The Cost of Standing Down Candidates

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.

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.

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):

- Brighton Kemptown, £541.28
- Shipley, £439.79
- Ealing, £304.47
- Ilford, £169.15

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):

- Brighton Kemptown, £541.28
- Shipley, £439.79
- Ealing, £304.47
- Ilford, £169.15

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why I'm Backing John Coyne for GPEx Chair

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

What Would a Democratic or Progressive Alliance Look Like?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This post ends with seats that this writer thinks could be crucial in any discussions:

Labour marginals that would need to be held:

City of Chester
Ealing Central & Acton
Brentford and Isleworth
Wirral West
Halifax
Ilford North
Newcastle Under Lyme
Barrow and Furness
Wolverhampton South West

Labour targets where 2015 Green vote > Tory majority:

Derby North
Croydon Central
Plymouth Sutton and Devonport
Brighton Kemptown
Bury North
Morley and Outwood
Weaver Vale
Gower
Telford
Bedford

Further Labour targets:

Vale of Clwyd
Thurrock
Bolton West
Plymouth Moor View
Lincoln
Cardiff North
Peterborough
Corby
Waveney
Warrington South
Southampton Itchen
Keighley


Lib Dem seats being defended / targeted:

Southport
Carshalton and Wallington
Eastbourne
Lewes


Green seats where Lab or LD may stand down in exchange:

Brighton Pavilion
Isle of Wight

Election Results Summary

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.

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).

There is an interesting piece at Lib Dem voice 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.



This doesn't just happen in Liverpool, but is a systematic attempt to mislead voters in their favour. Another example from Manchester here:



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.

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.

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.

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%

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. I’ll hopefully be retiring the blog (again) 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.

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.

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.

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.

#LiverpoolMayor First and Second Preferences

This 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.

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:

- Greenbank
- Mossley Hill
- Princes Park

In St Michaels, we are defending our seat against Labour, who were the second place party last time, so the position is reversed there.

The Mayoral Election is totally different. 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):



Some people on Twitter have been worried about opposition candidates "splitting the vote" and allowing Joe Anderson to remain as Mayor. This will not be the case if you cast your vote for two candidates and use both preferences. 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.

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):

"Paul whilst I respect you and Tim; the #FibDems will NEVER get my vote again; my ex left the party; friends…"

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.

Do Richard Kemp's Claims About the Mayoral Election Withstand Scrutiny? #liverpoolmayor

“My job was to maximise the Liberal Democrat vote, and I think I have done that.”

That was Richard Kemp's assessment of the Lib Dem Mayoral campaign in 2012 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.

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 on his blog, that it is him or Joe Anderson. I prefer it when we refer to the evidence:

So a quick reminder:

- The Greens gained nearly 20,000 votes in the last local elections
- That was 3,200+ more than the Lib Dems
- 10% of city wards don’t have Lib Dem council candidates (lack of activists or support from residents?)
- The cuts forced on Liverpool in this year’s council budget were imposed by the Lib Dems as part of the coalition

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.

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