tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48933010593945773322024-02-07T05:09:50.325-08:00Peter CraniePeter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.comBlogger174125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-57878699449997875392017-05-04T15:29:00.002-07:002017-05-04T15:29:27.919-07:00The Cost of Standing Down Candidates<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The cost of standing in every constituency in a UK General Election is substantial. The 573 Green candidates across the UK in 2015 put down a total of £286,500 in deposits. Liverpool Wavertree, where I was the Green candidate last time, was one of the 123 saved deposits. So the net loss on all those deposits was £225,000. A hefty hit for a smaller party.<br />
<br />
However, the Short Money system means that we are eligible for public funding to support Caroline Lucas and the party in our work in Westminster. In 2016/17 the Green Party allocation was £212,100 plus travel. Despite that huge outlay in lost deposits, even in two years, the Short Money allocation has outweighted the loss. Over a scheduled 5 year period, it is a very effective investment for a smaller party, that can elect MPs, to stand in every constituency if it can.<br />
<br />
So what is the cost of the Green Party standing down candidates if local arrangements are made in respect of a #progressivealliance to defeat the Tories? If we look at the seats we’ve already made that commitment in, we can calculate using our 2015 vote (rounded to nearest 200):<br />
<br />
- Brighton Kemptown, £541.28<br />
- Shipley, £439.79<br />
- Ealing, £304.47<br />
- Ilford, £169.15<br />
<br />
So for ease of calculation, we are looking at about £1450 per year on 4 constituencies. We lost our deposit in two of these, but if we think of Parliament lasting 5 years this time, we might save £1,000 in likely lost deposits, but we miss out on £5,800 of Short Money to support the work of Green MP(s) in Parliament over that time. Imagine a situation where the Greens step down in 20 seats as part of a Progressive arrangement. We are then looking at a loss of £29,000 in funding over that Parliament.<br />
<br />
The effect in standing down in a great many seats would also hurt the Liberal Democrats financially, although proportionately it would be much less of their post election Short Money allocation. Should Labour do the same in a number of Lib Dem seats and perhaps the Isle of Wight in favour of the Greens, they will also experience an impact financially, but it will again be a much smaller proportion of their overall party funds.<br />
<br />
The Lib Dems have actually stood down in Brighton Pavilion, in a constituency in which they had a lost deposit in 2015, but there is a financial cost to them to do so. Labour so far, have given nothing to the #progressivealliance project. I don’t think anyone is realistically expecting Labour not to defend Bristol West with everything they’ve got. Just like Brighton Pavilion, the Greens are going to have win a campaign versus Labour. But the Isle of Wight is the obvious constituency in which both Labour and the Liberal Democrats could do something that makes the financial cost of Greens stepping aside in other constituencies worthwhile to the whole party.<br />
<br />
Without something back from Labour, the Greens are being asked to give away tens of thousands of pounds of funding that could support the work that Caroline Lucas and Molly Scott-Cato will be hoping to do in Parliament. At what point do we say, “Ok, we’ve really tried with unilateral gestures to Labour. Despite the real costs for our party we’ve kept the offer on the table but Labour and Liberal Democrat leadership wouldn’t work with us, so let’s now work to make our small group of MPs, working with others, to be as effective as they can be in a Parliament with a big Tory majority.”<br />
<br />
Our party leadership has done what it can to engage both Corbyn and Farron for the good of the country. Credit to the local Liberal Democrats for standing down in Pavilion and to the Women’s Equality Party for avoiding our target seats. The reality is that centre and left of centre (or in another dimension “no to Brexit” and “no to hard Brexit”) are divided, while UKIP is standing down in favour of pro-Brexit Tories. The #regressivealliance is a reality, but the #progressivealliance is not.<br />
<br />
I would still support us trying to take the step of withdrawing in more constituencies in co-ordination with the Lib Dems, as long as something else (other than Pavilion) was coming back. I’m still hoping (and hopeful) that other local parties that have selected in marginal seats like Chester may be willing to withdraw if that single Labour gesture comes that might well unlock so much more.<br />
<br />
I voted Green first preference but also cast a second preference today for one of the parties I mention above in the Liverpool Mayoral contest. I wanted my vote, along with many others, to show that actually we can work together. But if you are a Green, Labour or Lib Dem supporter, you’ll recognise that if the #progressivealliance is not going to be a thing, that Green members will prefer us to do what we can to help Green MPs to do their jobs as effectively as they can in the coming Parliament.<br />
<br />
We are facing a seriously big Tory majority for another five years. It would be great for Labour to commit to Proportional Representation in its manifesto, but unless you put yourself in a position to implement it by working with others in this election, what is the point? If Labour can accept that the future of British politics is not a two party system, but pluralism, then it needs to start now at this election, otherwise promising PR manna tomorrow is pointless. If we don’t get a #progressivealliance the very real cost is going to be paid in further austerity and loss of rights and dignity for working people under the most right wing Tory government in more than a century.<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-71331467003317634672017-05-04T15:26:00.000-07:002017-05-04T15:26:01.214-07:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The cost of standing in every constituency in a UK General Election is substantial. The 573 Green candidates across the UK in 2015 put down a total of £286,500 in deposits. Liverpool Wavertree, where I was the Green candidate last time, was one of the 123 saved deposits. So the net loss on all those deposits was £225,000. A hefty hit for a smaller party.<br />
<br />
However, the Short Money system means that we are eligible for public funding to support Caroline Lucas and the party in our work in Westminster. In 2016/17 the Green Party allocation was £212,100 plus travel. Despite that huge outlay in lost deposits, even in two years, the Short Money allocation has outweighted the loss. Over a scheduled 5 year period, it is a very effective investment for a smaller party, that can elect MPs, to stand in every constituency if it can.<br />
<br />
So what is the cost of the Green Party standing down candidates if local arrangements are made in respect of a #progressivealliance to defeat the Tories? If we look at the seats we’ve already made that commitment in, we can calculate using our 2015 vote (rounded to nearest 200):<br />
<br />
- Brighton Kemptown, £541.28<br />
- Shipley, £439.79<br />
- Ealing, £304.47<br />
- Ilford, £169.15<br />
<br />
So for ease of calculation, we are looking at about £1450 per year on 4 constituencies. We lost our deposit in two of these, but if we think of Parliament lasting 5 years this time, we might save £1,000 in likely lost deposits, but we miss out on £5,800 of Short Money to support the work of Green MP(s) in Parliament over that time. Imagine a situation where the Greens step down in 20 seats as part of a Progressive arrangement. We are then looking at a loss of £29,000 in funding over that Parliament.<br />
<br />
The effect in standing down in a great many seats would also hurt the Liberal Democrats financially, although proportionately it would be much less of their post election Short Money allocation. Should Labour do the same in a number of Lib Dem seats and perhaps <a href="http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/more-united-crowdfunded-political-movement-shortlists-isle-of-wight-green-candidate-vix-lowthion-for-support-314988.aspx">the Isle of Wight</a> in favour of the Greens, they will also experience an impact financially, but it will again be a much smaller proportion of their overall party funds.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/lib-dems-and-greens-form-anti-tory-progressive-alliance-in-brighton_uk_5901a6bde4b0026db1de4141">The Lib Dems have actually stood down in Brighton Pavilion</a>, in a constituency in which they had a lost deposit in 2015, but there is a financial cost to them to do so. Labour so far, have given nothing to the #progressivealliance project. I don’t think anyone is realistically expecting Labour not to defend Bristol West with everything they’ve got. Just like Brighton Pavilion, the Greens are going to have win a campaign versus Labour. But the Isle of Wight is the obvious constituency in which both Labour and the Liberal Democrats could do something that makes the financial cost of Greens stepping aside in other constituencies worthwhile to the whole party.<br />
<br />
Without something back from Labour, the Greens are being asked to give away tens of thousands of pounds of funding that could support the work that Caroline Lucas and Molly Scott-Cato will be hoping to do in Parliament. At what point do we say, “Ok, we’ve really tried with unilateral gestures to Labour. Despite the real costs for our party we’ve kept the offer on the table but Labour and Liberal Democrat leadership wouldn’t work with us, so let’s now work to make our small group of MPs, working with others, to be as effective as they can be in a Parliament with a big Tory majority.”<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/green-party/caroline-lucas/news/85179/caroline-lucas-seeks-meeting-jeremy">Our party leadership has done what it can</a> to engage both Corbyn and Farron for the good of the country. Credit to the local Liberal Democrats for standing down in Pavilion and to the Women’s Equality Party for avoiding our target seats. The reality is that centre and left of centre (or in another dimension “no to Brexit” and “no to hard Brexit”) are divided, while UKIP is standing down in favour of pro-Brexit Tories. The #regressivealliance is a reality, but the #progressivealliance is not. <br />
<br />
I would still support us trying to take the step of withdrawing in more constituencies in co-ordination with the Lib Dems, as long as something else (other than Pavilion) was coming back. I’m still hoping (and hopeful) that other local parties that have selected in marginal seats like Chester may be willing to withdraw if that single Labour gesture comes that might well unlock so much more. <br />
<br />
I voted Green first preference but also cast a second preference today for one of the parties I mention above in the Liverpool Mayoral contest. I wanted my vote, along with many others, to show that actually we can work together. But if you are a Green, Labour or Lib Dem supporter, you’ll recognise that if the #progressivealliance is not going to be a thing, that Green members will prefer us to do what we can to help Green MPs to do their jobs as effectively as they can in the coming Parliament. <br />
<br />
We are facing a seriously big Tory majority for another five years. It would be great for Labour to commit to Proportional Representation in its manifesto, but unless you put yourself in a position to implement it by working with others in this election, what is the point? If Labour can accept that the future of British politics is not a two party system, but pluralism, then it needs to start now at this election, otherwise promising PR manna tomorrow is pointless. If we don’t get a #progressivealliance the very real cost is going to be paid in further austerity and loss of rights and dignity for working people under the most right wing Tory government in more than a century.<br />
<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-27546891982461474672016-07-25T14:41:00.001-07:002016-07-25T14:41:34.712-07:00Why I'm Backing John Coyne for GPEx Chair<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>It’s GPEx election time. Due to the fact that there are at three deputy leader candidates that I hugely admire, and can’t honestly say how I will vote, I’m going to do an endorsement for the candidate for Chair. I can’t emphasise enough, that John Coyne is the right person for the party right now in that position.<br />
<br />
Firstly, a little bit of a back story. When I helped reactive the mothballed Liverpool Green Party in 2001, we set out with a strategy to stand in local election seats across the Riverside constituency. However, when we as members discussed the issue, it became clear that no-one wanted to stand in the Dingle ward, which was a marginal ward between Labour and the Lib Dems, because the 2002 candidate for the latter was John Coyne. One local member described him as “greener than me”.<br />
<br />
As a result we didn’t stand a candidate against John in 2002 (and 2003) and he became a Lib Dem councillor. Fast forward to 2006 and John was faced with a dilemma that all politicians will encounter at some point. The pathfinder government initiative on housing was leading to the demolition of many homes in Liverpool at great personal and emotional cost to many who lived in them. John could either complain quietly, keep the safe Lib Dem seat he gained in 2004 after the boundaries were redrawn, or make it clear that on principle he could not remain a member of the council administration that were pushing this through. He chose the latter route, to become firstly an independent, then to join the Greens, knowing he would be up for re-election the following year.<br />
<br />
John was re-elected with 38% of the vote in 2007 and then over 50% of the vote in 2011 as a Green councillor. His successor, Anna Key, was re-elected with 50% of the vote in 2015 and this year, Sarah Jennings gained 60% of the vote for our party in St Michaels ward. So John is a politician of principle, he knows what is required for electoral success and finally, a key element to success as Chair of GPEx, is the experience of having been in a previous role beforehand on the Exec. John fulfils all three criteria clearly.<br />
<br />
I would like to invite other Liverpool members to comment in relation to John’s positive impact in our city and I’ll endeavour to post these up as soon as I can (as I write I’m currently up a hillside in Cumbria and tomorrow I’ll be relocating to a hillside in Scotland), so it may be that this may only go up as I return to Liverpool. For anyone thinking of voting for a Chair, please look at the experience and ability John offers.<br />
Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-47513977443751674752016-06-30T08:55:00.001-07:002016-06-30T15:06:35.211-07:00What Would a Democratic or Progressive Alliance Look Like?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>There are some big issues for a Democratic or Progressive Alliance to tackle if it can be formed before an early General Election. We have continued unprecedented austerity, the growing sense that Brexit won on false promises and that the British people need to vote on any actual deal, and the clear prospect that the United Kingdom may soon consist of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, leading to a permanent right of centre majority under first past the post. I'm not going to discuss the issues, nor the current issues in the Labour party, but rather post briefly about how any alliance or arrangement might work.<br />
<br />
Firstly, any Democratic Alliance may only involve around 50 of the most marginal seats in England (Wales is more difficult to assess). I'm not going to look at Scotland or Northern Ireland (because that would really be down to their respective Green Parties to discuss). From the perspective of a Green voter, the arrangement would be intended to secure an anti-Tory majority, but not to give a majority to any single party within the alliance.<br />
<br />
Secondly, I think it is really crucial to point out that in most of the country, Labour, the LDs and the Greens would continue to fiercely contest seats locally. What we would be doing is taking the most marginal seats and making them as winnable as possible for the best progressive challengers not so any one party has a majority, but so that a combination of Lab, SNP, LDs, PC and Greens hold the majority in Parliament and can enact essential democratic reform over a timetable of x years and then commit to an election under a reformed system.<br />
<br />
Finally, it is important to restate that local parties are sovereign in the Greens, but that there is a feeling in the party at large that this is something we could and should do to produce lasting reform of our broken voting system. How Labour and the Lib Dems might make these arrangements would be up to them. The most obvious seat, in addition to Brighton Pavilion, where Labour and LDs should be most open to stepping down for the Greens is the Isle of Wight. We finished 3rd with the Tories and UKIP in 1st / 2nd. <br />
<br />
The immediate benefits for our party will be very limited in terms of electoral success, and our main targeting will still be in seats where we are competing against Labour, such as Bristol West and Liverpool Riverside. However, genuine electoral reform to a Scottish type of system, with regional top up lists, would see many more Greens elected at the following election. That is a risk worth taking in my view.<br />
<br />
This post ends with seats that this writer thinks could be crucial in any discussions:<br />
<br />
<b>Labour marginals that would need to be held:</b><br />
<br />
City of Chester<br />
Ealing Central & Acton<br />
Brentford and Isleworth<br />
Wirral West<br />
Halifax<br />
Ilford North<br />
Newcastle Under Lyme<br />
Barrow and Furness<br />
Wolverhampton South West<br />
<br />
<b>Labour targets where 2015 Green vote > Tory majority:</b><br />
<br />
Derby North<br />
Croydon Central<br />
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport<br />
Brighton Kemptown<br />
Bury North<br />
Morley and Outwood<br />
Weaver Vale<br />
Gower<br />
Telford<br />
Bedford<br />
<br />
<b>Further Labour targets:</b><br />
<br />
Vale of Clwyd<br />
Thurrock<br />
Bolton West<br />
Plymouth Moor View<br />
Lincoln<br />
Cardiff North<br />
Peterborough<br />
Corby<br />
Waveney<br />
Warrington South<br />
Southampton Itchen<br />
Keighley<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Lib Dem seats being defended / targeted:</b><br />
<br />
Southport <br />
Carshalton and Wallington<br />
Eastbourne<br />
Lewes<br />
<b><br />
<br />
Green seats where Lab or LD may stand down in exchange:</b><br />
<br />
Brighton Pavilion<br />
Isle of Wight<br />
Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-69282719017429100622016-05-10T23:04:00.000-07:002016-05-10T23:07:38.154-07:00Election Results Summary<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">So the dust is settling after the local elections in Liverpool. The Greens (10.3%) finished down from 2nd place in 3rd place and we are having to look at why the Lib Dems (16%) managed a mini-resurgence in the city despite having been responsible as part of the coalition, for some appalling cuts to our overall budget. I think Labour were as surprised as we were.<br />
<br />
The #libdemfightback as they’ve titled it is being much heralded, but in Liverpool we are the exception to the rule. In Scotland and in the Mayoral Elections in Bristol, London and Salford, where voters had two preferences, the Greens finished ahead of the Lib Dems (noting that in Salford they failed to put up a Mayoral candidate or a single local election candidate).<br />
<br />
There is an interesting piece <a href="http://www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrat-success-in-liverpool-50438.html">at Lib Dem voice</a> that explains it. Essentially this was a two year strategy involving heavy work to save Richard Kemp’s Church seat in 2015 (otherwise they would have been down to just 1 councillor) with a leafleting strategy in other areas of the city. This was followed by an all out assault on three wards in these elections, and successfully retaking seats from Labour in Woolton and Allerton & Hunts Cross. Where they didn’t win was Mossley Hill, after outrageously misleading voters on their barcharts (you’re shocked?) but more on that after the 2018 election I think.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggrYkMZ59h3bD8RX6xcWGno24VoWoNU4-rEKMIIjqH1EF0X8b6iATEgPx871JZftsJYEFWwsDl1SDcCMr5lihjnFFPMSsFFWSPb-Qhnc5gOuL5QCuge1LvQKKTwxXo3D9LXq2I-d3p69M/s1600/Barchart.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggrYkMZ59h3bD8RX6xcWGno24VoWoNU4-rEKMIIjqH1EF0X8b6iATEgPx871JZftsJYEFWwsDl1SDcCMr5lihjnFFPMSsFFWSPb-Qhnc5gOuL5QCuge1LvQKKTwxXo3D9LXq2I-d3p69M/s400/Barchart.png" /></a><br />
<br />
This doesn't just happen in Liverpool, but is a systematic attempt to mislead voters in their favour. Another example from Manchester here:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTj1QePtxGoGZhg07Il-35tXKTqD3eDLJGtDBPCCNfjBbDt8G58qMMHEhk06NdbfxtS-g9rsTfgd_fsNi7fNpQhRC2gMVePG2VAaqzXw46Cf1X7vflivl-_bhhZsn5gxoV0htgn1-WU10/s1600/Barchart+in+Manchester.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTj1QePtxGoGZhg07Il-35tXKTqD3eDLJGtDBPCCNfjBbDt8G58qMMHEhk06NdbfxtS-g9rsTfgd_fsNi7fNpQhRC2gMVePG2VAaqzXw46Cf1X7vflivl-_bhhZsn5gxoV0htgn1-WU10/s400/Barchart+in+Manchester.png" /></a><br />
<br />
The Lib Dems only narrowly held onto 2nd place finishes in Woolton and Allerton & Hunts Cross in the local poll at the 2015 General Election, but if you look at the total of Tory and Lib Dem votes in that election, it exceeded the support for Labour. Careful targeting of postal voters and voters on the marked register as they knocked on 10,000 doors (the campaign slogan) and a heavy squeeze on the Tory voters, has enabled them to win big victories. Whoever developed the strategy should be very pleased with the results, and it will be a hard task for Labour to defend these seats in 2018.<br />
<br />
So essentially, it is one of the defining features of Liverpool politics, the absence of an even semi-functional Conservative party that has enabled the Lib Dems to make a comeback in a couple of areas of the city. From the right of centre, the only viable option in Liverpool is the Lib Dems, and I have to say that our appeal to people who are naturally Tory or UKIP voters is very limited. <br />
<br />
In the latter respect, we sit to the left of a very centrist Labour party in Liverpool. However, as Greens in cities like Oxford, Norwich and even Bristol discovered in this election, many left of centre voters rallied to back an under fire Corbyn in these local elections. We did not close the gap in Greenbank (although our tallies suggest the Green v Labour vote here in the Mayoral election was much, much closer) but we did hold St Michaels with a whopping 62% of the vote.<br />
<br />
In the Mayoral contest, Joe Anderson gained 6% less than the support given to Labour’s local election candidates across the city. This suggests he was less popular than his party. However, he still won a plurality of the votes. So congratulations to him, but I think Labour will need to have a contest for the Metro Mayor candidate and I expect that will be a fiercely fought selection. Richard Kemp finished 2nd, with 21% of the vote, and Tom Crone was 3rd with 10.9%<br />
<br />
Richard outperformed the Lib Dems. His profile obviously helped and certainly the “only Labour or the Lib Dems can win here” had some effect, but I think you have to credit the targeting they did in those southern wards as the reason they have regained 2nd place in vote share in the city. <b>I’ll hopefully be retiring the blog (again)</b> but I am intending to once again get back into the heart of the campaign team for Liverpool Greens after two years where for work and family reasons, I’ve been very much an observer. <br />
<br />
Our job now is to get ready for the next two elections, for Metro Mayor and the 2018 locals. I also think it will pay to be prepared. Yvette Cooper suggested that an early General Election could be on the cards if the Tories are deprived of an overall majority by the electoral expenses scandal that is being investigated by a number of police forces in different constituencies.<br />
<br />
It is important to end on this note. Tom’s 10.9% is the highest vote the Greens have ever polled in a local election across the city and he deserves congratulations after a hard fought campaign. In Scotland we polled 6.6%, and the Mayoral Election results were Salford 8.5%, Bristol 7.8% and London 5.8%. In that context, other cities will look at our result as being impressive, but we are not satisfied and we see the need to improve. <br />
<br />
We’ve been between 9 and 11% in each election since 2014, but what we haven’t managed to do is convert that to extra seats. Right now in Liverpool, there are 80 Labour councillors, 4 Greens, 4 Lib Dems and 2 Liberals. The Lib Dems will be expecting to make 3 gains as a minimum in 2018. Our strategy will have to find a way to match or better that.<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-41633589075573582132016-05-03T15:07:00.000-07:002016-05-03T15:09:55.642-07:00#LiverpoolMayor First and Second PreferencesThis is a really important, but lesser understood aspect of the Mayoral Election. I'm outlining it here so this link can be shared in the last 24 hours of campaigning.<br />
<br />
Council elections in Liverpool are simple. The party that gets the most votes in a given area (ward) wins the seat. In the seats we are heavily targeting to gain seats, we are doing so from a Labour (finished 1st) v Green (finished 2nd). In these seats, it makes sense for Liberal Democrat voters to back the Green candidate if they want to defeat Labour (although some may unfortunately be misled by false barcharts). A quick reminder of these wards:<br />
<br />
- Greenbank<br />
- Mossley Hill<br />
- Princes Park<br />
<br />
In St Michaels, we are defending our seat against Labour, who were the second place party last time, so the position is reversed there.<br />
<br />
<b>The Mayoral Election is totally different</b>. You can have your cake and eat it (to some extent). TUSC voters can back Roger Bannister with their first preference, but recognising that Roger may not finish in 1st or 2nd place, decide to cast a second preference for the best #notojoe candidate. Liberal Democrats can do the same. Parties will be looking to last year's results as a guideline, so here is a quick reminder (the Greens gained 3,228 more votes than the Lib Dems across the city):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH7YCB2IMhxRTFzAkeSZs2RX9kKmnBI4taMyQTk-7IRxyvFGzoPtAQ9II0jhnFQ4RsueHSc4D9xdogcBKwkKk1RmMmRKo9ZZirgeuivy-wonP4ZsaGrrSatckKt6iEe5ph1IS3HsQZ078/s1600/Liverpool+local+election+results+2015.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH7YCB2IMhxRTFzAkeSZs2RX9kKmnBI4taMyQTk-7IRxyvFGzoPtAQ9II0jhnFQ4RsueHSc4D9xdogcBKwkKk1RmMmRKo9ZZirgeuivy-wonP4ZsaGrrSatckKt6iEe5ph1IS3HsQZ078/s400/Liverpool+local+election+results+2015.png" /></a><br />
<br />
Some people on Twitter have been worried about opposition candidates "splitting the vote" and allowing Joe Anderson to remain as Mayor. <b>This will not be the case if you cast your vote for two candidates and use both preferences</b>. Vote with your heart for the first one, for politics you believe in, then back an "insurance" "least worst option" candidate with your second preference. I'll be using both preferences and I would expect anyone who wants a more proportional and representative voting system in future to be doing the same.<br />
<br />
I'll clearly be using my first preference for Tom Crone, the Green candidate for Mayor. It won't be enough for a candidate aiming to beat Joe Anderson to attract preferences from every opposition group. The deciding voters will be Labour supporters who can't back the current Mayor. I think they are highly unlikely to back the Liberal Democrats and here is why (quote taken from a retweet I did on Twitter today):<br />
<br />
<i>"Paul whilst I respect you and Tim; the #FibDems will NEVER get my vote again; my ex left the party; friends…"</i><br />
<br />
I think there are a lot of people in Liverpool who feel that way. That's why I'm confident that it will be Tom Crone who will be in the run off against Joe Anderson in the second round. So although first preferences are better for our party, second preferences will also help. There is a huge Labour vote to overcome, but as in 2012, we'll find that Labour will perform better in local elections than they will in the Mayoral contest. This time I think the gap will be significant and there will be a second round of voting.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-72645800166676126962016-04-30T00:32:00.001-07:002016-04-30T00:33:08.524-07:00Do Richard Kemp's Claims About the Mayoral Election Withstand Scrutiny? #liverpoolmayor<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><b>“My job was to maximise the Liberal Democrat vote, and I think I have done that.”</b><br />
<br />
That was Richard Kemp's assessment of the Lib Dem Mayoral campaign <a href="http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/joe-anderson-first-elected-liverpool-3343933 ">in 2012</a> when they gained 6%. The Lib Dems were defending 10 council seats (and successfully held just one) and ran campaigns in all of them. This year they are trying to hold onto one.<br />
<br />
I’m deeply disappointed with the Liberal Democrat campaign in Liverpool. They have been relegated to 3rd and 4th in terms of the popular vote in the city in the last two local elections. However, their Mayoral candidate, claimed in his Radio City interview yesterday that Liverpool politics is “back to business as usual” and is making the same kind of claim <a href="https://richardkemp.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/can-we-do-it-yes-we-can/">on his blog</a>, that it is him or Joe Anderson. I prefer it when we refer to the evidence:<br />
<br />
So a quick reminder:<br />
<br />
- The Greens gained nearly 20,000 votes in the last local elections<br />
- That was 3,200+ more than the Lib Dems<br />
- 10% of city wards don’t have Lib Dem council candidates (lack of activists or support from residents?)<br />
- The cuts forced on Liverpool in this year’s council budget were imposed by the Lib Dems as part of the coalition<br />
<br />
We are not in the business of saying that no one else can win, rather as Greens we are concentrating on a positive message, articulated by the Leader of the Opposition on the City Council, Tom Crone. We are now in our final push and taking that message far more widely in the city than the Liberal Democrats can hope to manage.<br />
<br />
I think the Liberal Democrat tactic is an attempt to try and come second, by convincing people to give enough first preferences to overtake the Greens. I don’t think that will work. I think that if it doesn’t, it will backfire badly on that party as they attempt to rebuild in Liverpool politics post-coalition. One of the issues in politics is trust. Rather than focus on policy or manifesto, the "squeeze" approach will undermine the Lib Dems in future<br />
<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-73565160440285010972016-04-26T23:35:00.000-07:002016-04-26T23:35:06.683-07:00Can Joe Anderson be beaten? #liverpoolmayor<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">While I write as a Green candidate (albeit a non-target one), the source for all the figures in this post come from the Liverpool City Council website. The figures don’t constitute spin. They are factual.<br />
<br />
The starting point for this is to look at the results of the last Mayoral contest and the last two local elections. In 2012, on local election turnout levels, Joe Anderson got around 58,000 votes in Liverpool. Liam Fogerty as an independent managed over 8,000. Richard Kemp as a Lib Dem got 6,238 and John Coyne, standing for the Greens managed 5,175. With nearly 60% of the vote and no allocation of preferences, Mayor Anderson had an overwhelming mandate.<br />
<br />
After four years, it could be said that the Mayor has not universally endeared himself to a large portion of the Liverpool public. I also think it is a reasonable expectation that he will not gain more than 50% on first preferences this time. That might mean 40,000 to 45,000 first preference votes being cast in his favour. <br />
<br />
So who can realistically mount a challenge? Well in 2014 it was a combined Local and European Election. The results were as follows:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht_tr2o5pINlu38HeSC9D8wcvzCETIv3tSDLislWI0lm66p3m-WEnyRsQ96TxV_KqW0ppU2wXac3yFXa4vEkvbTJ54tBuGuKubtPjERUzdLkjLqGQKG8OIFDwyztPUQcwEzf0OtS1fVzM/s1600/Liverpool+local+election+results+2014.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht_tr2o5pINlu38HeSC9D8wcvzCETIv3tSDLislWI0lm66p3m-WEnyRsQ96TxV_KqW0ppU2wXac3yFXa4vEkvbTJ54tBuGuKubtPjERUzdLkjLqGQKG8OIFDwyztPUQcwEzf0OtS1fVzM/s400/Liverpool+local+election+results+2014.png" /></a></div><br />
The Greens, with nearly 10,500 votes were 1,256 ahead of the Lib Dems in 2014.<br />
<br />
In 2015, it was a combined Local and General Election, with a much higher turnout. The results were as follows:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuN9BTgdPfhAM9QtaavXHo6_aKOWOQyMkJQm5KP4CPrkryU4iS7qTaZmJHQTEV4AkPlmld6i51UAWvq_CCslow6Js7iecITF0vBlx5duSjMCScMh8NOlVkugzpqaOLBihTJ1x6LEB34c8/s1600/Liverpool+local+election+results+2015.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuN9BTgdPfhAM9QtaavXHo6_aKOWOQyMkJQm5KP4CPrkryU4iS7qTaZmJHQTEV4AkPlmld6i51UAWvq_CCslow6Js7iecITF0vBlx5duSjMCScMh8NOlVkugzpqaOLBihTJ1x6LEB34c8/s400/Liverpool+local+election+results+2015.png" /></a></div><br />
The Greens, with nearly 20,000 votes were 3,228 ahead of the Lib Dems in 2015.<br />
<br />
So going into this election, it is Tom Crone as the Green candidate (and leader of the opposition) who has the best case to make about being able to challenge Anderson. But to beat him, which is a very tough proposition, I think we as Greens need to achieve the following:<br />
<br />
- The great many Labour supporters who like Corbyn and don’t like Anderson, casting their first preference vote for the Greens in Liverpool<br />
- A strong turnout from Green voters in areas of the city we are strong<br />
- Voters from other parties looking realistically at who can best challenge the current Mayor, and drawing their own conclusions<br />
<br />
Richard Kemp, as Liverpool’s longest serving councillor, is still trying to make the “two horse race” argument between Labour and the Lib Dems, despite his horse having bolted during the coalition years. He may benefit in South Liverpool from his profile and the campaign tactics they are using, but they have failed to even stand local election candidates in 10% of the city wards. <br />
<br />
It is difficult to make the case that they can attract sufficient 1st preference votes to overhaul the Greens to gain 2nd place. Is Richard really convinced of his own view that all the Liam Fogerty voters are going to switch to the Lib Dems? Surely that would have happened before? While the Lib Dems are no longer in coalition nationally, the cuts that have been made in Liverpool’s budget this year were agreed under that coalition government.<br />
<br />
What I would hope is that more widely, voters in the city will be using their 1st and 2nd preferences wisely. As election day approaches, I also hope there is some real discussion in the media that looks at what will happen if votes go to a second round this time.<br />
<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-73049338525970932162016-04-22T10:20:00.000-07:002016-04-22T10:20:56.663-07:00Wavertree ward candidate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I will be standing for the Green Party in Wavertree ward. I stood as the Parliamentary candidate here last year and I’ll be standing for election in an area I’ve previously lived in, and still live quite close to. Last year Julie Birch-Holt gained a creditable 821 votes and finished 2nd to Labour here. 2015 voting summary below:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhni0o750U4N2KdkpDxuctMgC1fTYFFYJrxoPhLRWTscHKGPg6ja-JTg1wMSOKeuIFrNecDUNu5osmeBKJo_CdaXqE0Vk9cHfnSu3-CnCoqI8-kgu_dEIb4hkWWHPU7A3u1fNEljV8Zta0/s1600/Wavertree+2015.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhni0o750U4N2KdkpDxuctMgC1fTYFFYJrxoPhLRWTscHKGPg6ja-JTg1wMSOKeuIFrNecDUNu5osmeBKJo_CdaXqE0Vk9cHfnSu3-CnCoqI8-kgu_dEIb4hkWWHPU7A3u1fNEljV8Zta0/s400/Wavertree+2015.png" /></a><br />
<br />
In a year without a General Election, around 1800 votes is what any party will need to win the seat here, judging by previous turnouts. As in 2015, voters will hear from us before the election, this time via the Mayoral booklet and via other online election material. <a href="https://youtu.be/s2dNEQiHUUo">Click here for our (very funny) party election broadcast</a>. <br />
<br />
I work full time as a University Lecturer and with three young children, and like many other people in the same situation, I am very busy with everything that involves, but I will be very pleased to hear from any voter in the ward and I’ll do my best to respond as quickly as possible to any questions or to provide any further information.<br />
<br />
If you would like to get in touch, please email petercranie@greenparty.org.uk or contact me on Twitter @PeterCranie (I can respond outside of office hours only).<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-68219450342769213932016-04-20T15:05:00.000-07:002016-04-20T15:05:49.179-07:00Who is the best candidate to beat Joe Anderson? #LiverpoolMayor #tommartincrone<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">I’m (a little reluctantly) reviving my blog. As you’ll see from my last post, I won’t be doing predictions for leadership contests in other parties again (although I’m not the only one to have been surprised when Jeremy Corbyn was elected as Labour leader). Over a week ago I read a post from Richard Kemp on his blog. Usually his stuff is worth a read, but I took issue with the content about the Greens. I therefore spent some time (about half an hour of a lunch break) to do a response. It doesn’t seem to have made it to publication. Given that Richard has unfortunately not published my comment, I'll reprint my response here:<br />
<br />
<i><b>“While you usually write accurately Richard, I have to pick you up on a number of points about the Greens that are simply not correct and your assertion that there are "really" only 2 candidates in the election. We get on well personally, so I hope you take this in comradely spirit, and you feel able to post my comment and if you feel appropriate, respond to the points I've made and the questions I'm posing.<br />
<br />
1. "It is possible that they will have a candidate in every ward..." - my recollection is that the Green Party has stood full slates in every election since 2006 in Liverpool. In both 2014 and 2015, the Liberal Democrats in Liverpool failed to contest seats. Last year that was 6 wards without a Liberal Democrat on the ballot paper. <br />
<br />
2. "...they will only be really fighting in 3 of them" - this isn't accurate, but even if we were to win these three, that would put us on 6 councillors. You and Erica are currently the only Lib Dems across the city. Are you able to win in three wards this time to bring your total to 4? <br />
<br />
3. Polling. In the run up to the General Election, the Greens were polling 3 to 7%. Since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, we've been polling 3 to 6%. In comparison, the Liberal Democrats were polling 6 to 11% in the run up to the General Election, and since Corbyn became leader have been polling 5 to 10% [Source http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2]. In Liverpool (and after all, this is about Liverpool) in 2014 our vote share was 10.7% versus your 9.4% and even in a General Election year, we gained 9.7% to the Liberal Democrat 8.1% in 2015.<br />
<br />
4. We have "tanked" in by-elections by winning in Shropshire for the first time. Where a winnable seat has come up, we've won it. We'll contest most seats to give voters that choice. Is there a source to back up the tanking claim? We haven't had any Liverpool byelections in the last year.<br />
<br />
5. The Corbyn effect - I'm sure there have been some Green members who have left to join Labour. There is regularly churn between party activists. National party membership figures are reported by the Daily Politics Show here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34571666) and the Greens in the UK have more members than the Liberal Democrats.<br />
<br />
It would be good if the opposition parties were to take a constructive approach and avoid "talking down" one another. I personally feel that Tom Crone is better placed to attract disaffected, non-Joe supporting but typically Labour voting first preferences from the 57% who backed Joe Anderson and Labour in 2012. I feel that will be harder for you, as less than a year has passed since the coalition came to an end, but I think the way to do that is with positive messages to make clear there is an alternative to Mayor Anderson.</b>”</i><br />
<br />
I think campaigning in Liverpool has become difficult for the Liberal Democrats. There are some good people who reluctantly endured 5 years of coalition with (misplaced) loyalty. However, their electoral playbook here has always been based on being the only alternative to Labour, because the Conservatives are unelectable here under First Past the Post. However, this Mayoral contest is difficult for them.<br />
<br />
Usually you would expect barcharts to appear showing that it Labour v Lib Dem and no other result is possible. The problem is that Labour have 81 councillors and Richard + Erica Kemp are the only Lib Dems left standing. We are the official opposition with 4 councillors, so no barchart opportunity there. On vote share in the city, the last two local elections have seen the Greens finish 2nd to Labour, albeit at some distance. So again, no barchart there. The best they can do is go back to 2012, point out that Richard was 3rd and that all those people voting for Liam Fogerty are going to return to the Lib Dems now they are no longer in coalition.<br />
<br />
Richard does have a profile from many years in local government. Keyboard warriors were quick to work on the recent Echo mayoral “voodoo” poll, but if you are going to make your case, you need to be able to back it up. Tom Crone is producing a positive Green vision for Liverpool and that has to be the politics of the future and is the alternative that the city is crying out for.<br />
</div>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-32924202155949605532015-08-06T23:19:00.000-07:002015-08-06T23:36:31.062-07:00Who Will Win the Labour Leadership Contest?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>For politicos like me, the ongoing leadership contest in the Labour party makes fascinating viewing. That is exactly what it should be if you are a Green member. While I think there was a move to sign up as a supporter and back Corbyn from a few Greens, I don’t think there will be many who will actually vote. This isn't a new issue, as Green members have previously been eligible to vote due to their union membership, and we had no way of policing that. Whether you are a Tory MP or a Green member, it is probably best to let Labour decide this themselves.<br />
<br />
What do I think will happen? There is a media perception that there is a lot of Jeremy Corbyn “momentum” at the moment but I don’t think he is going to win. He is clearly the challenger candidate and he may even top the poll on first preferences, but the bulk of longstanding Labour members (who will form the majority of the electorate) were members through the end of the Blair/Brown era and through Ed Miliband’s leadership.<br />
<br />
I think we can discount Liz Kendall. She represents a wing of the Labour Party (including Cllr Nick Small here in Liverpool) that alienates a big portion of the activist base. She’ll get a double figure first preference vote, but she lacks “big hitter” quality. Chukka Ummana might have done better (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/9973249/Labours-Chuka-Umunna-asked-how-to-avoid-mixing-with-trash-on-elite-social-network.html">as long as there were no more “trash” skeletons in his cupboard</a>) as a Blairite standard bearer. Should there be another contest and David Miliband somehow is eligible to stand, he too would probably make it to the run off.<br />
<br />
Andy Burnham <a href="http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/08/05/the-lab-betting-is-now-strongly-back-with-burnham-but-does-it-mean-anything/">is the bookies’ favourite</a> but there is no certainty about how reliable those odds will prove. Had Corbyn failed to make the ballot paper, Burnham would probably be feeling pretty comfortable as the likely winner. So while his view was that Corbyn should be on the ballot paper, I think that was foolishly based on the assumption that he would not make the top two candidates, and Corbyn preferences would in the main flow to Burnham, making him a comfortable winner under the Alternative Vote system. If the run off is Burnham v Corbyn, preferences from Cooper and Kendall will mean Burnham wins.<br />
<br />
With Liz Kendall likely to be the lowest scoring candidate, it will be those Blairite preferences that will prove crucial. My view is that Alan Johnston’s endorsement of Yvette Cooper will be seen in retrospect as a crucial point in the contest. I expect Cooper to finish 3rd on first preferences, but not too far behind Burnham and Corbyn. Once Kendall’s 2nd preferences come into play, my view is that Cooper will make the top two, and the only question is whether she will face a run-off against Burnham or Corbyn. In either case, my prediction, FWIW, is that she will become the first woman to lead the Labour Party (in a permanent non-caretaker capacity). <br />
<br />
The real challenge then is whether Cooper (or if I’m wrong, another candidate) will push for a “one big heave” strategy in 2020, to get into hung parliament territory with Labour as the largest party because an overall majority looks quite out of reach. The answer will come at party conference time and that first speech will be a very interesting one to watch.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-6003705982489549482015-07-09T23:44:00.001-07:002015-07-09T23:48:38.896-07:00Worst Political Leaflet I've Seen in Ten Years<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>In my many years of Liverpool political campaigning, I’ve seen some poorly judged political leaflets, but the latest Liberal Democrat literature to come through my door is by far and away this decade’s winner for the worst.<br />
<br />
In September, 120 children are due to start at Dovedale Primary School. The Liberal Democrats are asking for objections to the expansion. What they are proposing would mean 30 children would have to find alternative provision this September. Do they want to contact those parents, to tell them to search desperately, at the last minute, for alternative provision?<br />
<br />
For some context, it is a double sided A4 leaflet, solely about Dovedale School and its proposed expansion. Now I’m not responding in a political capacity here on behalf of my party, but the way in which this leaflet communicates on the issue of expansion is awful.<br />
<br />
I’ll quickly make a statement of first principles. I believe that children should be entitled to a good education, in their local school. I don’t support the Academy or Free School model as the way forward. I think the current problems in Sweden illustrate the dangers in a society that fragments its education system.<br />
<br />
In Liverpool we are facing the loss of green space at various points around the city. The idea that we don’t renovate and renew our existing schools, on their existing sites, is likely to mean the loss of further green space. The Liberal Democrats are arguing to prevent the school expanding and arguing against building on green spaces. This is a little like having your cake and eating it.<br />
<br />
Liverpool needs new school places. In 2013/14, the furthest any pupil in the new intake of 90 would have to walk to school would be 0.342km. The demand for school places is right here, in our part of the city, and to me the answer is to expand an existing good local authority school (and I’m not just talking about the narrow OFSTED snapshot) to provide those places.<br />
<br />
It is obvious that there will be challenges in any renovation and expansion, but let’s break down the Liberal Democrat claims, and let’s do that in the knowledge that 120 new pupils are due to start in September. So the Liberal Democrat position demands that 30 of these pupils are now told to go and look for a new school? How would those 30 be selected? What do you think the reaction of parents would be to that decision? On this point alone, the Liberal Democrat position is untenable, but the leaflet needs to be deconstructed.<br />
<br />
The leaflet begins with the massive “33%” expansion in the school. Over a six year period that will happen but the annual growth in the school will be by 6%. This makes the “problems” they subsequently identify far less daunting.<br />
<br />
The suggestion is that traffic and parking is already a nightmare, and it will be even worse. That isn’t my experience as a parent. The majority of parents walk their children to school. 44% currently drive. An expansion of 30 pupils each year would mean 13/14 extra car trips, all other things being equal. However, given the short walking distance for the vast majority of pupils, it’s not beyond the wit of local councillors to work with the school and the community to get people out of cars on the way to school. This is entirely possible and achievable. Can the community manage to reduce the 300 or so pupils at Dovedale who are dropped off by car by 15 per year? Yes. At that point you’ve got a benefit for the community, for children and the environment (noting that if Dovedale doesn’t expand, parents would probably be travelling further to alternative schools with more likelihood of using a car).<br />
<br />
The leaflet makes the claim “most parents and residents”. Now Richard Kemp retained his seat in 2015 and did incredibly well to do so, but it was not a referendum on Dovedale expansion. The leaflet claims to speak for the majority of parents. According to the Liberal Democrats, residents and parents collected 388 signatures opposing the plans. The Change.org petition shows 342 signatures. Neither figure would constitute a “majority” of either parents or residents. <br />
<br />
Now I certainly think that there was a lot of uncertainty and opposition before the plans were put on display, but since that has happened, we’ve spoken with other parents who previously opposed the expansion, but who are now no longer concerned about it. I think there may be lessons to be learned about the process and timings of proposed changes and how that is communicated in future instances of school expansion, but the major concerns about the building required have been cleverly addressed.<br />
<br />
The one issue that may concern parents is less playground space. There will be some impact due to the increase in the space of the main buildings. This will largely, but not entirely, mitigated for by the removal of the temporary classrooms currently occupying part of the grounds. Most important will be about how the school structures its lunch periods. If lunches are staggered as the expanded cohorts rise up the school, there is no reason for the number of children sharing the playground space to rise.<br />
<br />
The Liberal Democrat leaflet suggests a kind of “Dovedale School – Apocalypse Now” scenario, but the truth is that this is about providing an education for all the children of our city in the best way possible. It is base level political campaigning and it won’t be forgotten. Parents value their school and the increased resources that expansion will bring, at a time when school budgets are under pressure like never before, will in my opinion bring benefits to all the children studying at the school over the next few years. I’m proud to send my children there and reject the tone and much of the content of a very, very poor political leaflet.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-80680217912693261402015-06-16T14:10:00.000-07:002015-06-16T14:10:05.003-07:00Nominations Opened – Who Will Be Liverpool’s Green Party Mayoral Candidate?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>In 2012, the Green Party finished 4th in the Mayoral Election contest. It was a respectable result. We held our deposit (something we haven’t managed in London for example) and John Coyne ran a strong campaign for us.<br />
<br />
In both 2014 and 2015, the Green Party finished as the 2nd largest party in the local elections across our city. All other things being equal, if Mayoral contests were just going to be about party politics, then we would be favourites to be the main challenger to Labour. However, we are yet to see if Liam Fogerty will run again, or another high profile independent candidate steps up. It would be no surprise to me to see former Conservative and now Deputy Leader for UKIP, Paul Nuttall, stand for them.<br />
<br />
Our own nomination process has opened:<br />
<br />
“We are also looking for a candidate to stand for the Green Party in the Liverpool Mayoral election, which is on the same day as the local elections: 5th May 2016. A key aspect of being a good Mayoral candidate will is being able to produce good media performances and have good debating skills, as a key part of the campaign will be participating in hustings events throughout the city. The Mayoral candidate would also be expected to play a full part in producing a high profile election campaign...”<br />
<br />
It is therefore important for our party to select the best possible candidate for this contest, who can put across Green values of social justice and the environment. Who might that be?<br />
<br />
Let me take this opportunity to rule myself out. Our daughter is just 6 months old and I started a fantastic new job as a university lecturer in February. I’m looking forward to embarking on my doctorate in a year’s time and I’m continuing to enjoy fatherhood. I’m not in a position to run for high profile elections for the rest of this decade.<br />
<br />
Our councillors, John Coyne (if he could be persuaded on a political comeback) and one or two of our current activists all have the ability to do the job of Mayor, and to run the exceptional campaign that will be needed to be elected. We’ll be open and transparent about who our candidate(s) are once the nomination process has closed.<br />
<br />
In parallel, I’m sure Labour in Liverpool will also have a contested internal selection for their Mayoral candidate, with a free and fair exchange of views... We shall see.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-11578308931377130872015-05-31T01:01:00.000-07:002015-05-31T01:01:21.606-07:00Burnham, Cooper, Creasy and Kendall<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>I only ever voted once in a Labour leadership contest, back in 1994, and it wasn’t for Tony Blair. People who are members of that party now have their choice coming up and I would expect Andy Burnham to win the contest. He has positioned himself as a Labour centrist, with every candidate positioning themselves to the right of Ed Miliband.<br />
<br />
What does that tell us about Labour’s trajectory politically? In Scottish terms it marks an acceptance that under First Past the Post Labour may at best win back a handful of seats from a Social Democratic SNP, that is to the left of Labour on most issues. Anything else would be a bonus, but barring some appalling SNP scandal, it is the best they can hope for.<br />
<br />
All eyes are on “middle” England now for Labour. If you are looking at the politics purely in terms of number crunching, it is the UKIP surge that cost Labour the election, with UKIP votes far more than the margin of victory in many constituencies. So it appears that is where Labour’s focus is going for the next five years, whether that is Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.<br />
<br />
To categorise all UKIP voters as right wing is to make a mistake. Many of them back rail renationalisation and support the NHS, with a vote for UKIP a clear two fingers up at the establishment. However, it is clear that there is a strong anti-immigrant factor in many UKIP voting decisions and that the older generations are much more likely to vote UKIP than younger ones. How Labour believes it can win these voters back will be interesting.<br />
<br />
What is increasingly clear is the absolute mountain in electoral terms the Labour Party has to climb, and that is before boundaries are redrawn, which will stack things further in favour the Tories under First Past the Post. Here in Liverpool, Luciana Berger and Steve Rotherham are backing Andy Burnham and Stephen Twigg is backing Liz Kendall (probably not the most popular decision with some councillors and activists in West Derby).<br />
<br />
Whoever emerges as their leader, they are tasked much more with a Kinnock role than one of winning an election. To win now, Labour needs to accept that it is fighting as one of the bigger parties in a multi-party system, rather than pursuing a First Past the Post majority. If they insist on a one more push strategy, it will not work, however it will take a brave leader to move them to a position in favour of Proportional Representation. We shall see.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-67921222045361478732015-05-18T23:51:00.001-07:002015-05-18T23:51:28.538-07:00What? So What? Now What?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div><b>The Past</b><br />
<br />
So as I predicted before the election, there is little thanks in the blogosphere from Labour and others on the left for the seats Greens didn’t stand, but plenty of blame thrown about the Tories now being in government - the SNP, the Greens, anyone but Labour. So the first bit of this entry will look at what happened this time, before I suggest a way forward in 2020 for progressive politics.<br />
<br />
As I made clear <a href="http://www.petercranie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/where-there-is-no-green-candidate.html">in this previous blog</a>, there were six seats where the absence of a Green candidate should have helped Labour hold or gain seats. In Bolton West, Labour failed to hold on despite the local Greens choosing not to stand, and clearly doing so with the marginal status of the constituency in mind. In Wirral West and the City of Chester, there were very narrow wins for both Labour candidates. Look at neighbouring Wirral South and you can see that had the Greens chosen to stand a candidate in these seats, it is highly likely that the Conservatives would have held both.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/general-election-results-just-900-5682492">Daily Mirror </a>has flagged up constituencies where 900 votes made the difference between no overall control and a Tory majority. So we can also look at these seats and a couple of other marginals. Does the charge that the Greens handed the seats to the Tories stack up?<br />
<br />
Well in one of them, Vale of Clwyd, there was no Green candidate so we can write that off. In Gower, you could say that it was the fault of the Greens, or you could say it was down to TUSC, whose votes exceeded the margin of the loss. In Bury North, Croydon Central, Plymouth South & Devonport and Telford the Greens were ahead of the Lib Dems, so maybe it was the fault of the Lib Dems. In Morley and Outwood, formerly Ed Balls’ seat, you could say it was down to the Yorkshire First candidate.<br />
<br />
Only in Derby North can you specifically point at a Green candidate finishing last in the seat and say that if the Greens hadn’t stood it would have meant a Labour win, but even that claim depends on the assumptions that:<br />
<br />
- Every Green voters would have still voted<br />
- Every Green voter would have made Labour their 2nd choice in the absence of a Green candidate<br />
- The dynamics of the campaign would not have been affected <br />
<br />
So if Labour or left supporters want to play a blame game, they can, but it isn’t a black and white analysis. Simplistic claims just don’t work. Greens can equally point to Labour pulling the plank out of its own eye on this issue. <a href="http://bright-green.org/2015/05/13/after-brighton-pavilion-nine-thoughts/">As Adam McGibbon eloquently writes</a> in relation to Brighton (my bold):<br />
<i><br />
“...the full weight of the national Labour Party was thrown at us. Endless mailshots, scores of activists bussed in, a steady stream of shadow cabinet ministers, fancy offices, and a huge national infrastructure backing their local operation. <b>In the end, while Labour threw the kitchen sink at Brighton Pavilion, they lost neighbouring Brighton Kemptown by 690 votes. With turnout in Kemptown 5% lower than Hove and Pavilion, there is so much more Labour could have done to elect Nancy Platts, their excellent, positive, left-wing Kemptown candidate.</b> Not going hell-for-leather to unseat Caroline Lucas, and talking more about the Greens than about the Tories, would have been one thing that would have helped.”</i><br />
<br />
Blaming other parties for a Tory majority means Labour has a long way to go to get to where they need to be in 2020. <br />
<br />
<b>The Future</b><br />
<br />
My view is that we can either spend the next few years blaming each other for an outcome Greens, Reds and even Yellows didn’t want – a majority Tory government – or we can work out how we can work differently next time. This isn’t going to be easy for any single party. The price for Greens and Lib Dems to work with Labour in any sort of electoral arrangement would be dependent on:<br />
<br />
- Labour understanding that Greens never want another majority government, Tory or Labour, unless they gain 50%+ of the vote and have a democratic mandate for it<br />
<br />
- That there are very many Labour MPs in safe Labour seats who believe they have a job for life (including our MPs in Liverpool). They will not easily sign up to any electoral arrangement that will require a change to the voting system, but this would have to change<br />
<br />
- The Greens (and hopefully the Lib Dems) would require real constitutional reform of the voting system, the House of Lords and political accountability in exchange for the kind of co-operation I’m outlining below<br />
<br />
So how could it work? Firstly, you would need a Labour and Lib Dem leader willing to speak about working together with other parties to fix our broken political system. The Labour leader would need to be able to stand up to the majority of their Parliamentary Party who may prefer an extended period in opposition to a voting change that would mean they no longer had a seat for life. Caroline Lucas has already said this about the next election:<br />
<br />
<i>“Unless we break free of tribal politics and work together to fight austerity, and promote crucial, common-sense climate policies, we’re faced with an incredibly bleak political future. For the sake of all those who’ll suffer most at the hands of the Tories, we must rethink our relations and recognise the importance of our common ground.<br />
<br />
That should include shared platforms and case-by-case electoral pacts, to build a strong progressive alliance to challenge the Tories over the next five years. Clearly in Wales and Scotland, where there are PR elections for the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament, this doesn't apply, but where First Past the Post continues to distort election results, it should surely be considered.”</i><br />
<br />
In Liverpool, the Greens are likely to pose the main challenge to Labour in the city for the next decade. The idea of Greens or Labour standing down in favour of one another here is unthinkable but in safe Labour seats, and indeed in most seats, politics would continue as usual. What we need to consider are the marginal seats, like Wirral West, Chester and Bolton West. We did not stand in these seats in 2015 but given our growth, we could have, and we would expect to in 2020. Our presence in these contests would have meant more Tory MPs and a bigger majority for Cameron. What we actually wanted was a hung parliament with a progressive majority.<br />
<br />
So in 2020, we could have Green v Labour contests in Bristol West, Sheffield Central, Liverpool Riverside and Manchester Gorton (or more likely the successor constituencies to them), but potentially with Greens not standing in selected marginals, while Labour don’t stand in Brighton Pavilion. Any candidate standing in a marginal would have to be fully signed up to genuine electoral reform, as would the Labour leadership. The British people don’t deserve a “one last heave” philosophy being put forward by the biggest opposition party. They need something smarter. Given Labour’s near wipeout in Scotland this time, it is now in their interests too, and if Labour can take that step, then so should we.<br />
Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-13220650730091333492015-05-14T15:30:00.001-07:002015-05-14T15:30:38.960-07:00Liverpool Wavertree - Thank You<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>It's a week on and I'd just like to formally thank all the voters of Wavertree before I start blogging about the result. A lot of people voted differently depending on whether it was the local or national elections, so while we got 5.2% for the Parliamentary vote, we got nearly 10% in terms of our local election results around the constituency. I've already explored this issue in the last blog about Liverpool Riverside, but this is one message I received from a voter:<br />
<br />
"...i like your party peter but have to go labour. to keep the nasty 1% party out"<br />
<br />
There are a few more like it. These illustrate the difficulty in persuading people, even in a safe Labour seat, that they can vote Green without any fear of the Conservatives winning. So for all those people that did vote Green, thank you.<br />
<br />
Within Wavertree constituency, we picked up 2 second place council ward finishes, one expected and one not. Paul Kenyon was 2nd in Picton ward (12.3%) which we did expect, but in addition, Julie Birch-Holt finished 2nd in Wavertree ward with 11.5% despite this being one of the seats that there was some local Liberal Democrat activity. <br />
<br />
As I've highlighted to colleagues, the forthcoming boundary review that will potentially hand 30 to 40 seats to the Tories on the basis of this year's result, is likely to result in just 4 Liverpool constituencies. We don't yet know what shape they will be in, but in order to build on our constituency 2nd place in Riverside, we now need to be working hard in a number of neighbouring Wavertree wards too. That is a big challenge for us, but it is one that we can take on. Planning is already underway.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-82360698235553894842015-05-10T15:20:00.001-07:002015-05-10T15:22:05.802-07:00Liverpool Riverside Analysis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>Firstly, I’d like to offer a huge note of thanks to Martin Dobson and everyone who worked on his campaign. I know how hard it is to be a lead candidate from my experience in two Euro campaigns. I also contested Liverpool Riverside in 2005, but did nothing like the level of work that Martin put in this time. He deserves all of our thanks. I think we can always learn from campaigns and I’m going to do a little bit of number crunching on this blog (if you don’t like that sort of thing, please look away now!)<br />
<br />
Last year’s local election results showed that Labour gained 53% of the vote and we gained 27%. So an obvious question is that despite a really impressive and hardworking campaign from Martin Dobson and his team in Riverside, why was the General Election result Labour on 67.4% and the Greens in 2nd place with 12.1%?<br />
<br />
The first point to make is that our local vote wasn’t that much different. If we aggregate the local election vote for Riverside, we gained 23% of the vote, which is a little down on last year’s share. We know that there is a much higher turnout at General Elections, and these figures suggest that people who vote at General Elections are slightly less likely to vote Green. If we also make a basic assumption that people who voted Green in the General Election also voted Green locally (as the options were the same on most ballot papers) then the other half of our local election voters chose not to support us in the General Election. So what are the reasons for this for the disparity? I’d suggest the following:<br />
<br />
- The national message that you have to vote Labour to beat the Tories<br />
- That people don’t see the Greens as a “national” party yet but do like local Greens<br />
- Lib Dem voters boosting our local tally marginally in seats where they fail to put up local candidates<br />
<br />
There is evidence of the first. I sent out my final email message to voters in the Wavertree constituency who had contacted me during the campaign the day before the election. I got back a few positive replies, but I also got back replies that included phrases such as:<br />
<i><br />
“I like the Greens but I’m voting to keep out the nasty party”<br />
<br />
“I don’t want to let the Tories get in”<b></b></i><br />
<br />
Now in Wavertree constituency, the Tories did actually finish 2nd with 10% of the vote, but no serious political analyst thinks they have a cat’s chance of winning this seat for generations. Our conversion rate from local to national votes was a bit higher in Wavertree, but not that different to Riverside. In Riverside we finished 2nd. That argument can and should be dealt with before we get to 2020 as we can make the case in every election that we are the main challenger to Labour in the Riverside seat.<br />
<br />
There are people that Martin said he met on the doorstep that would vote Green locally, but not nationally. We are not yet seen as a credible national party by many. That is harder to address, but the 2nd place finish in Riverside, plus the fact we are the main opposition in Liverpool and we contested all Liverpool constituencies for the first time should start to address this issue. However, we perhaps need to think about how we can best remind people that we are a party that can win seats at Westminster. The more people see of “Caroline Lucas MP, Green Party” the better.<br />
<br />
The final way to really put ourselves in the frame for next time will be to win council seats in every local election between now and 2020 in the seats within the constituency. We were the 2nd place party in every ward except Kirkdale (3rd) and St Michaels (1st). We are going to have to win seats in 2016, 2018 and 2019. We need to show real momentum locally going into the next General Election, because we will need to improve on the 23% gain we made in Bristol to win the seat, but we also need to spread ourselves more widely in Liverpool.<br />
<br />
One complicating factor is that we will almost certainly face redrawn constituency boundaries in Liverpool, with 5 constituencies being reduced to 4. We’ll see possible competition between Labour MPs (unless Louise Ellman chooses to step down) about who should go for which seat. So our target constituency strategy also has to look outside the current boundaries of Riverside to wards like Kensington& Fairfield, Wavertree, Church and Cressington. Under redrawn boundaries any number of combinations could be developed, but we would be unwise to focus solely on the wards that are within the current boundaries.<br />
<br />
On a final note, I can take absolutely no credit for the Liverpool Riverside result. This year, the demands of a new job and a new baby have meant I’ve been putting much, much less of my time into politics. I was delighted to be the Wavertree candidate and very pleased we kept our deposit there. I owe that to the hard work of local candidates like Steve Faragher and Josie Mullen, who did quite a bit within their wards on local campaigning. I’ll be a lot less frontline in Liverpool for a while, but as time allows I’m going to be working hard to help more Green councillors get elected in the coming years.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-10058276887816754312015-05-09T23:21:00.000-07:002015-05-09T23:21:19.688-07:00Leadership<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div><b>Subtitle: In Praise of Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett</b><br />
<br />
Caroline Lucas gained nearly 42% of the vote in Brighton Pavilion, up over 10% on 2010. Massively up on the mid-term polls in 2012 and 2013 that suggest Caroline would lose her seat.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of that year I found out that Caroline was stepping down as leader to focus on her constituency. She knew what it would take to hold the seat as the Labour Party was going to throw everything they could at it. I urged her to continue as leader, so did other people. She was right and we were wrong. That is leadership.<br />
<br />
Her decision to do that, for the last Parliament, was the right one. Going right back to the day after Caroline’s victory in 2010, we knew the success of our 2015 General Election campaign was always going to be about that one result. Despite our detractors in Brighton, we also recorded small increases in our shares of the vote in both Hove and Brighton Kemptown. At a council level, we’ve paid the price for some of the problems of the last four years, some of which were self-inflicted. Some hard working and very talented councillors lost their seats yesterday. There will be lessons to be learned for the whole party from Brighton, but we must note the positives as well from the time in office.<br />
<br />
Natalie Bennett has led the party through a period of phenomenal membership growth. She has been incredibly hard-working and has supported local parties everywhere. Her work around the country has played a major role in our success.<br />
<br />
She has had a tough election. The detractors have been out in force and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/natalie-bennett-green-party-general-election">yesterday’s piece in the Guardian</a> questions whether Natalie should step down because the Greens failed to capture Bristol West, and whether that constitutes a failure or end of the Green surge. That is absurd. Our vote went from under 4% to nearly 27% - an unprecedented leap. The fact that we could even talk about winning Bristol West was exceptional.<br />
<br />
The strategy of having regional target seats also deserves applause. Our 2nd place finishes in Liverpool Riverside (more on this soon), Manchester Gorton and Sheffield Central and that 23% gain in Bristol West mean that we can credibly target to win these seats going forward. There are also some high percentages of the votes in other seats, albeit where we are finishing 3rd or even 4th. Thanks to this strategy we are now able to compete at First Past the Post, and as we have seen, we can use our resources far more effectively than UKIP to achieve electoral success.<br />
<br />
So Natalie deserves plaudits for her performance over this crucial bit of the electoral cycle. We’ve gained a Euro MP, made advances in the General Election and seen a massive surge in grassroots support, membership and activity. That is leadership. I hope we see Natalie lead us into the London Assembly and Local Elections next year, and we should make gains in both. It will not be a surprise if Natalie does get elected to the London Assembly in 2016, that she may then choose to step down to focus on that vital role, but that for now is speculation. The debate about who should lead us in the next big cycle of Euro 2019 and GE 2020 is not one we need to have now.<br />
<br />
Nick Clegg has resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats. Remaining Liberal Democrat members will probably reflect back and realise he should have done this last year after the European Elections. It would have saved some additional Lib Dem seats with a new leader in charge who had been able to criticise the party’s broken promises on tuition fees. The Liberal Democrats have their reward for playing their set of cards very poorly in coalition.<br />
The Liberal Democrats have always stood for electoral reform. What have they got to show for it after 5 years in coalition. Nothing. They talk about having moderated the excesses of the Tories, but we’ve had unprecedented austerity. They talk about governing in the national interest but we’ve been left with the legacy of five years of majority Conservative government even though 63% of the population didn’t vote for that party. Frankly, they blew their one chance to effect real change at a national level. I see no way back for them, particularly given the decimation of their parliamentary ranks.<br />
<br />
You need to read my blog posts (<a href="http://petercranie.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/labours-last-chance-for-majority.html">main</a> and <a href="http://petercranie.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/a-half-apology-and-peter-mitchells.html">second</a> link) last year about Ed Miliband, Liverpool Labour and The Sun newspaper. This was Labour’s last best chance to change leader before the election. It was pretty clear that Labour chose the wrong leader for the wrong election. Now they face a triple whammy of boundary changes, an EU referendum which will neutralise UKIP (and therefore help the Tories in swing seats) and their wipe out in Scotland.<br />
<br />
Little has to be said about Nicola Sturgeon. She has had a magnificent campaign, but when 1.5 million votes deliver 56 seats for one party, in one part of the UK, yet the Greens get 1.14 million and gain just one seat, you know the system is broken. The Tories won’t be rushing to fix it and indeed the boundary reforms that should have happened in the last Parliament will now come through. That will be worth another 30 seats for the Tories and make the prospect of a non-Tory led government getting elected in 2020 much harder to envisage (once again, you have to question the Lib Dems about this failure).<br />
<br />
Finally, I’d like to thank each and every Green Parliamentary candidate. The 136 of us who saved our deposits (which is the best ever Green result) probably felt a sense of progress. But even for those candidates who didn’t, your votes mattered. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money">Short money allocation</a> for this Parliament will enable Caroline Lucas to be better resourced in terms of research support. Your contribution mattered and we are all leaders for standing in our constituencies. We have a long way to go, but we are on the way now.<br />
Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-41747493467420815472015-05-06T15:45:00.000-07:002015-05-06T15:46:59.208-07:00Why Vote Green in Liverpool Wavertree Today?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>I’m your Green candidate but I don’t expect to be your MP tomorrow. Wavertree is predicted to be one of the safest Labour seats in the country, but politics doesn’t have to be like this.<br />
<br />
The Greens have the odds stacked against us. We were not treated by the BBC as one of the four main parties. Donations come in nationally in the thousands, not the millions raised by the others. Yet at this election we are a big part of the story and that is down to people like you.<br />
<br />
There are now more than 60,000 members of the Green Party. We’ve got more members than UKIP. We’ve got more members than the Liberal Democrats. We are also the official opposition on Liverpool City Council and in the only Liverpool poll of the campaign (conducted by LBC), the Greens were in 2nd place ahead of the rest, as the main challengers to Labour.<br />
<br />
Our policies are radical. We want to see real changes to our country and to our world. With this election likely to finish in a score draw between the red and blue parties, despite a third of all voters backing neither of these options, another election may be along soon enough.<br />
<br />
Ultimately you will decide who wins this seat. If every voter tomorrow backs the Greens, we would win, but the bookies have it 100 to 1 on that Wavertree already has a Labour MP elected. <br />
<br />
For those of you who see modern Labour nationally as a timid version of the Labour party your parents and grandparents voted for, then look at what the Greens are proposing and compare us. <br />
<br />
You can vote Green knowing that there is no prospect of a Tory or Lib Dem win in Wavertree for a generation. You can vote Green wanting a Labour party that commits to ending austerity, rather than pursuing managerial politics. <br />
<br />
Every Green vote you cast will help resource those Green MPs we do elect at Westminster, through the public money (Short Money) each opposition party receives. <br />
<br />
The only wasted vote is for a party you don’t believe in. I don’t believe in the other parties, but I do believe in the Greens. So for my future and for the future of my children, I’m standing as your candidate and I’m asking you to believe too.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-40970174109599628582015-05-03T00:13:00.003-07:002015-05-03T00:13:55.007-07:00Voting Green in Wavertree<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>I've just had a good question from a first time voter via email, so I'm sharing the response here:<br />
<br />
<b>Firstly, thanks for emailing me and giving me the chance to respond. I'll give you two answers - the issue based one and the technical one.<br />
<br />
If you vote for something you don't believe in, or don't much believe in, you are probably wasting your vote. If you want society to change and new ideas to develop, red or blue are the two parties that have dominated politics in this country for a century. On the issues, if you feel that the Greens represent you, even if a Green MP doesn't win in your constituency, every Green vote will give weight to the actions of Caroline Lucas and any other Green MPs that get elected to Parliament. If they represent the views of 1 million voters, even with just one or two seats, you are being represented.<br />
<br />
The second answer is technical. In Liverpool Wavertree, you are living in one of the perceived safest seats for Labour. There is no chance of a Conservative (or even Liberal Democrat) winning this seat. Labour will probably be disappointed if they poll less than 60% of the vote here. I'd recommend reading my blogpost on the forecasts for Liverpool constituencies written in March http://www.petercranie.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/electoral-calculus-election-forecast.html<br />
<br />
Last week, LBC conducted a poll in Liverpool, with 38% of people saying they would vote Labour, the Greens in 2nd place with 9% but with over 30% of voters undecided. In last year's council elections we were the second biggest party in terms of vote share. Increasingly Liverpool is likely to be a Labour v Green contest, even under our outdated First Past the Post System. So you can vote however you want here, with no danger of the Conservatives winning.<br />
<br />
A final point. Caroline Lucas was our only MP in the last Parliament. She won her seat with 31% of the vote in 2010. In the 2005 election, we had won 22% and in 2001 just 9%. If those people in Brighton in 2001 and 2005 had decided to vote tactically for the least worst option in those years, we would never have had the political credibility to win the seat in 2010. So how you vote in this election doesn't just matter for the result now, but also for the future.</b>Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-61690576572366856502015-04-14T14:49:00.001-07:002015-04-14T14:50:28.093-07:00Where There is No Green Candidate...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>It is true that we are standing more candidates than ever before in this election, but there are going to be places that won't have the opportunity to vote Green in 2015. Now there has been a lot of hot air from the Tories <a href="http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/11829595.Green_Party_accused_of__socialist_stitch_up__as_they_decline_to_stand_candidate_in_marginal_Bolton_West/ ">about Bolton West</a> and the fact that the local party isn't standing in one of the seats the Tories would need to take from Labour if they needed to form a majority government.<br />
<br />
Looking at Labour’s top 50 targets, 41 are Tory seats. If Labour were to win these seats from the Tories, combined with the ones it should take from the Liberal Democrats, it would ensure they are the largest party, even if they lose every seat they currently hold in Scotland to the SNP. In just 5 of these marginals, there will be no Green candidate. They are:<br />
<br />
City of Chester<br />
Crewe & Nantwich<br />
Lincoln<br />
Thurrock<br />
Wirral West<br />
<br />
If we look at Wirral West as an example, I know there are one or two members who were deeply disappointed not to stand. One of the risks of not having a Green candidate is that Green voters may not turn out in large numbers. However, where there are local elections on the same day (most metropolitan councils) they will still have a local Green candidate. I therefore think the majority of our supporters will still cast their votes. Out of the two candidates contesting a marginal seat, they are likely to go for the one who opposes fracking and is against the renewal of Trident. That will likely result in helping the Labour candidate Margaret Greenwood to gain the seat.<br />
<br />
What we have to make clear is that there has been no national strategy on the marginal seats. Decisions to stand have been taken locally and in most constituencies, the Greens have a candidate. Should Labour win the five seats listed and hold Bolton West, we shouldn't expect any thanks from them. The First Past the Post system is broken and should Labour form the largest party, they will do well to bear in mind that at the next election, be it in October or in 2020, the Greens will be everywhere. It is time for electoral reform and if Ed Miliband becomes Prime Minister in May he would do well to move things along before the next election, as the Greens are on the rise and there will be no seat uncontested next time.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-66560434535123909222015-04-13T07:15:00.001-07:002015-04-13T07:15:05.281-07:00The Tactical Vote Debate<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>Do you vote tactically or not? This isn't a question for us hardened politicos. We are going to vote for our party, our team and our candidates regardless. However, it is something that the general public will be thinking about.<br />
<br />
So how did it go in 2010? A lot of people voted for the Lib Dems tactically because they didn't want a Conservative government and that didn't exactly go well for them. On the other hand, the Greens argued in favour of the marginal improvement offered by the Alternative Vote system, and given that we are still stuck with FPTP, isn't tactical vote swapping as advocated by the Vote Swap website the next best thing?<br />
<br />
Our political system is broken. We now have a 5 party (plus SNP / Plaid Cymru) system in the UK. However, UKIP and the Greens are only currently being projected to win a seat each, despite both parties potentially gaining a number of 2nd place finishes.<br />
<br />
Why might people use a tactical vote? In a perceived safe seat, like Liverpool Wavertree, anti-Trident Labour supporters might back the Greens to put pressure on their own party. In a perceived marginal seat, Green voters might hold their noses and vote for a Labour candidate because they don't want to see a Tory-led government. In France, in the presidential run off between Chirac and Le Pen, Socialists turned out to vote for "the crook instead of the fascist".<br />
<br />
To pretend tactical voting won't go on in this election is to ignore the reality of "squeeze messages" and the unsatisfactory nature of First Past the Post. That is different for actively advocating it. If we as Greens were to go back in a time machine to Brighton in 1997, 2001 and 2005 and encourage our supporters to vote for the lesser of two evils, then Caroline Lucas would not be an MP today.<br />
<br />
As the candidate in Liverpool Wavertree, I do have some thoughts on Labour supporters here and I do want to attract their tactical votes at this election, in a seat that is rated by some websites as a 100% certainty as a Labour hold. If Labour supporters want to protect Green space in our city, or they want to make clear that they don't want Trident renewed, or they are unhappy about Luciana Berger's donation in kind from Deloitte (who will be recommending whether or not NHS Professionals should be privatised), then I'll take those tactical votes.<br />
<br />
While I appreciate the sentiment, and the recommendation from the Vote Swap website, for Labour supporters to vote Green in Wavertree, I couldn't offer a swap elsewhere and I don't think others should. The lesson for Greens everywhere must be that a large Green vote will help show that the system is broken and every vote will help financially for any Green MP(s) elected to Parliament.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-68327883265740089382015-04-07T03:19:00.001-07:002015-04-07T04:50:33.566-07:00Deloitte, Donations and the NHS<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>I'll level with you. Our total spend for the General Election in Liverpool Wavertree is likely to be around £1100 by the time election day is upon us. That is money that has been donated by members and includes my own contribution that will be in the election expenses. I'm not sure who will be funding the other campaigns from the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Tories. <br />
<br />
For a full breakdown on Luciana Berger's register of interests, you can look at <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24924">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24924</a><br />
<br />
One donor is <a href="http://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en.html">Deloitte MCS Ltd</a> who are currently reviewing the options for NHS Professionals who supply staff to the NHS (<a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1356686/nhs-sale-plan-controversy-risk-for-ministers">story here</a>). They are currently publicly owned, but Deloitte are in charge of the review. I hope for Luciana's sake that they recommend that it is retained in the public sector, otherwise things might become a bit awkward for the Shadow Minister for Public Health.<br />
<br />
Addition:<br />
<br />
The Morning Star have already covered this story <a href="https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-52af-Who-are-the-real-feudal-lords#.VSPEOY4S5vk">here</a>.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-36938747178905890302015-03-18T14:11:00.000-07:002015-03-18T14:11:12.105-07:00Electoral Calculus Election Forecast for Liverpool<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>There are 7 weeks to go until the General Election. With Liverpool home to some of the safest Labour seats in the country, there are no individual constituency polls here, but there are forecasts about how well parties are going to do based on different models. If you asked me about our canvassing returns in our target Liverpool Riverside constituency, I’d tell you truthfully that they are very good for us, and that our result there looks set to be even better than last year’s local elections, but that information potentially can be seen as partisan or biased.<br />
<br />
So for an objective view of Liverpool, you have to look at the different websites with methodology for their forecasts that look at the potential results in the Liverpool constituencies. These are not going to be as accurate as the Ashcroft polling of marginal constituencies where the likeable Margaret Greenwood looks set to win the seat for Labour and oust Esther McVey. This blog post will look at the indications that www.electoralcalulus.co.uk gives us about the results in Liverpool. They were the most accurate online forecaster for the 2010 election, so the methodology has good form.<br />
<br />
It is no surprise that the site predicts Labour to hold in every seat, but it is very clear that we look set to make a lot of progress from 2010. The site predicts a clean sweep of comfortable wins for Labour in Liverpool at the General Election. The Greens and UKIP will be looking to emerge as the 2nd place party across the city based on aggregate vote shares. However, the forecast makes grim reading for local Liberal Democrats, who look set to lose their deposit in four out of the five Liverpool seats. The Conservatives are predicted to lose one deposit (in Walton). <br />
<br />
<b>Liverpool Riverside</b><br />
<br />
www.electoralcalculus.co.uk predicts:<br />
<br />
Labour 64.2%<br />
Greens 11.7%<br />
UKIP 11.1%<br />
Cons 8.1%<br />
Lib Dems 4.7% [Lost Deposit]<br />
TUSC 0.3% [Lost Deposit]<br />
<br />
In 2014 Labour’s share of the local election vote in Riverside was 53% and Greens 27%. Turnout in a General Election is roughly double local turnout, so if even if we just hold our vote, we should do better than the election forecasts. The bookies odds show Greens as the second favourites in this seat. Labour are 1/100 in every Liverpool seat, but in Riverside the Greens are now down to 22-1 from 100-1 a couple of months ago.<br />
<br />
<b>Liverpool Wavertree</b><br />
<br />
www.electoralcalculus.co.uk predicts:<br />
<br />
Labour 57.7%<br />
Lib Dems 16.1%<br />
UKIP 11%<br />
Greens 9.4%<br />
Cons 5.6%<br />
TUSC 0.2% [Lost Deposit]<br />
<br />
You’ll have seen me blog about Wavertree previously, and as the Green candidate here, I am getting contacted by email every day. I’d estimate over 600 so far. Often in response to my replies I have it acknowledged that I am the first or only person to (so far) respond. I also had the unusual experience of someone replying to me thinking I was the Lib Dem candidate (and then apologising for the mistake). I can tell you in no uncertain terms, that former Lib Dem voters are not at all happy in Liverpool.<br />
<br />
Jake Morrison’s endorsement has also been a boost to the campaign and I don’t think the models above can allow for that impact. I’d also like to thanks Caroline Lucas for name checking me and Wavertree in her speech at Conference. I’m now in a position where I expect for us to save our deposit, but I would like to see us break that 10% barrier in this election.<br />
<br />
Unlike Martin Dobson in Riverside, I obviously can’t predict a 2nd place finish based on the information above, but the evidence is we should hold our deposit comfortably and at a push get into double figures. This would be a big step up from the mere 1.6% we managed in 2010. I don’t think 2nd is impossible. I think the residual Lib Dem vote is inflated in this particular example, and they will actually be much closer to 10%. We’ve got some good campaign material going out and we’ve already had a couple of good endorsements, particularly from Cllr Jake Morrison.<br />
<b><br />
Garston and Halewood</b><br />
<br />
www.electoralcalculus.co.uk predicts:<br />
<br />
Labour 64.5%<br />
UKIP 13.7%<br />
Con 11.9%<br />
Green 7.7%<br />
Lib Dem 2.1% [Lost Deposit]<br />
<br />
In 2010 we didn’t stand a candidate in Garston & Halewood so to jump to nearly 8% would be an incredibly good start in the constituency. The shocking point in a number of these seats is the prediction of a lost deposit for the Lib Dems. They will be trying to defend their last council seat in Woolton but the prospects are not good. My view is that we will keep our deposit here and as I will argue in the conclusion, UKIP will actually do much less well than expected in Liverpool than elsewhere, largely because of the well publicised photo of Nigel Farage endorsing the Sun newspaper.<br />
<br />
<b>Liverpool Walton</b><br />
<br />
www.electoralcalculus.co.uk predicts:<br />
<br />
Labour 75.2%<br />
UKIP 8.6%<br />
Green 6.5%<br />
Con 4.9% [Lost Deposit]<br />
Lib Dem 1.4% [Lost Deposit]<br />
<br />
The evidence from last year’s local election is that we will finish ahead of the Lib Dems and we know that at a local level, a huge issue is that people want to protect Walton Hall Park. Greens have been at the forefront of campaigns to protect green space in the city. Again, to go from a standing start to more than saving our deposit and potentially even 2nd place, will be a respectable result.<br />
<br />
<b>Liverpool West Derby</b><br />
<br />
www.electoralcalculus.co.uk predicts:<br />
<br />
Labour 67.3%<br />
Liberal 9.3% (Steve Radford Liberals)<br />
UKIP 8.7%<br />
Con 6.9%<br />
Green 6.4%<br />
Lib Dem 1.2% [Lost Deposit]<br />
<br />
This final forecast shows that model has a factored in unique local political circumstances as it is clear to anyone who follows politics in the city that Steve Radford’s Liberals will do better than the Lib Dems here. Again a saved deposit at first time of standing would be very respectable.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
The bookies and forecasts suggest Labour is currently on track to win all five seats in Liverpool (no surprise there). Ultimately the result will depend on Liverpool’s voters and no election is won until the people have cast their votes. I think we’ll do well and be a lot closer to Labour in Riverside than people currently predict and I hope we will also make substantial progress in my own seat of Wavertree and the others.<br />
<br />
The Lib Dems are forecast to collapse around the city, with Wavertree bucking the trend. However, with all due respect to Leo Evans, the Lib Dem candidate, I don’t think they are currently showing anything that suggests that Liverpool Wavertree will be anything like as good as the forecast. Last year they were putting resources into different local campaigns in the constituency. This year it will just be Church ward.<br />
<br />
UKIP should do well based on national swings, and I’d expect them to hold their deposit everywhere. There are some “buts” though. Firstly if a further right party stands, like the BNP or English Democrats, their couple of percent of vote share will come directly from UKIP. Secondly, Nigel Farage’s endorsement of the S*n newspaper was not widely reported and every time UKIP raise their head on social media in Liverpool, you can expect that point to follow with a suitable photographic reminder. There are a lot of football fans, of a variety of political persuasions, who were disgusted by all the party leaders from Labour, UKIP, Lib Dems and the Tories endorsing the S*n at the same time. There is definitely going to be a Green vote from some in Liverpool as we are the only one of the “big five” nationally to refuse to endorse the S*n. We prefer to campaign against Page 3 than suck up to Rupert Murdoch.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg91cv_Hzg5TDjs7uT2woCZ3K5R8QMszfbRcvLcHJsIMcQus5NQHRgIvMmHDt_ZOiYZOTdB7m0CDCveKvRnn2nMsfOV865pykNpzmqMJozXGj7pgRBnSII252NjasxIchRp062mmofHR8/s1600/Farage+Sun.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg91cv_Hzg5TDjs7uT2woCZ3K5R8QMszfbRcvLcHJsIMcQus5NQHRgIvMmHDt_ZOiYZOTdB7m0CDCveKvRnn2nMsfOV865pykNpzmqMJozXGj7pgRBnSII252NjasxIchRp062mmofHR8/s400/Farage+Sun.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
For the Greens there are some positives, but we’ve got a lot of work to do. There is some brilliant targeted campaigning going on for us to win more council seats and a Parliamentary seat. I’m very optimistic about our prospects.<br />
<br />
One voter in Wavertree contacted me and said it was a two horse race here. I pointed out it was much more like a one horse race this time. However, things get interesting if we are back at the polls within a year of this election. With formal coalitions being ruled out, this coming Parliament could be very short lived. If we have earned 2nd place in two or more of the Liverpool constituencies, it will give us a very strong platform on which to campaign.<br />
Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4893301059394577332.post-19910921582836913592015-01-29T04:50:00.004-08:002015-01-29T04:50:27.115-08:00Does Everyone in Labour Really Want to Win the Election?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
</div>Let me be clear at the start that I am not here to question the commitment of many Labour activists, councillors and MPs who are on the ground canvassing in marginal constituencies. They are fighting to win the election and remove Cameron as Prime Minister. Nor am I questioning Ed Miliband and the team he has around him. He wants to (and needs to) win this election. The question I’m asking is whether some of the factions and significant individuals in the Labour Party want them to lose the election.<br />
<br />
In 2003 I was on an intercity train travelling from Glasgow to London. On it there was a rather drunk man with a very posh accent. He claimed to have worked for Major from 1990 to 1992. If I can sum up a rather tedious couple of hours of conversation, he said it had all gone wrong when he had won that election. I paraphrase, but something like, “the bloody fool wasn’t supposed to win”.<br />
<br />
Have some of the high profile members of the Labour party (and the factions they come from) decided that they do not want to win this election? Is there evidence of Ed Miliband being undermined, quietly, by his own side? Of course there can’t now be open revolt as we are now in the election campaign, but Blair and others seem willing to damn Ed Miliband with faint praise.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/convictions-politics-fear-syriza-podemos-snp-green">George Monbiot had this to say yesterday</a>:<br />
<br />
“If Labour wins in May, it is likely to destroy itself faster and more surely than if it loses, through the continued implementation of austerity. That is the lesson from Europe”<br />
<br />
It would be bad for the country to see another blue/yellow coalition for the next five years but Labour and its leader have failed to inspire. Despite that, the electoral system is stacked in Labour’s favour. Even with a smaller share of the vote than the Tories, they will probably end up with more seats. To end up as the smaller party, Ed Miliband is going to have to do worse than Gordon Brown at the polls, and that would require serious acts of sabotage from within his own ranks.Peter Craniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00360575849841504671noreply@blogger.com0