| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Smoke filled rooms and pre-election deals | |
| Posted by: | Account suspended | |
| Date/Time: | 11/04/06 15:26:00 |
| First of all, please let me make it clear precisely where I am coming from. I am a member of the ICG and any bias I may have is towards that organisation. I believe that when debating these issues one is entitled to know the score. The ICG is contesting eight seats in four wards - Syon, Isleworth, Hounslow South and Osterley & Spring Grove. In the first two we are fielding full slates of candidates, in each of the last two we are fielding one candidate only. There is absolutely no question of the ICG "targeting Tory wards". Despite its being a purely local organisation the ICG is far too professional and single-minded to entertain ideas about using a crucial election campaign to exact "revenge" on anybody. The ICG's strategy has been carefully thought through, and in fact is no secret for anybody who wants to hear it. In ISLEWORTH the ICG holds all three seats with a large majority. Only Labour can make any pretence to being a credible challenger. In spite of this fact the Conservatives have chosen to field three candidates who will take votes which for the large part would otherwise probably have gone to the ICG. Nevertheless I do not hear Mike berating them for threatening to "let Labour in through the back door". I presume that nobody has a problem understanding the ICG's stategy in fielding three candidates in Isleworth. In SYON the ICG came a close second behind Labour in 2002, with the Liberal Democrats some way behind in third and the Tories running last. The Tories have done little if any work in the ward during the intervening period and there is no good reason to presume that they will achieve a higher vote than either Labour or the ICG on May 4th. The new developments are substantial, but not substantial enough to affect the Labour vs. ICG status quo. The "best" the Tories can expect is to take enough votes which would otherwise have gone to the ICG to keep the ward in Labour's hands. Yet Mike criticises US for targeting the ward. In HOUNSLOW SOUTH Labour holds two seats and the Conservatives one. However the last time the ward went to the polls the ICG polled higher than the Conservatives. On the basis of the above both the Conservatives and ourselves have a valid claim to be Labour's primary challenger in the ward. My understanding is that the ICG made a tentative approach to the Conservatives about three months ago to explore whether or not there was any scope for reaching an understanding. My information is that the Conservatives did discuss the matter but politely rejected the suggestion, insisting that it had a duty to its supporters to field three candidates everywhere (a duty which it has subsequently failed to honour elsewhere). Under the circumstances the ICG would have been morally justified in fielding a full slate of candidates, and in so doing could no more reasonably have been accused of "splitting the vote" than could the Conservatives. In spite of this, the ICG opted to make a unilateral gesture of good faith by nominating just one candidate. We want Labour out as badly as anybody else, but we also have our pride. Under the circumstances I believe we demonstrated generosity of spirit, considering the fact that the Conservatives have yet to give us any formal indication whatsoever that they would be prepared to work with us anyway in the event of a hung council. In OSTERLEY & SPRING GROVE the Conservatives won all three seats comfortably in 2002 in spite of the fact that the ICG fielded a full slate, and held the ward even more securely in last year's by-election in a four-way contest in which we were involved. The "moral duty to our supporters" argument employed by the Conservatives in Isleworth must apply equally to the ICG in Osterley & Spring Grove. There is no danger of Labour winning seats in the ward. In the event of the ICG failing to capture a seat the Conservatives will hold all three. The fact that we are fielding just one candidate as opposed to all three will make this even more likely. The point of my argument is that those who accuse the ICG of "splitting the vote", seeking "revenge", or "targeting Conservative wards" begin with the assumption that the Conservatives and other "proper" political parties have some kind of superior right to engage in the democratic process to other groups such as our own. We refute this. Although we could, and would under other circumstances, operate outside of the elecoral process as a pressure group, we have as much right as anybody else to participate should we so choose. Our strategy is aimed at targeting Labour wards and, in the absence of any co-operation or tangible goodwill, at satisfying honour in Conservative or mixed wards whilst minimising the risk of a Labour vicotry as much as we can under the circumstances. As for any likely alliances after the election in the event of a hung council, we have neither reached nor sought any agreements with any other party or group at this stage. It is something we will address if and when the situation arises. However, it is manifestly unreasonable to expect us to adjust our strategies to suit the interests of organisations who keep us out of the loop and in the dark as to their own intentions. |