respect/left list? cpb? or other?

    what about in the constituency they live in?

    ks

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    andyinswindon claims the SP are calling for a vote for Livingstone. That is news to me. Care to provide some proof? I find this hard to believe.

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    some anonymous swindon guy said “The SP are actually caling for a vote for Ken Livingstone.”

    Actually, no,. they are not. What I have now discovered they are doing surprises me, but pleasantly so.

    “With this invidious choice and no real viable alternative, the Socialist Party understands that many workers will vote for Livingstone. Our members will continue to argue that the only solution is for trade unionists and campaigners to stand candidates, as a step towards a new workers’ party. Even if some London union organisations decide to back Livingstone, this does not mean they should fund Labour – they should produce their own campaigning material, demanding Livingstone take a stand against cuts and privatisation, and argue for a new workers’ party.

    “In the mayoral election, there is both a first- and second-preference vote. If no candidate gets more than half the votes cast (which is almost guaranteed), the top two candidates remain in the election and the rest are eliminated. The second-preference votes of those who have been eliminated are then added to the two candidates who are left, to arrive at the overall victor. Socialists should use the first-preference vote for anti-cuts, anti-privatisation candidates. But then, understanding the widespread desire amongst working-class people in London to ensure that Boris Johnson does not win, they should use the second-preference vote for Livingstone.”

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    Paul

    March 10, 2008 at 11:54 pm

    Phil Hamilton wrote “I wonder how different the result would have been had you included the Tories and LibDems. Remember, a few lefties are always willing to give the yellow bellies a punt, such is their disgust with New Labour’s antics.”

    Interesting definition you have of “leftie”, Phil. Do you speak on behalf of Peter Taaffe when you write this? I suspect not.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    Paul

    March 11, 2008 at 12:41 am

    ks wrote ‘all the ‘far left’ are calling for a 2nd preference for livingstone i believe.’

    Aren’t PR voting for Livingstone first-pref? And what about the CPGB? Their attitude towards Respect amazes me, so I can’t predict what they’ll recommend. If they are not going to vote for German (and they obviously won’t), I can’t believe they’d vote Livingstone first preference. Is there any prospect of some other left-winger throwing their hat in the ring?

    ks asks how comrades are going to vote for the GLA. But what about the SP, which I believe is ks’s own party? Have they put a list together? Would they be interested in being coopted at the last minute onto Respect’s Left List? As for the AWL, their refusal to back Livingstone is not bizarre, any more than their refusal to back Galloway.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Jon B

    March 11, 2008 at 1:56 am

    “I’m with Jon B, except that he can’t add up – 28 out of 135 votes are wholly or partially wasted, or 21%.”

    This comment was a while back, but I’ve only just spotted it. My maths is fine, thank you- I wasn’t counting ‘none of the above’/’other’/’I don’t vote’ responses, as voters choosing those options are wasting their votes deliberately rather than by misunderstanding the voting system. In fact the ‘other’/’none of the above’ responses could be voting for a candidate not listed in the Liam’s poll, for all we know. So in the poll, 20 votes out of 135 were wholly or partially wasted by mistake.

    Actually, if you really want to be pedantic 20 votes out 135 is 15% not 13%- the discrepancy is due to errors caused by rounding in the percentage column. But whatever, you get my point. Tactical voting is important and I’d love to see Strategic Voter make a return for the election.

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    Ray

    March 11, 2008 at 2:32 am

    The Left List which German now heads will be standing against New Labour and the Tories. I urge socialists to vote for her regardless of which left organisation they are in. This is the only way at this election we can offer an alternative to neo-liberalism.

    What happens to the left after this is debateable but this opportunity shouldn’t be wasted. If German or any left candidate receives a higher profile out of this election it will affect all of us on the left in a positive manner. This will enable us to argue among workers that an alternative to neo-liberalism can develop despite the recent splits on the left.

    There are probably sectarians on the left who would love to see German fail but that is sadly self destructive. Everytime the left fails it affects all of us negatively and encourages the growth of the right.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    Chris Brooks

    March 11, 2008 at 7:53 am

    >>What’s interesting is the fact that 13% of the readers of your site, who are no doubt intelligent and politically aware, chose voting combinations which throw away votes.

    Jon, you seem to consider it a unintentional mistake that these people are not, with their first or second preference, voting for Livingstone. However, there are at least two other options; they are intentionally not voting for him, or they are transferring to him lower down.

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    a very public sociologist

    March 11, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    “Paul” you always give the game away by referring to me as Phil Hamilton. No one, except you, refers to me as thus. It’s a pity you seem blind to tongue in cheek commentary as well. In future I’ll put a big signpost on it, just for your benefit.

    As for the LibDems, well Tom whether you like it or not some lefties do prefer to vote for them over New Labour. It is a fact, and it has been debated on the UKLN on occasions. But best not let the facts get in the way of a spot of point scoring eh?

    And finally, yes Tom, my organisation are calling for a second preference vote for Livingstone. How you quoting the very article where it makes that call as proof we’re not doing so is, well, a little bit bizarre.

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    a very public sociologist

    March 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    “Paul” you always give the game away by referring to me as Phil Hamilton. No one, except you, refers to me as thus. It’s a pity you seem blind to tongue in cheek commentary as well. In future I’ll put a big signpost on it, just for your benefit.

    As for the LibDems, well Tom whether you like it or not some lefties do prefer to vote for them over New Labour. It is a fact, and it has been debated on the UKLN on occasions. But best not let the facts get in the way of a spot of point scoring eh?

    And finally, yes Tom, my organisation are calling for a second preference vote for Livingstone. How you quoting the very article where it makes that call as proof we’re not doing so is, well, a little bit bizarre.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    Paul

    March 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm

    That’s your name isn’t it? Ashamed of it, Phil? And when did you claim your organisation was calling for a second preference vote for Livingstone? If you said this, I missed it. You also seem to forget that you described those who vote Tory as being lefties! Can’t bring yourself to justify that one, eh? And no one who votes Lib Dem is a leftie. The fact that you pretend otherwise proves just how deluded you are. And what’s with posting this nonsense twice? As for your organisation, to whom exactly do you swear allegiance? Judging from support for the CPGB over the SP in terms of theory, I am sure I am not the only one who would like an answer to that one.

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    RobM

    March 11, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    “There are probably sectarians on the left who would love to see German fail but that is sadly self destructive.”

    Indeed, Ray. Now raise your left fist, insert the word ‘Galloway’ instead of ‘German’ and repeat out loud three times….

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    jim jay

    March 11, 2008 at 7:45 pm

    Just to go back to “wasting” second prefs. for a moment.
    A second pref vote for someone not in the top two may not ‘count’ but it is counted and recorded.

    At the last mayoral election the greens got over 10% of the second prefs. You could dismiss this as wasted – but it is also an indicator that a sizable number of people were sympathetic enough to their campaign to give them their second vote and it boosts morale and gives weight to the AMs.

    It doesn’t effect who wins the mayoral race but it sends out just as much of a signal as any of the haven’t-got-a-chance-of-winning mayoral candidates might hope to achieve with their first pref. vote.

    Unless we’re arguing that a vote for anyone who doesn’t win is wasted there actually *is* a point in giving a candidate your second pref even if they don’t have a chance of coming in the top two.

    Before anyone leaps on this – I’m only commenting on the system – my personal recommendation (and I live close enough to london to be campaigning there regularly) is Sian Berry [1] Livingstone [2] as I think it’s important that Johnson does not win.

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    Ray

    March 11, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    RobM I’m not sure what you’re implying but I support Galloway and anyone on the left who is trying to build a left alliance. The SWP has worked with other organisations on the left for many years in a variety of campaigns.
    If RR focus on building a left alliance and supporting StWC and other organisations campaigning against neo-liberalism then all the better for the left.
    If any left organisation tries to disrupt or hobble other socialists from doing the same then that is sectarian and self-destructive. Only the right can benefit from that sort of behaviour.

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    RobM

    March 11, 2008 at 8:33 pm

    OK Ray, I apologise- I had thought you were SWP- the same SWP busily trying to keep GG off any platform they have any influence over…

    LikeLike

    Reply
34. 

    Ray

    March 11, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    I am in the SWP and I support Galloway in whatever he’s doing. If he doesn’t want to work with us then that’s his choice. Perhaps you could explain what Galloway has been excluded from?

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. 

    Ray

    March 12, 2008 at 5:07 am

    Rob I think you might be referring to the lie that is being spread by some unscrupulous sources that Galloway has been excluded as a speaker at the anti-war demo. Perhaps this might explain why RR is organising an anti-war rally in TH without involving the StWC.

    All this manipulation of the truth makes Saatchi and Saatchi seem like a couple of novices. Sitting around inventing more anti-SWP ruses must be very satisfying for those who have vowed to vanquish us but ultimately it spells defeat for the left. Fortunately the blogspin of a few malcontents doesn’t translate very easily into reality.

    I hope the RR rally is well attended as this can only benefit the demo and the left. I’m sure that many of those attending the rally will probably not care which group is organising it or have much interest in the bickering of the left. They’ll attend because it is an anti-war rally.

    It really is time to put this self-destructive antipathy to bed and get on with building a left alliance. I’m sure the right are laughing all the way to the ballot box over all this bickering among the left. That means Galloway and Rees will just have to share the anti-war demo platform through gritted teeth and get on with building a left alliance.

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    Chris Brooks

    March 12, 2008 at 6:58 am

    Ray, I think a pretty clear example of this was when Galloway and Renewal helped the counter-mobilisation to Nick Griffin’s speech at the Oxford Union. As a nationally-know MP, Galloway attracted a huge amount of support, and media interest. However, the SWP used their control of the PA system to refuse to let him address the event.

    I’m not aware of what’s happened in TH, but I am sure the SWP organises meetings against the war, and so should Renewal. Supporting the coalition should not mean we need to disappear as currents.

    LikeLike

    Reply
37. 

    Liam

    March 12, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Ray – the Tower Hamlets event is a Respect Youth event. It claims to be nothing else.
    Pressure of other commitments prevents me from being active in STW locally but I know for a fact that GG’s name has not been mentioned as a possible guest in any local meeting.
    Notice of the climate change meeting I organised and at which GG spoke,was provided to local SWP Respect supporters. Not one turned up and they did not even circulate the advert.
    It is beyond argument that when a Palestinian delegation visited Tower Hamlets last weekthey were not offered the traditional chance to meet the local MP

    Three things looks like a pattern.

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    RobM

    March 12, 2008 at 10:08 am

    More than just a pattern, Liam.
    John Rees opposed (and thus prevented) the reading out of a solidarity message from GG at a recent rally in Bristol.
    That isn’t not oversight or quietly sidelining, that is active opposition to GG.

    LikeLike

    Reply
39. 

    Ray

    March 12, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    You make it sound as if it’s the SWP’s responsibility to involve Galloway in StWC. It’s up to him to get involved. Why hasn’t he turned up for meetings and for that matter why haven’t other RR members got involved? No one needs an invite to attend.
    In south London, RR members were outside a StWC meeting leafleting for their own meeting. RR hasn’t even advertised StWC on the RR leaflet. Is that the type of solidarity you are referring to?

    RR seem to believe that Galloway just has to turn up to a meeting in Oxford and be given a platform. Forget all about arranging this beforehand because he presumes to be above all that. This appears to be opportunism rather than any real commitment to these events. He sits back expecting everyone else to chase after him. This cavalier attitude is very reminisant of the celeb BB fiasco. Organising on the left has never worked in this manner and I don’t think we should accommodate it any longer.

    Judgeing by the misinformation spread by RR HQ I doubt very much that the meeting in Bristol went according to RR’s version of events. But yet again this appears to be an attempt by Galloway to jump on the band wagon without actually getting involved.
    As for meeting the Palestinian delegation why isn’t Galloway and RR arranging this instead of leaving it up to the SWP?

    This seems to me to be a case of blaming the SWP as an excuse for not actually getting involved in these organisations and events in a consistant and commited manner. I hope that changes.

    LikeLike

    Reply
40. 

    Ray

    March 12, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Not that it’s anything I would expect anytime soon but I’ve yet to see an SWP member invited to speak at an RR event. I’m also waiting to meet an RR member who has involved themselves in organising a Respect event/meeting in London. I’m sure that RR has known about these events and individual RR members have been given leaflets but there appears to be an unwillingness on their part to get involved.

    When it comes to sectarian behaviour there is a lot to learn from Linda Smith. Despite Smith undemocratically withholding nominations from Respect members we will continue to build Respect. Smiths behaviour seems entirely motivated by a desire to destroy Respect. Respect will be standing a candidate in the City and East London because we won’t allow Smiths sectarian behaviour to curtail the development of Respect.

    On a more positive note I know that Respect and RR members are jointly involved in events outside London so perhaps we should follow their example and get on with the job of rebuilding the left.

    LikeLike

    Reply
41. 

    You couldn’t make it up!

    March 12, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    Watch it Ray – Unity is Strength is creeping back in.

    “Respect will be standing a candidate in the City and East London because we won’t allow Smiths sectarian behaviour to curtail the development of Respect.”

    So to support the ‘development of Respect’ you’ll deselect the candidate in City and East – a sitting Muslim Respect Newham Councillor and replace him with someone white. And do this without so much as a phone call until he gets a threatening letter from Elaine Graham Leigh telling hime he’s not allowed to stand. And all this in a constituency where the BNP will be fighting hard to build on their Barking breakthrough. They’ll be happy at least.

    It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and dangerous.

    LikeLike

    Reply
42. 

    Ray

    March 12, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Smith is attempting to stop Respect standing candidates. There isn’t much more to add to this because stopping socialists standing in elections is the greatest gift to the BNP. She can’t do much more damage to a left alliance than that.

    LikeLike

    Reply
43. 

    tonyc

    March 12, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    “RR seem to believe that Galloway just has to turn up to a meeting in Oxford and be given a platform. Forget all about arranging this beforehand because he presumes to be above all that. This appears to be opportunism rather than any real commitment to these events.”

    See, Ray, this is why I consider you nothing more than a troll.

    You were told about 9 times that a George went up there with no intention of speaking, that a local UAF activist saw him and asked him to speak, that we had to spend ages pushing through crowds to follow the UAF person, only to find Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett refusing to even acknowledge George or let him near the microphone.

    Now, despite being told this loads of times, you choose to lie about it.

    Why is that?

    You also know that SWP members have been invited to speak at RR meetings, because you’ve commented that they would never stoop so low as to attend.

    We invited Karen Reissmann to speak as a gesture of solidarity and to build the campaign for her reinstatement. Lindsey German claimed we were “using” her.

    LikeLike

    Reply
44. 

    tonyc

    March 12, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    “Smith is attempting to stop Respect standing candidates. There isn’t much more to add to this because stopping socialists standing in elections is the greatest gift to the BNP. She can’t do much more damage to a left alliance than that.”

    Hanif was the selected candidate. They did not even contact him. They simply expelled him and replaced him with a white man.

    Your blindness is so comical, you’re welcome to the hijacked clique of people you call “Respect”.

    Ray, get used to it: We are Respect. Our 300-strong meeting on Sunday, our successful meetings in Tower Hamlets, Southwark (a brilliant meeting on the economy), Manchester (bowled over by what they’re achieving there) and elsewhere are testimony to that and to the broad party we are building.

    The SWP, on the other hand, is reduced to using the Hounslow Stop The War meeting yesterday to pass round what looked like a petition about Lindsey German, but turned out to be a sheet for people to “back Lindsey for Mayor” – yes, a meeting run by the organisation of which Lindsey is convenor was used as a platform to build her candidacy.

    We’ve all passed petitions round at such meetings; people trust that they’re legitimate things. I wonder how many people who signed it (including a few older Pakistani people with very little command of English) realise that they’d signed up to a political party’s campaign for Mayor.

    So much for broad alliances – the non-aligned people there were furious that the Stop The War Coalition is being used like that.

    For the record, Galloway was speaking at the meeting, and didn’t mention once that he was standing for election – cos unlike the SWP, he is actually interested in preserving the alliance, rather than using it for sectarian ends.

    LikeLike

    Reply
45. 

    tonyc

    March 12, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    “Smith is attempting to stop Respect standing candidates.”

    For the record (for everyone else except “Ray” above, who will continue to lie regardless of what people tell him): Not one member of the SWP’s Respect has approached Linda about getting her signature to stand in these elections.

    This week’s Socialist Worker contains the lie that Linda “refused” to allow Carole Vincent to stand as Respect in Waltham Forest.

    No one even asked Linda for her signature.

    So who exactly is it who is trying to stop people standing?

    LikeLike

    Reply
46. 

    Jon B

    March 12, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    “Jon, you seem to consider it a unintentional mistake that these people are not, with their first or second preference, voting for Livingstone. However, there are at least two other options; they are intentionally not voting for him, or they are transferring to him lower down.”

    On the first of your options, point taken. I’m assuming that people who read this site would rather have Livingstone than Johnson as mayor if forced to choose between the two. Your second preference vote will be thrown away unless you vote for one of the top two candidate (i.e. Johnson or Livingstone) so there’s really no reason not to vote for Livingstone as your second preference, regardless who you chose as first preference. You don’t need to support the guy outright to do that, just recognise that he’s preferable to Johnson.

    Your second option is based on an inaccurate premise. You only get two votes in the mayoral election; there is no ‘lower down’.

    LikeLike

    Reply
47. 

    Jon B

    March 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    “A second pref vote for someone not in the top two may not ‘count’ but it is counted and recorded.

    At the last mayoral election the greens got over 10% of the second prefs. You could dismiss this as wasted – but it is also an indicator that a sizable number of people were sympathetic enough to their campaign to give them their second vote and it boosts morale and gives weight to the AMs.”

    Well, yes, but they way the results are presented are usually according to the number of first preference votes received. We still say that Respect beat the Greens in 2004 even though the Greens did much better than Respect on second preferences (10.9% compared to 3.3%.) Respect are listed higher on the BBC’s results table, for example.

    Much better to give the Greens your first preference vote and Ken your second, as you say you plan to do. This will push the Greens higher up the table (hopefully past the BNP!) and will have as the same effect on Ken’s re-election as if you gave him your first preference vote.

    Sorry to bang on about this, but if we want to see a high left of Labour vote AND see Ken defeat Boris then 1 Lindsey German / 2 Ken Livingstone or 1 Sian Berry / 2 Ken Livingstone is surely the way to go.

    LikeLike

    Reply
48. 

    jim jay

    March 12, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    I agree with those points Jon B, and your voting recomendation in terms of what is best. However there may be people who don’t want to vote Livingstone at all because he’s on the labour ticket who aren’t going to vote for Johnson either – they may as well cast their second vote for someone.

    As a small point of info (just in case it looks like I’m masquerading as a london voter) I can’t vote in the election (as I live near london but not in it) but I am campaigning in it so I’m talking to people who will vote and so am advocating SB1 KL2 in real life as well as on the internet.

    LikeLike

    Reply
49. 

    a very public sociologist

    March 12, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    No Tom, it isn’t my name, and it’s a name I haven’t used since my column-writing days in the WW. That was three and a half years ago, btw. As for the rest of your reply Tom it reads as if you’ve been on the smelling salts again. Allow me to clarify a few things so you don’t have to make a fool of yourself again.

    1) The SP is calling for a 2nd preference for Livingstone. It’s in the very paragraph you quote, duh.
    2) I can’t recall a time on this thread or at any other time describing Tory voters as lefties. I fear you’re mistaking your own fevered dreams for reality.
    3) There was a debate over lefties voting LibDem in the 2005 election at the UKLN. I recall at least one comrade who said he was placing a cross next to the LibDem candidate because they were less odious than New Labour’s offering. We may think he was mistaken, but given he has a record of activism whereas you prefer to strategise from the comfort of your armchair, I don’t think you’re really in a position to cast aspersions upon any leftist’s record.
    4) I do love it when you come over all witch-huntery Tom. But I hate to break it for you – the SP doesn’t need ideology police, thanks. Comrades are free to argue their points of view within the organisation. And if we did the job would require an activist, which rules you out straight away.

    LikeLike

    Reply
50. 

    Ray

    March 13, 2008 at 5:28 am

    It’s pointless engaging in a he said/she said slanging match with someone who calls anyone who disagrees a troll.
    I’ve been “told” a lot of things in my time. I seem to remember my headmaster “telling” me to respect the queen but thank goodness I soon realised what a load of hogwash that was. It feels like I’m being stalked by a hectoring headmaster. It’s disturbing but also quite amusing.

    LikeLike

    Reply
51. 

    Ray

    March 13, 2008 at 5:51 am

    “You also know that SWP members have been invited to speak at RR meetings, because you’ve commented that they would never stoop so low as to attend.”

    One thing I’d like to pick up on is when did I say this? If you want to disagree with my point of view that’s one thing but please don’t make things up. If you dishonestly attribute words to me it just makes everything else you say seem even more suspect. I believe that if your arguements held any water then you wouldn’t need to resort to character assasination.

    LikeLike

    Reply
52. 

    psephology rules ok

    March 13, 2008 at 7:02 am

    ‘Ray, get used to it: We are Respect. Our 300-strong meeting on Sunday, our successful meetings in Tower Hamlets, Southwark (a brilliant meeting on the economy), Manchester (bowled over by what they’re achieving there) and elsewhere are testimony to that and to the broad party we are building.’

    If it’s the Birmingham meeting that was 300 strong, it wasn’t. There were 17 rows of 16 seats, whch makes 272. A fair few were empty, and very few people standing round the side. Around 200. Still impressive, and you’re pretty much certain to get a 3rd Sparkbrook councillor, but less than last years meeting in the same place.

    If you’re going to make a song and dance about telling the truth..

    LikeLike

    Reply
53. 

    Chris Brooks

    March 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    >>In south London, RR members were outside a StWC meeting leafleting for their own meeting.

    Ray, are you really fallen so low that you have to convince yourself that this was a crime? Doesn’t the SWP distribute its literature? Southwalk Renewal people certainly have been working through STWC to build the demo, even going to neighbouring boroughs to help leaflet in Forest Hill and Brixton,

    LikeLike

    Reply
54. 

    Ray

    March 13, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Chris, I’m responding to allegations that RR have been excluded from StWC. We now find out that Galloway was speaking at the Hounslow StWC meeting! This doesn’t fit into a so-called “pattern of exclusion”. The version of events we’re given seems to depend on who in RR is reporting them rather than any consistant approach.

    I’ve no problem with organisations affiliated to StWC who are involved in building the meetings leafleting for other events (although it seems that one of your comrades in this thread has a big problem with this.) But when RR comrades make no effort to build a StWC meeting and then leaflet for their own meeting outside then I think it’s a bit rich to claim a pattern of exclusion.

    The problem with he said/she said discussions is that it’s all hearsay and very difficult to assertain the truth. What I’m challenging are the RR whispering campaigns that engage in character assasination and are attempting to discredit the SWP. There is nothing political about this sort of behaviour.

    LikeLike

    Reply
55. 

    andyinswindon

    March 13, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Galloway is speaking at Hounslow STW becasue he was invited by the local group.

    He has not been invited by the national STW office to anything for months.

    he was not invited on the World against war tour, he was omited from the guest list for the 15th feb handing ion of a letter to Downing Street, and although he was apparently on the speakers list for saturday, ni one in the STW office contacted him or his office to inform him, or discuss the schedule.

    LikeLike

    Reply
56. 

    johng

    March 13, 2008 at 6:39 pm

    I went through the first part of this week quite upset by the idea that George Galloway had been excluded as a speaker at the StW demo, and was then rather annoyed to discover that once again I’d been taken in.

    Salutations Ray for keeping up this grim business. Its thankless and also a bit depressing watching the left make up bizarre stories about each other.

    LikeLike

    Reply
57. 

    Andy Newman

    March 13, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    But JOhn, who had taken you in?

    The STW office didn’t invite GG unitil after I queried his exclusion with the officers.

    At which point it turns out that GG was on the list of speakers agreed by the officers, but had not been told he was on it by the STW office that is run by the SWP.

    It is not a trivial thing to schedule an MP, GG works until 1:00 am on sat morning, and has a George habbash memorial meeting that day as well.

    LikeLike

    Reply
58. 

    johng

    March 13, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    gosh. busy, busy, busy eh Andy. Pull the other one.

    LikeLike

    Reply
59. 

    Andy Newman

    March 13, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    And now John you congratulate Ray – also known as “Unity is Strngth” who has been one of the most vitriolic SWP trolls on SU blog.

    LikeLike

    Reply
60. 

    Andy Newman

    March 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Well you pull the other one that the failuyre to actually invite GG was not deliberate.

    After all he was also acccidently left off the guest list for the Downing Street tghing on 15th Feb. He was not invited to the TH STW AGM, he was not invited to meet a delegatin of palestinian women last week coming to TH.

    This is a pattern.

    LikeLike

    Reply
61. 

    Ray

    March 13, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    Thanks John for your support. It’s important we dispute the nonsense that comes out of SUN. Unfortunately it’s adopted the odious strategy of character assasination and innuendo that passes for politics on Harry’s Place.

    Andy your version of events are very suspect because they are predicated by your hatred of the SWP. It’s rather like Rupert Murdoch claiming impartiality for his newspaper empire. You call anyone who doesn’t agree with your bizzare proclamations a troll. You’re the boy who cried wolf and no can take you seriously any longer. You twist the truth to suit your agenda and that has emerged as a pattern of your behaviour and the behaviour of your accolytes. It certainly isn’t the behaviour of a socialist with integrity.

    After my rebuff of all the vile accusations can we now get back to discussing politics?

    LikeLike

    Reply
62. 

    Phil

    March 13, 2008 at 10:06 pm

    You call anyone who doesn’t agree with your bizzare proclamations a troll. You’re the boy who cried wolf and no can take you seriously any longer. You twist the truth to suit your agenda and that has emerged as a pattern of your behaviour and the behaviour of your accolytes.
    …
    can we now get back to discussing politics?

    You can start any time.

    LikeLike

    Reply
63. 

    johng

    March 14, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Rays comments always seem entirely measured and reasonable to me Andy. But then I thought mine were and was regularly accused of being a (what is it) ‘typical SWP troll spam bot’ or whathaveyou. I don’t really see that SUN has the right to accuse anyone else of blog impropriety. Anyway. Whatever the very real tensions and fraticidal strife currently ongoing George is on the speakers list and I’m glad thats been clarified (although not on SUN).

    LikeLike

    Reply