It continues to be busy. I'm writing from the Narrowbar Cafe in Penrith, before I head off to two meetings with anti-racism campaigners in Keswick this afternoon.
After Kendal on Tuesday, I briefly stopped off in Bowness-in-Windermere and back to Penrith, where my family is staying with me at the unique and charming Cowshed. But yesterday was the most hectic day of the tour.
Travelling via Carlisle, I arrived in Flimby early morning. It was an eye opener for me to find that Flimby was a "request stop" so it was good that I had a chat with the conductor. On arrival I did an interview for Radio Cumbria at the station.
I then did my three factory tour in calling into Ingessons (FSC paper producer), New Balance (Britain's only producer of trainers) and Eastmans, a chemical factory that has sited two large wind turbines on its premises, that now generate 1/3rd of its annual energy consumption.
Between them, these factories employ over 700 local people. Ingessons and Eastmans have recently switched to using the port of Workington to receive their raw materials, massively reducing their CO2 footprints. New Balance are moving towards a process of switching from solvent based adhesives, to a more environmental melted adhesive process.
Lunchtime disappeared and the chance of eating was postponed, as we met up with local journalists from the Times and Star, and I conducted a phone interview with a national political editor about the campaign here in the North West.
We then moved on to a visit to Allerby Community Gardens, which is a local project employing adult with learning disabilities, to grow and sell plants, produce and free range eggs (there were some very healthy looking chickens!)
Finally, we finished off in Maryport, which is tonight hosting a Green Party fundraising event. Today is my last day here. I've really enjoyed meeting so many good people. As Arnie would say, "I'll be back" - for hustings on 19th May.
30 April 2009
28 April 2009
Cumbria Tour Update 1
A great start to my tour of Cumbria on Saturday, beginning in Carlisle meeting local members, local anti-racism campaigners and local journalists. We then went out onto the street in Castle ward, delivering hundreds of leaflets and talking with voters.
You'll recall earlier in the year, the BNP finished in 3rd place in a council byelection in Castle ward, with national press coverage in the Independent, and a huge influx of their activists from across the country. What have they done since? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. As usual, the BNP pursued its own agenda, to elect Nick Griffin, and then abandons local people, failing to deliver leaflets, knock on doors or any involvement in the community. You heard it here first – in the council division election for Castle, expect to see the Greens overtake the BNP.
We then hopped across the city centre to Rickergate, where in 2005 residents had been flooded out of their homes in the major flood event that took place in Carlisle. The local group Save Our Streets have been largely abandoned by the red, yellow and blue parties and for that reason are backing our Euro campaign.
After lunch I went to meet campaigners against the proposed development at Carlisle airport. This is a complex issue, so I'll be posting on it after the tour, but I'm looking forward to seeing them also go online with their own blog as well.
Sunday was more complex. Transport difficulties meant I missed the start of the Chernobyl walk at Wast Water. A large group of people assembled and completed the walk, but it took seven hours. I did manage a planning meeting with one of our hardworking Cumbrian Euro candidates, Geoff Smith, in Gosforth.
While I would have loved doing the walk, I was certainly fresher on Monday for my visits to Cockermouth and Keswick, and this morning I was in Kendal to join with protesters arguing in favour of a windfarm development. Lots more to come...
You'll recall earlier in the year, the BNP finished in 3rd place in a council byelection in Castle ward, with national press coverage in the Independent, and a huge influx of their activists from across the country. What have they done since? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. As usual, the BNP pursued its own agenda, to elect Nick Griffin, and then abandons local people, failing to deliver leaflets, knock on doors or any involvement in the community. You heard it here first – in the council division election for Castle, expect to see the Greens overtake the BNP.
We then hopped across the city centre to Rickergate, where in 2005 residents had been flooded out of their homes in the major flood event that took place in Carlisle. The local group Save Our Streets have been largely abandoned by the red, yellow and blue parties and for that reason are backing our Euro campaign.
After lunch I went to meet campaigners against the proposed development at Carlisle airport. This is a complex issue, so I'll be posting on it after the tour, but I'm looking forward to seeing them also go online with their own blog as well.
Sunday was more complex. Transport difficulties meant I missed the start of the Chernobyl walk at Wast Water. A large group of people assembled and completed the walk, but it took seven hours. I did manage a planning meeting with one of our hardworking Cumbrian Euro candidates, Geoff Smith, in Gosforth.
While I would have loved doing the walk, I was certainly fresher on Monday for my visits to Cockermouth and Keswick, and this morning I was in Kendal to join with protesters arguing in favour of a windfarm development. Lots more to come...
25 April 2009
Cumbria Tour Begins
I'm now on tour in Cumbria, campaigning up here until Thursday, so blog updates as and when I can add them.
Today's itinery:
- Met with local members
- Interview with journalist in Carlisle
- Out leafleting and talking with voters
- Meeting with campaigners opposing the proposed development of the airport
- Strategy meeting with local co-ordinator
A really successful day today. We covered a big chunk of Castle ward with our leaflets and despite seeing the BNP stall in town, we know they are in decline in Castle compared to their byelection performance.
Contrast Carlisle Green Party, in for the long hall, with activity every week in the area, with the BNP who have done precisely nothing since the byelection. That is why we are going to win the 4th seat, and that is why we are going to beat the far right.
Our new website www.stopnickgriffin.org.uk launched today.
Much more Cumbria campaigning to follow in the next few days.
Today's itinery:
- Met with local members
- Interview with journalist in Carlisle
- Out leafleting and talking with voters
- Meeting with campaigners opposing the proposed development of the airport
- Strategy meeting with local co-ordinator
A really successful day today. We covered a big chunk of Castle ward with our leaflets and despite seeing the BNP stall in town, we know they are in decline in Castle compared to their byelection performance.
Contrast Carlisle Green Party, in for the long hall, with activity every week in the area, with the BNP who have done precisely nothing since the byelection. That is why we are going to win the 4th seat, and that is why we are going to beat the far right.
Our new website www.stopnickgriffin.org.uk launched today.
Much more Cumbria campaigning to follow in the next few days.
24 April 2009
Letters Day
One in the Guardian today, with letters published in the New Statesman and the Morning Star yesterday.
Following on from City Talk on Wednesday, and my feedback on the budget, it has been a good media week for us. I'm reproducing the longest of the three letters published below:
TURNOUT is a key element of the Euro election battle against the BNP in the North West and Hope Not Hate should be applauded for its campaign to maximise anti-racist votes.
If the BNP polls more than 10 per cent because of low turnout, it will become a certainty that Nick Griffin will represent the North West in the European Parliament.
No-one can dispute the fact that, if the BNP finishes as the fifth largest party in the North West, it makes the prospect of Griffin's election far less likely.
That makes the race for fourth place in the North West one of the most crucial battles of this campaign.
For that reason the Green Party has welcomed the decision by Respect in this region to advocate a tactical anti-racist vote for the Greens to help keep Griffin out of Europe. The combined Green/Respect support of 6.8 per cent in 2004 was greater than the vote share achieved by the BNP.
It is disturbing that the BNP was able to gain 23 per cent in a North Manchester council by-election, even in an area with a target demographic for them, but this was only achieved with an intensive campaign effort.
For some perspective, it is worth remembering that, in the 2008 local elections, intensive campaigning saw the Greens gain 43 per cent in a Liverpool ward, 40 per cent in a Manchester ward and 30 per cent in a white working-class area of Widnes.
If the BNP gets the 7.5 to 9 per cent that many people are predicting, then relying only on the red, yellow and blue parties to come up with a combination of votes that will keep out the BNP is like throwing three dice and hoping for a double six.
Voting Green to keep the BNP in fifth place is going to be one of the best ways to keep the BNP out and the nature of the D'Hondt system means that a tactical vote for the Greens is going to be three times more valuable than a tactical vote for Labour.
PETER CRANIE
Lead European Candidate
Green Party, North West Region
Following on from City Talk on Wednesday, and my feedback on the budget, it has been a good media week for us. I'm reproducing the longest of the three letters published below:
TURNOUT is a key element of the Euro election battle against the BNP in the North West and Hope Not Hate should be applauded for its campaign to maximise anti-racist votes.
If the BNP polls more than 10 per cent because of low turnout, it will become a certainty that Nick Griffin will represent the North West in the European Parliament.
No-one can dispute the fact that, if the BNP finishes as the fifth largest party in the North West, it makes the prospect of Griffin's election far less likely.
That makes the race for fourth place in the North West one of the most crucial battles of this campaign.
For that reason the Green Party has welcomed the decision by Respect in this region to advocate a tactical anti-racist vote for the Greens to help keep Griffin out of Europe. The combined Green/Respect support of 6.8 per cent in 2004 was greater than the vote share achieved by the BNP.
It is disturbing that the BNP was able to gain 23 per cent in a North Manchester council by-election, even in an area with a target demographic for them, but this was only achieved with an intensive campaign effort.
For some perspective, it is worth remembering that, in the 2008 local elections, intensive campaigning saw the Greens gain 43 per cent in a Liverpool ward, 40 per cent in a Manchester ward and 30 per cent in a white working-class area of Widnes.
If the BNP gets the 7.5 to 9 per cent that many people are predicting, then relying only on the red, yellow and blue parties to come up with a combination of votes that will keep out the BNP is like throwing three dice and hoping for a double six.
Voting Green to keep the BNP in fifth place is going to be one of the best ways to keep the BNP out and the nature of the D'Hondt system means that a tactical vote for the Greens is going to be three times more valuable than a tactical vote for Labour.
PETER CRANIE
Lead European Candidate
Green Party, North West Region
22 April 2009
The People Don't Lie
A really interesting post here at Times Comment following the surprise leap in the Lib Dem poll rating.
Lib Dem average poll ratings 2003 to 2009:
2003 22.5%
2004 22.0%
2005 21.2%
2006 18.5%
2007 16.1%
2008 17.0%
2009 17.3%
Not good news for the Liberal Democrats. They seem to have lost about 20% of their support compared to their vote around the time of the last European Elections. In the North West that would translate into a vote share of around 13% this time, enough to re-elect Chris Davies, but nowhere near close enough to win a second seat.
Their support here in Liverpool has dropped by 50% and may have further to go down, and while I’m sure they have got pockets of improvement around the North West, you can’t argue with the numbers. Even the sudden leap with one pollster can easily be explained away:
the change is simply committed LibDems shifting from the "very likely to vote" category to the "certain to vote" category. The MORI methodology magnifies their significance.
It could get much worse for Nick Clegg soon. Watch this space.
Lib Dem average poll ratings 2003 to 2009:
2003 22.5%
2004 22.0%
2005 21.2%
2006 18.5%
2007 16.1%
2008 17.0%
2009 17.3%
Not good news for the Liberal Democrats. They seem to have lost about 20% of their support compared to their vote around the time of the last European Elections. In the North West that would translate into a vote share of around 13% this time, enough to re-elect Chris Davies, but nowhere near close enough to win a second seat.
Their support here in Liverpool has dropped by 50% and may have further to go down, and while I’m sure they have got pockets of improvement around the North West, you can’t argue with the numbers. Even the sudden leap with one pollster can easily be explained away:
the change is simply committed LibDems shifting from the "very likely to vote" category to the "certain to vote" category. The MORI methodology magnifies their significance.
It could get much worse for Nick Clegg soon. Watch this space.
Another Smudge-It Budget
To quote Victor Meldrew: “I don’t believe it.”
I don’t believe a single new target that this government announces about the environment.
The scrappage scheme is a disgrace. Not a hint towards any sort of green justification. There are no requirements that the new car is smaller or greener than the old car. This will be used by people who still have disposable incomes to upgrade their car (nip out, buy an old banger for £200 and then trade it in). It will also encourage people to spend their money on cars, rather than say, home improvements. The jobs losses will simply be felt elsewhere in the economy.
No major “green new deal” package. Some rehashed announcements and of course, a new target of a 34% cut in CO2 emission before 2020.
Sorry Alistair. Sorry Gordon. We’ve been here before. Labour promised us real cuts in CO2 emissions back in 1997. It hasn’t happened. Your 34% cut is nonsense, on the back of your decision to allow Heathrow and Stansted to expand.
As Caroline Lucas points out, we needed something like £30 billion to actually generate the kind of job creation and economic revolution we need. If the government’s own advisors can see this, why can’t the government?
We simply can’t point the finger at China or the United States on CO2 emissions if we can’t get our own house in order. Scrap Trident, put the money into a Green New Deal. Nuclear weapons offer no defence against Climate Change.
I don’t believe a single new target that this government announces about the environment.
The scrappage scheme is a disgrace. Not a hint towards any sort of green justification. There are no requirements that the new car is smaller or greener than the old car. This will be used by people who still have disposable incomes to upgrade their car (nip out, buy an old banger for £200 and then trade it in). It will also encourage people to spend their money on cars, rather than say, home improvements. The jobs losses will simply be felt elsewhere in the economy.
No major “green new deal” package. Some rehashed announcements and of course, a new target of a 34% cut in CO2 emission before 2020.
Sorry Alistair. Sorry Gordon. We’ve been here before. Labour promised us real cuts in CO2 emissions back in 1997. It hasn’t happened. Your 34% cut is nonsense, on the back of your decision to allow Heathrow and Stansted to expand.
As Caroline Lucas points out, we needed something like £30 billion to actually generate the kind of job creation and economic revolution we need. If the government’s own advisors can see this, why can’t the government?
We simply can’t point the finger at China or the United States on CO2 emissions if we can’t get our own house in order. Scrap Trident, put the money into a Green New Deal. Nuclear weapons offer no defence against Climate Change.
21 April 2009
Stop Climate Change - Switch to Green Power
A great new viral energy animation here. Watch and please forward on to people that you know.
18 April 2009
Donations and the Law
If any political party accepts donations from individuals, there are some very clear rules about what must happen. Emphasis in bold is mine.
54 Permissible donors
(1) A donation received by a registered party must not be accepted by the party if—
(a) the person by whom the donation would be made is not, at the time of its receipt by the party, a permissible donor; or
(b) the party is (whether because the donation is given anonymously or by reason of any deception or concealment or otherwise) unable to ascertain the identity of that person.
(2) For the purposes of this Part the following are permissible donors—
(a) an individual registered in an electoral register;
(b) a company—
(i) registered under the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 or the [S.I. 1986/1032 (N.I. 6).] Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and
(ii) incorporated within the United Kingdom or another member State,
which carries on business in the United Kingdom;
(c) a registered party;
(d) a trade union entered in the list kept under the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or the [S.I. 1992/807 (N.I.5).] Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992;
(e) a building society (within the meaning of the [1986 c. 53.] Building Societies Act 1986);
(f) a limited liability partnership registered under the [2000 c. 12.] Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland, which carries on business in the United Kingdom;
(g) a friendly society registered under the [1974 c. 46.] Friendly Societies Act 1974 or a society registered (or deemed to be registered) under the [1965 c. 12.] Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the [1969 c. 24.] Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; and
(h) any unincorporated association of two or more persons which does not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs but which carries on business or other activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and whose main office is there.
(3) In relation to a donation in the form of a bequest subsection (2)(a) shall be read as referring to an individual who was, at any time within the period of five years ending with the date of his death, registered in an electoral register.
(4) Where any person (“the principal donor”) causes an amount (“the principal donation”) to be received by a registered party by way of a donation—
(a) on behalf of himself and one or more other persons, or
(b) on behalf of two or more other persons,
then for the purposes of this Part each individual contribution by a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of more than £200 shall be treated as if it were a separate donation received from that person.
(5) In relation to each such separate donation, the principal donor must ensure that, at the time when the principal donation is received by the party, the party is given—
(a) (except in the case of a donation which the principal donor is treated as making) all such details in respect of the person treated as making the donation as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation; and
(b) (in any case) all such details in respect of the donation as are required by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of a recordable donation.
(6) Where—
(a) any person (“the agent”) causes an amount to be received by a registered party by way of a donation on behalf of another person (“the donor”), and
(b) the amount of that donation is more than £200,
the agent must ensure that, at the time when the donation is received by the party, the party is given all such details in respect of the donor as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation.
(7) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to comply with subsection (5) or (6).
(8) In this section “electoral register” means any of the following—
(a) a register of parliamentary or local government electors maintained under section 9 of the Representation of the [1983 c. 2.] People Act 1983;
(b) a register of relevant citizens of the European Union prepared under Part III of the European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the [S.I. 1994/342.] Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations 1994; or
(c) a register of peers prepared under regulations under section 3 of the Representation of the [1985 c. 50.] People Act 1985.
Let me translate. Any individual donation of more than £200 has to be declared to the Electoral Commission. Let's look at an example.
In Quarter 2 of 2008 (April to June) the Liberal Democrats reported a list of donations from around the country. You can look at this yourself on the Electoral Commission website.
You'll see a range of donations to the Liberal Democrats, coming from ethical organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, business such as Marcus Evan Limited and individuals like J Kramer (£664.10). All of these donations have to be declared. At the end of the year, the Liberal Democrats publish their annual accounts, which are signed off by their treasurer. Here is an example from 2007.
Occasionally political parties make mistakes. A donation might be reported a few weeks, or at worst, a few months late. These are usually mistakes made at a local level, and not at a national level.
Our democracy and the integrity of our political process is dependent on being able to trust that political parties will uphold the law, will not bend or break the rules on donations, and will not bring the results of previous elections into disrepute.
This is an absolutely key issue. If a political party is not to be trusted on making a full declaration of their donations, then just how do we account for how that money is spent?
The recent conviction of my local Liberal Democrat councillor Steve Hurst, under the Representation of the People Act (covered extensively in previous posts) deals with his personal transgression of delivering these leaflets. However, they must have been printed somewhere and by someone. If this was the case, they should have been included on the expenses of the Liberal Democrats in that ward (although clearly they were not, because there was no imprint, and Cllr Hurst spent two years denying this).
If these leaflets were not included in the expenses (and I presume the local Lib Dems are still protesting their innocence despite a clear conviction in a Court of Law), then that surely means that in this one case the full Lib Dem election effort in that ward was not properly accounted for?
I sincerely hope that Cllr Hurst's actions were an isolated incident, that no-one else in the local Liberal Democrats knew anything about the design of the leaflets, the cost of printing these leaflets or where the paper came from. This would mean it was an entirely solo effort from Cllr Hurst, unknown to any of his colleagues, and his responsibility (and crime) alone.
What worries me is that tolerance of his behaviour sets a precedent about what is and isn't acceptable. Despite his conviction, he is still a member of the Liberal Democrats here in Liverpool. He has not had the whip withdrawn. He has not been expelled from their party. Surely his behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, absolutely out of line and surely isn't typical?
By retaining Cllr Hurst as a member and as a councillor, it suggests that his actions are to be tolerated. If this behaviour is tolerated, what else might be?
54 Permissible donors
(1) A donation received by a registered party must not be accepted by the party if—
(a) the person by whom the donation would be made is not, at the time of its receipt by the party, a permissible donor; or
(b) the party is (whether because the donation is given anonymously or by reason of any deception or concealment or otherwise) unable to ascertain the identity of that person.
(2) For the purposes of this Part the following are permissible donors—
(a) an individual registered in an electoral register;
(b) a company—
(i) registered under the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 or the [S.I. 1986/1032 (N.I. 6).] Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and
(ii) incorporated within the United Kingdom or another member State,
which carries on business in the United Kingdom;
(c) a registered party;
(d) a trade union entered in the list kept under the [1992 c. 52.] Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or the [S.I. 1992/807 (N.I.5).] Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992;
(e) a building society (within the meaning of the [1986 c. 53.] Building Societies Act 1986);
(f) a limited liability partnership registered under the [2000 c. 12.] Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, or any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland, which carries on business in the United Kingdom;
(g) a friendly society registered under the [1974 c. 46.] Friendly Societies Act 1974 or a society registered (or deemed to be registered) under the [1965 c. 12.] Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the [1969 c. 24.] Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; and
(h) any unincorporated association of two or more persons which does not fall within any of the preceding paragraphs but which carries on business or other activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and whose main office is there.
(3) In relation to a donation in the form of a bequest subsection (2)(a) shall be read as referring to an individual who was, at any time within the period of five years ending with the date of his death, registered in an electoral register.
(4) Where any person (“the principal donor”) causes an amount (“the principal donation”) to be received by a registered party by way of a donation—
(a) on behalf of himself and one or more other persons, or
(b) on behalf of two or more other persons,
then for the purposes of this Part each individual contribution by a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of more than £200 shall be treated as if it were a separate donation received from that person.
(5) In relation to each such separate donation, the principal donor must ensure that, at the time when the principal donation is received by the party, the party is given—
(a) (except in the case of a donation which the principal donor is treated as making) all such details in respect of the person treated as making the donation as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation; and
(b) (in any case) all such details in respect of the donation as are required by virtue of paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of a recordable donation.
(6) Where—
(a) any person (“the agent”) causes an amount to be received by a registered party by way of a donation on behalf of another person (“the donor”), and
(b) the amount of that donation is more than £200,
the agent must ensure that, at the time when the donation is received by the party, the party is given all such details in respect of the donor as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation.
(7) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to comply with subsection (5) or (6).
(8) In this section “electoral register” means any of the following—
(a) a register of parliamentary or local government electors maintained under section 9 of the Representation of the [1983 c. 2.] People Act 1983;
(b) a register of relevant citizens of the European Union prepared under Part III of the European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the [S.I. 1994/342.] Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations 1994; or
(c) a register of peers prepared under regulations under section 3 of the Representation of the [1985 c. 50.] People Act 1985.
Let me translate. Any individual donation of more than £200 has to be declared to the Electoral Commission. Let's look at an example.
In Quarter 2 of 2008 (April to June) the Liberal Democrats reported a list of donations from around the country. You can look at this yourself on the Electoral Commission website.
You'll see a range of donations to the Liberal Democrats, coming from ethical organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, business such as Marcus Evan Limited and individuals like J Kramer (£664.10). All of these donations have to be declared. At the end of the year, the Liberal Democrats publish their annual accounts, which are signed off by their treasurer. Here is an example from 2007.
Occasionally political parties make mistakes. A donation might be reported a few weeks, or at worst, a few months late. These are usually mistakes made at a local level, and not at a national level.
Our democracy and the integrity of our political process is dependent on being able to trust that political parties will uphold the law, will not bend or break the rules on donations, and will not bring the results of previous elections into disrepute.
This is an absolutely key issue. If a political party is not to be trusted on making a full declaration of their donations, then just how do we account for how that money is spent?
The recent conviction of my local Liberal Democrat councillor Steve Hurst, under the Representation of the People Act (covered extensively in previous posts) deals with his personal transgression of delivering these leaflets. However, they must have been printed somewhere and by someone. If this was the case, they should have been included on the expenses of the Liberal Democrats in that ward (although clearly they were not, because there was no imprint, and Cllr Hurst spent two years denying this).
If these leaflets were not included in the expenses (and I presume the local Lib Dems are still protesting their innocence despite a clear conviction in a Court of Law), then that surely means that in this one case the full Lib Dem election effort in that ward was not properly accounted for?
I sincerely hope that Cllr Hurst's actions were an isolated incident, that no-one else in the local Liberal Democrats knew anything about the design of the leaflets, the cost of printing these leaflets or where the paper came from. This would mean it was an entirely solo effort from Cllr Hurst, unknown to any of his colleagues, and his responsibility (and crime) alone.
What worries me is that tolerance of his behaviour sets a precedent about what is and isn't acceptable. Despite his conviction, he is still a member of the Liberal Democrats here in Liverpool. He has not had the whip withdrawn. He has not been expelled from their party. Surely his behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, absolutely out of line and surely isn't typical?
By retaining Cllr Hurst as a member and as a councillor, it suggests that his actions are to be tolerated. If this behaviour is tolerated, what else might be?
16 April 2009
Could Liverpool's Tories Make a Comeback?
For anyone that hates a bit of political trainspotting, stop reading now.
It sounds like a ridiculous proposition. Tories? Liverpool? However, I’ll put my neck out and say that in 2010 the Conservatives will be very close to winning back a seat on the city council. Also, it is entirely possible we'll see a defection to the Tories here in Liverpool, just as has happened in Manchester.
How might the Tories win a seat back? The best ward for the Conservatives in Liverpool is Woolton, where they polled 33% of the vote in 2008, finishing 517 votes (13.5%) behind the Liberal Democrats.
In 2006 the Greens narrowly finished 2nd in St Michaels, 437 votes behind the Lib Dems and with a larger percentage gap to close than the Tories currently face in Woolton. The following year we added 557 votes to our total, with the Labour vote largely static, suggesting that 250+ former Lib Dem voters switched to us.
There were exceptional circumstances. Cllr John Coyne had defected to us over an issue of principle, the demolition of the Welsh Streets, and we spent a year doing intensive work in the ward. John also had a tremendous record as a local councillor and was easily the most active in the ward. A lot of personal votes transferred over to John.
Short of a defection, the Conservatives can’t expect to do the same in Woolton, but there are other factors at play. In 2008 the Tories have substantially narrowed the gap to just 517 votes from being over 1200 votes behind in the previous two elections. They are now a credible challenger, but for them to win, they will need to get voters to switch directly from the Lib Dems, and for the Lib Dems to leak support to other parties.
How might this happen? If a major scandal hit the Lib Dems in Liverpool, this might be the Tories best opportunity in a generation to win a seat. In 2010 the election will almost certainly be at the same time, perhaps boosting the Tories profile in Liverpool at a crucial time. If local voters drift back to Labour or the Greens in sufficient numbers, I think the Tories could just sneak it.
The tough thing for the Tories though would be to repeat that result. Come 2011, a sitting councillor from a Liberal Democrat opposition group will be tougher to beat than they currently might be as a discredited ruling party. While I think the Tories have a good chance of getting their foot in the door of local politics next year, I also think it will be their only chance for another four year cycle. With the Conservatives likely to be back in power nationally, a sole Tory councillor will be in for a pretty tough time.
It sounds like a ridiculous proposition. Tories? Liverpool? However, I’ll put my neck out and say that in 2010 the Conservatives will be very close to winning back a seat on the city council. Also, it is entirely possible we'll see a defection to the Tories here in Liverpool, just as has happened in Manchester.
How might the Tories win a seat back? The best ward for the Conservatives in Liverpool is Woolton, where they polled 33% of the vote in 2008, finishing 517 votes (13.5%) behind the Liberal Democrats.
In 2006 the Greens narrowly finished 2nd in St Michaels, 437 votes behind the Lib Dems and with a larger percentage gap to close than the Tories currently face in Woolton. The following year we added 557 votes to our total, with the Labour vote largely static, suggesting that 250+ former Lib Dem voters switched to us.
There were exceptional circumstances. Cllr John Coyne had defected to us over an issue of principle, the demolition of the Welsh Streets, and we spent a year doing intensive work in the ward. John also had a tremendous record as a local councillor and was easily the most active in the ward. A lot of personal votes transferred over to John.
Short of a defection, the Conservatives can’t expect to do the same in Woolton, but there are other factors at play. In 2008 the Tories have substantially narrowed the gap to just 517 votes from being over 1200 votes behind in the previous two elections. They are now a credible challenger, but for them to win, they will need to get voters to switch directly from the Lib Dems, and for the Lib Dems to leak support to other parties.
How might this happen? If a major scandal hit the Lib Dems in Liverpool, this might be the Tories best opportunity in a generation to win a seat. In 2010 the election will almost certainly be at the same time, perhaps boosting the Tories profile in Liverpool at a crucial time. If local voters drift back to Labour or the Greens in sufficient numbers, I think the Tories could just sneak it.
The tough thing for the Tories though would be to repeat that result. Come 2011, a sitting councillor from a Liberal Democrat opposition group will be tougher to beat than they currently might be as a discredited ruling party. While I think the Tories have a good chance of getting their foot in the door of local politics next year, I also think it will be their only chance for another four year cycle. With the Conservatives likely to be back in power nationally, a sole Tory councillor will be in for a pretty tough time.
What If?
The Times reports last year captures the drama of election night in Liverpool last year. As someone at the count, there was a sense of grudging achievement, rather than elation amongst the Labour Party councillors and activists around the hall. In terms of popular vote share, Labour won by 40% to 34% and it looked like they had ended majority control for the Lib Dems.
To win control of the council outright, Labour would have needed to take 10 seats against a national tide of anti-Labour sentiment, a near impossible task. In the end they made a net gain of 4. But with the Greens gaining a second seat in St Michaels, this was enough to put the council into a state of no overall control. Step forward Cllr Stewart, who joined the Lib Dem group that night, saving the administration.
The missing part of the story is the two wards Labour narrowly missed out on. It was so close to being very, very different. In County ward the Liberal Democrats clung on by just 7 votes. In Knotty Ash, the absence of a Liberal Party candidate probably explains why the Lib Dems held on by just 35 votes there, although there was also the potential impact of this to consider as well.
So this was a really marginal election, and these were really crucial results. Imagine if circumstances had been just slightly different or the Lib Dems had spent just a little less money, or put a little less activist time into marginal wards.
The council would have looked like this:
Lib Dems 43
Labour 41
Liberal Party 3
Greens 2
Independent (Cllr Stewart) 1
How would things have been different? Having seen the Lib Dems lose the popular vote, I think we can safely say that the Greens would not have propped them up in formal coalition. We would have voted on an issue by issue basis, but been willing to negotiate ahead of the budget to get some job creation and environmental improvements onto the council agenda.
Could the Labour Party have convinced the Greens and the Liberal Party to form an administration? Once again, I think I can safely say that we had discussed an issue by issue arrangement, or “confidence and supply” but we would have steered clear of a formal coalition. Had Labour and the Liberals gone into formal coalition, they would have formed the largest group on the council, and it likely there would have been a change of administration.
Given that the Liberal Party didn’t stand in Belle Vale, Knotty Ash and St Michaels, it did appear that they favoured an arrangement with the Lib Dems over Labour. Would the Liberal Party have acted as a coalition partner to the Liberal Democrats or Labour? I can’t answer that question, but Steve Radford’s group would have also had an opportunity to exert considerable influence if they had chosen to formally join an administration. I imagine in retrospect, the decision not to stand in Knotty Ash might haunt them a little.
Finally, while Cllr Stewart may still have considered moving over to the Lib Dems, this has come at a high personal cost based on the reactions I have seen about her move over. She may have been able to take up the same post she has now while remaining independent. Her single vote would not have been crucial in the way it is today in the council chamber.
Would a council with no overall control have meant a better deal for the people of Liverpool? I think it would. Promises by the Lib Dems to work together with all parties to resolve the budget gap have not been honoured, despite a council motion passed in favour of doing this. The Lib Dems have performed a spectacular u-turn at their budget, proposing to scrap 25 lollipop attendants. However a clever Green amendment was passed protecting one job, subsequently causing a spectacular u-turning so they were all saved.
There are continuing rumblings of discontent in the city. As we can see nationally with the Labour government, being in power for too long has it drawbacks. Complacency and entitlement sets in. Ministers “haven’t broken any rules” in regards to expenses claims, but quite rightly, we are outraged. Liberal Democrat Cllr Steve Hurst has been convicted under the Representation of the People Act, but is still a sitting Lib Dem councillor. So far, Nick Clegg is yet to reply on the issue of whether Cllr Hurst should remain in the Liberal Democrat Party, and were the Lib Dems in opposition and not reliant on that single vote for a majority, perhaps they would have a more “principled” position.
So I’m running a poll. Would Liverpool have been better off in 2008/09 with the Lib Dems no longer in a position of sole control of the city council? You decide, you comment.
To win control of the council outright, Labour would have needed to take 10 seats against a national tide of anti-Labour sentiment, a near impossible task. In the end they made a net gain of 4. But with the Greens gaining a second seat in St Michaels, this was enough to put the council into a state of no overall control. Step forward Cllr Stewart, who joined the Lib Dem group that night, saving the administration.
The missing part of the story is the two wards Labour narrowly missed out on. It was so close to being very, very different. In County ward the Liberal Democrats clung on by just 7 votes. In Knotty Ash, the absence of a Liberal Party candidate probably explains why the Lib Dems held on by just 35 votes there, although there was also the potential impact of this to consider as well.
So this was a really marginal election, and these were really crucial results. Imagine if circumstances had been just slightly different or the Lib Dems had spent just a little less money, or put a little less activist time into marginal wards.
The council would have looked like this:
Lib Dems 43
Labour 41
Liberal Party 3
Greens 2
Independent (Cllr Stewart) 1
How would things have been different? Having seen the Lib Dems lose the popular vote, I think we can safely say that the Greens would not have propped them up in formal coalition. We would have voted on an issue by issue basis, but been willing to negotiate ahead of the budget to get some job creation and environmental improvements onto the council agenda.
Could the Labour Party have convinced the Greens and the Liberal Party to form an administration? Once again, I think I can safely say that we had discussed an issue by issue arrangement, or “confidence and supply” but we would have steered clear of a formal coalition. Had Labour and the Liberals gone into formal coalition, they would have formed the largest group on the council, and it likely there would have been a change of administration.
Given that the Liberal Party didn’t stand in Belle Vale, Knotty Ash and St Michaels, it did appear that they favoured an arrangement with the Lib Dems over Labour. Would the Liberal Party have acted as a coalition partner to the Liberal Democrats or Labour? I can’t answer that question, but Steve Radford’s group would have also had an opportunity to exert considerable influence if they had chosen to formally join an administration. I imagine in retrospect, the decision not to stand in Knotty Ash might haunt them a little.
Finally, while Cllr Stewart may still have considered moving over to the Lib Dems, this has come at a high personal cost based on the reactions I have seen about her move over. She may have been able to take up the same post she has now while remaining independent. Her single vote would not have been crucial in the way it is today in the council chamber.
Would a council with no overall control have meant a better deal for the people of Liverpool? I think it would. Promises by the Lib Dems to work together with all parties to resolve the budget gap have not been honoured, despite a council motion passed in favour of doing this. The Lib Dems have performed a spectacular u-turn at their budget, proposing to scrap 25 lollipop attendants. However a clever Green amendment was passed protecting one job, subsequently causing a spectacular u-turning so they were all saved.
There are continuing rumblings of discontent in the city. As we can see nationally with the Labour government, being in power for too long has it drawbacks. Complacency and entitlement sets in. Ministers “haven’t broken any rules” in regards to expenses claims, but quite rightly, we are outraged. Liberal Democrat Cllr Steve Hurst has been convicted under the Representation of the People Act, but is still a sitting Lib Dem councillor. So far, Nick Clegg is yet to reply on the issue of whether Cllr Hurst should remain in the Liberal Democrat Party, and were the Lib Dems in opposition and not reliant on that single vote for a majority, perhaps they would have a more “principled” position.
So I’m running a poll. Would Liverpool have been better off in 2008/09 with the Lib Dems no longer in a position of sole control of the city council? You decide, you comment.
15 April 2009
Liverpool Remembers
Today is the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. Many people have lost their lives at sporting events around the world. We should pay our respects to them all on this day, but in particular the 96 who lost their lives just 20 years ago. Liverpool continues to remember you.
14 April 2009
15th April, 62 Castle Street - A Date to Remember?
Talk to anyone "in the know" in Labour, Lib Dem or Green circles in Liverpool, and you'll quickly find the above date will enter the discussion fairly quickly.
The Lib Dems have form in Liverpool. Two leaders of the council have been referred to the Standards Board for England. It cost Mike Storey his position in 2005 and severely embarrassed Warren Bradley earlier this year, with the report saying:
"Councillor Bradley has recognised that his meeting with Lee Forde was unwise and possibly naïve. The ethical standards officer considered this to be particularly so as Lee Forde was in the process of taking out an unfair dismissal case against the council. However, conflicting accounts of the meeting made it impossible for the ethical standards officer to conclude exactly what was discussed. She was, therefore, not satisfied that Councillor Bradley failed to treat Jason Harborow with respect by conspiring against him at the meeting on 18 November."
Last week, Cllr Steve Hurst had his appeal against his conviction under the Representation of the People Act thrown out. Louise Baldock covers the story. A Court has found him guilty and he still sits as my local councillor, along with his two ward colleagues Cllr Bradley and Cllr Storey. It is a pretty sordid record.
Jim Jepps has an excellent article about the current national scandal for Labour. The local Liberal Democrats could do worse than read this. It only takes a disgruntled former member of staff, a misplaced forwarded email or a single genuine whistleblower (from within) to cause a story to break.
I'm pretty sure Labour in Liverpool also now have a copy of some of the correspondence that constitutes the "smoking gun" in relation to the event that allegedly took place on the above date, so strictly speaking, when this story breaks is now beyond our control. However there are two additional variables right now. Labour nationally is being hammered by the Derek Draper / Damien McBride matter. Breaking this story about the Lib Dems now might only serve to remind people about Labour also being mired in national scandal. Maybe Labour locally are considering holding this back until far closer to the local elections in 2010.
The second issue is that trust is so very low in politics in general, this is just another nail in the coffin. Something like this might benefit the Greens, but it may depress turnout overall, and help the far right in this Euro election. In normal circumstances, we'd be delighted to break a story like this at a crucial time (just a few days before postal ballots go out), but these are not normal times.
So to round off. We know. Labour knows. If you are a decent Lib Dem (and there still are a few left in Liverpool) you'll deal with this situation while it is still in your control, and in a way that limits the damage and fall out. You show that despite the actions of individuals, as a party you are prepared to take remedial action. If you have no idea why the date is significant, then it must mean that the internal splits in the local Lib Dems are far, far worse than I imagined.
Your party is on a month's notice, unless of course, Labour break this story first, or it comes out in another way. I'm pretty sure the comments on Dave Bartlett's blog show that this is going to come out soon.
The Lib Dems have form in Liverpool. Two leaders of the council have been referred to the Standards Board for England. It cost Mike Storey his position in 2005 and severely embarrassed Warren Bradley earlier this year, with the report saying:
"Councillor Bradley has recognised that his meeting with Lee Forde was unwise and possibly naïve. The ethical standards officer considered this to be particularly so as Lee Forde was in the process of taking out an unfair dismissal case against the council. However, conflicting accounts of the meeting made it impossible for the ethical standards officer to conclude exactly what was discussed. She was, therefore, not satisfied that Councillor Bradley failed to treat Jason Harborow with respect by conspiring against him at the meeting on 18 November."
Last week, Cllr Steve Hurst had his appeal against his conviction under the Representation of the People Act thrown out. Louise Baldock covers the story. A Court has found him guilty and he still sits as my local councillor, along with his two ward colleagues Cllr Bradley and Cllr Storey. It is a pretty sordid record.
Jim Jepps has an excellent article about the current national scandal for Labour. The local Liberal Democrats could do worse than read this. It only takes a disgruntled former member of staff, a misplaced forwarded email or a single genuine whistleblower (from within) to cause a story to break.
I'm pretty sure Labour in Liverpool also now have a copy of some of the correspondence that constitutes the "smoking gun" in relation to the event that allegedly took place on the above date, so strictly speaking, when this story breaks is now beyond our control. However there are two additional variables right now. Labour nationally is being hammered by the Derek Draper / Damien McBride matter. Breaking this story about the Lib Dems now might only serve to remind people about Labour also being mired in national scandal. Maybe Labour locally are considering holding this back until far closer to the local elections in 2010.
The second issue is that trust is so very low in politics in general, this is just another nail in the coffin. Something like this might benefit the Greens, but it may depress turnout overall, and help the far right in this Euro election. In normal circumstances, we'd be delighted to break a story like this at a crucial time (just a few days before postal ballots go out), but these are not normal times.
So to round off. We know. Labour knows. If you are a decent Lib Dem (and there still are a few left in Liverpool) you'll deal with this situation while it is still in your control, and in a way that limits the damage and fall out. You show that despite the actions of individuals, as a party you are prepared to take remedial action. If you have no idea why the date is significant, then it must mean that the internal splits in the local Lib Dems are far, far worse than I imagined.
Your party is on a month's notice, unless of course, Labour break this story first, or it comes out in another way. I'm pretty sure the comments on Dave Bartlett's blog show that this is going to come out soon.
8 April 2009
Posting
There is a huge amount going on at the moment in our election campaign and in the world. I often feel unable to post as frequently as I would like to. Derek Wall and Jim Jepps keep their blogs really up to date. There are important issues out there and our strength as Green bloggers is collectively covering the news.
This week in a nutshell:
Sunday - leafleting in the Moston byelection, Manchester
Monday - speaking at the pensioners rally in Liverpool City Centre
Tuesday - meeting to plan some local activity in Liverpool
Wednesday - a lot of this computer work
Thursday - in Manchester at a Green meeting
Friday - a day off outward facing stuff (more computer work)
Saturday - meeting with anti-racism campaigners
Every week and every day between now and the election is going to be packed. I'm putting myself on the line and I'm going to do my absolute utmost to get elected in this region.
This week in a nutshell:
Sunday - leafleting in the Moston byelection, Manchester
Monday - speaking at the pensioners rally in Liverpool City Centre
Tuesday - meeting to plan some local activity in Liverpool
Wednesday - a lot of this computer work
Thursday - in Manchester at a Green meeting
Friday - a day off outward facing stuff (more computer work)
Saturday - meeting with anti-racism campaigners
Every week and every day between now and the election is going to be packed. I'm putting myself on the line and I'm going to do my absolute utmost to get elected in this region.
Numpties
It is so tragic, it is almost becoming comical. With the advent of the internet it is increasingly becoming easier to look back to decisions made and justifications laid out for making them. One such action was Tony Blair’s wholehearted backing for a MOX reprocessing plant at Sellafield in 2001, reported here by the BBC.
The Nuclear Industry Line
Jack Allen, BNFL's head of operations at Mox, said: "This is the best Christmas present we could have had.
"This is just the beginning of Mox fuel manufacture and our focus is now on delivering the first fuel to customers."
Environmental Campaigners
Martin Forwood, a spokesman for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, said: "The plant has no future from day one. You will end up with far too much nuclear fuel for no business. It is just a white elephant for the Sellafield area."
Environmental groups Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have previously argued that health and environment ministers took a "distorted" view when they decided the introduction of Mox was "economically justified" under European Union law.
Charles Secrett, director of Friends Of The Earth, said: "MOX is a political, economical and environmental nightmare.
"Allowing MOX to go ahead will simply anger our neighbours and threaten their security.
"We call on the Government and BNFL, even at this late stage, to think again and stop the commissioning of this dangerous plutonium plant before its too late."
Greenpeace spokesman Mark Johnston said: "The news of this act will be greeted with condemnation and incredulity in countries around the world opposed to the plutonium industry and BNFL in particular."
So who was right?
Well, quite clearly it was the green movement. So has government learned its lessons? No, clearly not. Jamie Reed, local MP, is arguing for another MOX plant and more of the same.
Will they ever learn?
The Nuclear Industry Line
Jack Allen, BNFL's head of operations at Mox, said: "This is the best Christmas present we could have had.
"This is just the beginning of Mox fuel manufacture and our focus is now on delivering the first fuel to customers."
Environmental Campaigners
Martin Forwood, a spokesman for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, said: "The plant has no future from day one. You will end up with far too much nuclear fuel for no business. It is just a white elephant for the Sellafield area."
Environmental groups Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have previously argued that health and environment ministers took a "distorted" view when they decided the introduction of Mox was "economically justified" under European Union law.
Charles Secrett, director of Friends Of The Earth, said: "MOX is a political, economical and environmental nightmare.
"Allowing MOX to go ahead will simply anger our neighbours and threaten their security.
"We call on the Government and BNFL, even at this late stage, to think again and stop the commissioning of this dangerous plutonium plant before its too late."
Greenpeace spokesman Mark Johnston said: "The news of this act will be greeted with condemnation and incredulity in countries around the world opposed to the plutonium industry and BNFL in particular."
So who was right?
Well, quite clearly it was the green movement. So has government learned its lessons? No, clearly not. Jamie Reed, local MP, is arguing for another MOX plant and more of the same.
Will they ever learn?
6 April 2009
Wilkins Ice Shelf - 2
So it happens. Denial doesn't change a single thing.
We won't get the visual spectacle of this break up until August / September with Antartica emerging from winter darkness, but it is another powerful warning. It won't convince the deniers and it won't stop them quoting pseudo science in the debate, but if you are reading this, it is your world, your children and your grandchildren.
The pessimistic scenario put forward by James Lovelock in last week's Big Issue in the North is truly worrying. I will continue to disagree with him on nuclear power (building nuclear power plants within 2 metres of sea level doesn't seem the best idea) and instead talk about energy efficiency.
We need a cut in energy consumption. That isn't a bad thing. I'm about to go and speak at a pensioners rally here in Liverpool. As Greens we are advocating that all homes get free insulation, reducing fuel bills and keeping houses warmer. That puts more money back into the pockets of British pensioners.
All sections of society would benefit if we extend out a universal system of insulation. We would reduce total CO2 emissions and make homes warmer in winter. It would also create hundreds of thousands of new jobs at a time we need them most.
We won't get the visual spectacle of this break up until August / September with Antartica emerging from winter darkness, but it is another powerful warning. It won't convince the deniers and it won't stop them quoting pseudo science in the debate, but if you are reading this, it is your world, your children and your grandchildren.
The pessimistic scenario put forward by James Lovelock in last week's Big Issue in the North is truly worrying. I will continue to disagree with him on nuclear power (building nuclear power plants within 2 metres of sea level doesn't seem the best idea) and instead talk about energy efficiency.
We need a cut in energy consumption. That isn't a bad thing. I'm about to go and speak at a pensioners rally here in Liverpool. As Greens we are advocating that all homes get free insulation, reducing fuel bills and keeping houses warmer. That puts more money back into the pockets of British pensioners.
All sections of society would benefit if we extend out a universal system of insulation. We would reduce total CO2 emissions and make homes warmer in winter. It would also create hundreds of thousands of new jobs at a time we need them most.
4 April 2009
Bolton Letter
Not from me, I hasten to add. Just picked up this strong letter in the Bolton News.
THERE is a very simple answer to Simon Colley’s dilemma (Letters, March 24).
When it comes to the European elections, he can vote against the far right BNP without voting for any of the three main parties whose failings he so eloquently describes.
The answer is to vote for the Green Party.
The only really effective anti-BNP vote is a vote for the Green Party because all the main parties are going to win seats in the European Parliament, but the BNP cannot win a seat as long as the Green Party gets more votes than it does. The added bonus is that a Green Party vote is not just a tactical anti-BNP vote, it is a positive anti-greed, anti-war, anti-national data base and ID card, and pro-civil liberties, pro-real improvement in education, health and social services vote.
Rachel Mann, Bolton Green Party
Thank you Rachel. I'll be speaking in Bolton at the socialist club on Friday 17th April. I'm sure there will be a few Labour / Lib Dem rebuttal letters before then, so I'll probably send in my own to invite people along.
I will add, that we shouldn't be dealing in absolutes, because D'Hondt is immensely complicated, but in the words of a (Tory) poster on UK Polling Report:
"...if the Greens can collect sufficient votes from here there and wherever to get ahead of the BNP they will deny Griffin his prize. But, since Greens will be starting from nearly 20k behind, and don’t have the momentum BNP undoubtedly do, is that realistic?"
Given that Respect in the North West polled 24,636 votes in 2004, then yes. If socialists do tactically back the Greens as an anti-racist vote, and even some former Labour and Liberal Democrat voters tactically back us, then definitely yes. The choice is there for left of centre voters in the North West. We just have to get on with communicating our message effectively.
3 April 2009
Red Pepper Article
The following are some extracts from Andy Bowman's article, "Holding Back the BNP", in this month's Red Pepper. Bold text is by me, but please do subscribe online or get a copy. The whole article is sensible and balanced approach to a tricky subject.
"For better or worse, the UK’s first past the post electoral system largely prevents smaller parties gaining a serious role in government, at both local and parliamentary levels. For the EU elections, however, the UK uses a version of proportional representation that ensures representation of minority opinions. While the legislative influence of a single MEP is relatively minor, the position can – as amply demonstrated by the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas – dramatically enhance the public profile of individual and party. The job also brings £250,000 of funding...
...Other anti-racist campaigners in the area attribute the BNP’s rise to loss of faith in the main parties, and in electoral politics more generally. The BNP does best when turnout is low, and attracts protest votes more than committed supporters. If it’s anywhere near as difficult for residents here to speak with their political representatives about these issues as it was for Red Pepper, it’s easy to see the problem. Repeated attempts to talk with a range of Labour Party councillors in Manchester were ignored, forgotten, prevented by holidays abroad, or outright refused...
...Similar concerns proliferated at the Convention of the Left recall in January. In a packed public services seminar, the BNP was a hot topic. Many agreed the decline and commercialisation of social housing provision was a key factor behind the successes of the BNP, which has pinned the blame for housing problems onto immigrants. Speakers stressed the need both to refocus on community engagement and issues of everyday concern, and to provide a voting alternative to Labour. Could the Green Party represent this? In the spirit of co-operation fostered by the convention, Respect North West has backed a Green vote for the European elections. The combined Green and Respect vote in 2004 was 6.8%, higher than the BNP’s, so this is no empty gesture.
Crucial percentage points
Peter Cranie, Green Party candidate for the North West, explained to Red Pepper that these percentage points are crucial. Contrary to Hope not Hate, he claims defeating the BNP requires similar levels of tactical analysis used against the BNP on a local level in first past the post. A draft Green Party election strategy given to Red Pepper, based on projections from previous European elections, claims the deciding factor will be the tussle between the smallest parties.
By winning between eight and nine percent of the vote, the Greens argue, the party finishing fourth gets the seat. To shave a crucial single percentage point from the BNP total, they say, Labour’s vote would have to increase by four percent, compared to the Green Party’s one.
Recent polls and past projections show that if the elections were held tomorrow, the BNP would finish fourth by a narrow margin, and win a seat. However, the failed attempt to form an electoral coalition with UKIP and results in the London mayoral elections suggest the BNP won’t experience a surge in support like the five percent it achieved between 1999 to 2004.
Divisions remain over how to deal with the BNP, both at the ballot box and on the streets. Each party, of course, makes the case for its own vote being the best. Recent demonstrations in Liverpool, and at the “Red, White and Blue” festival in Derbyshire over the summer, show that disagreements over the levels of militancy appropriate in confronting the BNP remain entrenched. However, the spectre of the BNP in a position of high office should be enough to make a divided left focus on what it has in common to prevent it happening."
If you want to stand up against fascism and say no to racism, you can vote Green. We can and will beat the BNP. We are about to unleash our campaign on the North West region. Every leaflet will count. Every conversation will count. Let's get out there and beat the far right.
"For better or worse, the UK’s first past the post electoral system largely prevents smaller parties gaining a serious role in government, at both local and parliamentary levels. For the EU elections, however, the UK uses a version of proportional representation that ensures representation of minority opinions. While the legislative influence of a single MEP is relatively minor, the position can – as amply demonstrated by the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas – dramatically enhance the public profile of individual and party. The job also brings £250,000 of funding...
...Other anti-racist campaigners in the area attribute the BNP’s rise to loss of faith in the main parties, and in electoral politics more generally. The BNP does best when turnout is low, and attracts protest votes more than committed supporters. If it’s anywhere near as difficult for residents here to speak with their political representatives about these issues as it was for Red Pepper, it’s easy to see the problem. Repeated attempts to talk with a range of Labour Party councillors in Manchester were ignored, forgotten, prevented by holidays abroad, or outright refused...
...Similar concerns proliferated at the Convention of the Left recall in January. In a packed public services seminar, the BNP was a hot topic. Many agreed the decline and commercialisation of social housing provision was a key factor behind the successes of the BNP, which has pinned the blame for housing problems onto immigrants. Speakers stressed the need both to refocus on community engagement and issues of everyday concern, and to provide a voting alternative to Labour. Could the Green Party represent this? In the spirit of co-operation fostered by the convention, Respect North West has backed a Green vote for the European elections. The combined Green and Respect vote in 2004 was 6.8%, higher than the BNP’s, so this is no empty gesture.
Crucial percentage points
Peter Cranie, Green Party candidate for the North West, explained to Red Pepper that these percentage points are crucial. Contrary to Hope not Hate, he claims defeating the BNP requires similar levels of tactical analysis used against the BNP on a local level in first past the post. A draft Green Party election strategy given to Red Pepper, based on projections from previous European elections, claims the deciding factor will be the tussle between the smallest parties.
By winning between eight and nine percent of the vote, the Greens argue, the party finishing fourth gets the seat. To shave a crucial single percentage point from the BNP total, they say, Labour’s vote would have to increase by four percent, compared to the Green Party’s one.
Recent polls and past projections show that if the elections were held tomorrow, the BNP would finish fourth by a narrow margin, and win a seat. However, the failed attempt to form an electoral coalition with UKIP and results in the London mayoral elections suggest the BNP won’t experience a surge in support like the five percent it achieved between 1999 to 2004.
Divisions remain over how to deal with the BNP, both at the ballot box and on the streets. Each party, of course, makes the case for its own vote being the best. Recent demonstrations in Liverpool, and at the “Red, White and Blue” festival in Derbyshire over the summer, show that disagreements over the levels of militancy appropriate in confronting the BNP remain entrenched. However, the spectre of the BNP in a position of high office should be enough to make a divided left focus on what it has in common to prevent it happening."
If you want to stand up against fascism and say no to racism, you can vote Green. We can and will beat the BNP. We are about to unleash our campaign on the North West region. Every leaflet will count. Every conversation will count. Let's get out there and beat the far right.
1 April 2009
Obama Effect on British BME Voters
Hansard publishes an annual political engagement survey, and it makes for interesting reading this year.
While 55% of White British voters say they are certain to vote, just 35% of BME respondents say the same.
41% of BME respondents believe politics can make a difference, compared to 31% of White British voters.
The key figure for me is that 42% of BME respondents are now expressing they an interest in politics, up 15% from the 27% recorded in 2007.
Now it is completely wrong to treat “BME” as a monolithic entity. BME describes a number of different communities, and frankly, thousands of individuals. But this survey does point to an “Obama effect”. It could be in the nick of time.
A big boost in BME turnout on June 4th is the last thing that the BNP need but it looks like it could happen. Given that the BNP’s ideology threatens the legitimacy of Black and Asian British people to live in their own country, it is absolutely key that turnout does increase in these communities.
In the North West region, 5.5% of the population are categorised as BME. While the BNP might be able to command disaffected and disillusioned voters in white communities, they won’t succeed in doing it in BME communities. That is why it is vital that the Greens (and everyone else) do their best to encourage a high BME turnout in the region.
Given that the Greens, Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives all have ethnically diverse Euro lists in this region, it sends a clear message that elected representatives from all four of these parties will represent all voters in the North West, regardless of ethnicity.
While 55% of White British voters say they are certain to vote, just 35% of BME respondents say the same.
41% of BME respondents believe politics can make a difference, compared to 31% of White British voters.
The key figure for me is that 42% of BME respondents are now expressing they an interest in politics, up 15% from the 27% recorded in 2007.
Now it is completely wrong to treat “BME” as a monolithic entity. BME describes a number of different communities, and frankly, thousands of individuals. But this survey does point to an “Obama effect”. It could be in the nick of time.
A big boost in BME turnout on June 4th is the last thing that the BNP need but it looks like it could happen. Given that the BNP’s ideology threatens the legitimacy of Black and Asian British people to live in their own country, it is absolutely key that turnout does increase in these communities.
In the North West region, 5.5% of the population are categorised as BME. While the BNP might be able to command disaffected and disillusioned voters in white communities, they won’t succeed in doing it in BME communities. That is why it is vital that the Greens (and everyone else) do their best to encourage a high BME turnout in the region.
Given that the Greens, Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives all have ethnically diverse Euro lists in this region, it sends a clear message that elected representatives from all four of these parties will represent all voters in the North West, regardless of ethnicity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)