Congratulations to Elizabeth May, Canada's first Green MP

Elizabeth May, the leader of the Canadian Greens has won their first ever Parliamentary seat defeating a long-standing cabinet minister.

Having run an innovative campaign, including a series of attack ads against attack ads, and running a ruthlessly targeted strategy. May won an incredible 47% of the vote beating her opponent by a full 13%.

Accepting victory she said "I stand here today as the first elected Green member of Parliament in Canadian history... I remain committed, as I've been throughout this campaign, to rejecting the politics of cynicism of fear, to embracing hope and to bringing respect back to our House of Commons."

It was a night of decapitations as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe both lost their seats. In fact the Liberals lost half their seats and Bloc Quebecois were obliterated going from 49 seats t the last election to just four.

The headline of the  night, of course, is that the Conservatives won an overall majority and it was a historic night for the centre left New Democratic Party which won 103 seats and over 30% of the vote despite never having had more than 43 seats since it started running in elections from 1962.


So, although not quite good news all round, there will be at least three sets of party faithful quaffing champagne until the early hours and beyond - best wishes and love to the Green Party who've had a long hard struggle to get their under First Past the Post.

Update: thought people would like to see the percentages and seats (this is all conducted under First Past the Post). Another good argument for proportional representation (from here);

Guest Post: Steven Agnew on the Green election campaign in the North of Ireland

Steven Agnew, leader of the Greens in the North of Ireland kindly sent me this on the shape of the election campaign there, the Green New Deal and prospects for the future.

The Green Party recognises that in these harsh financial times what we need is Economy for People and Planet.

Resources are stretched and we have to prioritise spending on areas that meet a number of policy objectives. There is no sense in squandering money on projects that may be good economically but environmentally damaging.

Equally we should not be pushing environmental policies that are not good for people. The Green Party benchmarks all its policies on whether they are good for the economy, good for people and good for the environment. We believe government should be doing the same.

In the last Assembly with one MLA the Green Party was able to get cross party support for the ambitious Green New Deal programme. If fully implemented the Green New Deal will provide thousands of jobs while helping to tackle fuel poverty and combat climate change. We need a strong Green Party presence in the next Assembly to ensure the vision of the Green New Deal is realised.

To achieve this, our first objective in the next Assembly term must be to see that the current budget is scrapped and rewritten.

The Green Party opposed the cuts budget in both Westminster and in the Assembly. As it stands the Northern Ireland budget will see our public sector decimated and result in massive job losses. It is not a budget borne out of economic necessity but one that is driven by political ideology. As was clear from Peter Robinson’s speech yesterday, this budget is about slashing the public sector to make way for increased privatisation.

Public services must be provided on the basis of need, not on profitability.

This is a budget which has been supported by the DUP, Sinn Fein and the Alliance Party. The opposition that comes from the UUP and SDLP has more to do with political opportunism than from having any real alternative vision. The Green Party is the only viable alternative to the decimation of our public sector.

In this manifesto we propose that we mutualise Northern Ireland Water and put a moratorium on the building of new roads so that an extra £1.5billion would be available for front line services such as health and education and to fully fund the Green New Deal insulation scheme.

What the current budget offers is a Green New Deal pilot scheme. Why do we need a pilot when we know that invested in insulation creates jobs, reduces home heating bills and reduces carbon emissions? By insulating 500,000 homes we can provide employment for up to 15,000 people.

In the next Assembly we will oppose plans to increase fees for students that would see our young people burdened with crippling debt – this is an unacceptable price for university education which benefits our whole society. I myself have a £16,000 debt from my university days. I will not condemn the next generation of students to the burden of debts of up to £40,000.

The other parties are happy to blame Westminster for the cuts to higher education funding - we will not let them hide behind this smokescreen

We need to Invest in NI. We need to invest in our young people and in the small local businesses which are the backbone of our economy. Small businesses are being ignored by an economic policy that seeks the quick fix of Foreign Direct Investment. Other parties want to gamble with our economy. They are proposing putting £300million of our money on the corporation tax cut in the hope of landing the FDI jackpot. We entice these companies in with huge grants and the promise of cheap labour and lax environmental regulations. However they soon leave again once the money has dried up – taking their profits with them.

Instead we should be protecting the businesses we have and helping them to grow. We need to build the economy from the ground up to ensure that it is sustainable and resilient in times of global economic uncertainty.

The Green Party enters these elections in better shape than ever. Our European election result showed our vote had trebled in the space of five years. In these elections we are looking to translate that growth of support into seats in the Assembly and in local councils. We have young candidates that can bring a breath of fresh air to Northern Ireland politics and the experience and expertise of Green Parties across the globe to draw upon. While others dwell in the past it is the Green Party that has the vision for a brighter future.

The far right and May 5th

The Labour years saw a steady increase in the vote of the far right, a rise that took the BNP to historic levels of support and unprecedented, if modest, success at the ballot box - predominately in Labour "safe" seats where the electorate had been taken for granted and ignored for years.

However, by the time our new coalition overlords came to power the BNP's momentum was well and truly broken as the organisation fell into infighting, expulsions and paranoia. Other groupings like the English Democrats and the National Front have made life extremely uncomfortable in selected areas, but as organisations are abject failures.

Sadly, this does not mean that the mood which spawned these far right organisations has disappeared. In fact the last general election saw a record vote for the BNP and with UKIP's more, cough, eccentric approach attracting many of the right's stability challenged individuals we have a movement that has been beaten organisationally but not psychologically.

Of course that doesn't stop the BNP's chief Mussolini impersonator Nick Griffin from being a bugbear used to frighten the children.

For example, the Yes to AV people have been playing heavily on the fact that Griffin opposes AV and if the black shirted devil thinks something we can't possibly agree with him. That rather ignores two obvious things.

Griffin is also for renationalising the railways and opposed the Iraq War. Are the millions of people in this country that do the same somehow capitulating to fascism? Of course not, no more than vegetarians are similar to Hitler. Griffin will hold a host of views, some political some not, that are not the defining feature of his politics. Yet somehow this political irrelevance is being used to give the moral high ground to all those who are voting Yes on May 5th.

It also ignores the fact that Nick Clegg is far more hated than Griffin (because more people actively think hate-y thoughts about him more of the time) so it might not be wise to start playing the "You can't agree with him" game. It makes no more sense to "vote Yes to oppose the BNP" than it does to "vote No to annoy Nick Clegg". Well, it actually makes less sense.

I digress. The electoral prospects for the BNP are dismal at best as they are standing fewer candidates than for years and some former strongholds have no BNP candidates at all. This is all very satisfactory and people in those areas can concentrate on averting the global catastrophe that is mainstream politics free from the distractions of goose-stepping uniform fetishists.

Of course, organisations like Hope Not Hate are working hard targeting those council wards where the BNP can be driven out once and for all. The BNP are defending eleven council seats this year, in particular in Stoke on Trent, and if fail to keep these seats that will be half their remaining councillors gone and the organisation's spirit broken for good. This is where the battle is.

It's frustrating to see in Edinburgh posters up advocating  us to "vote to keep out the BNP". It's frustrating because the BNP don't have a hope in hell of winning an MSP anywhere in Scotland, nor even of coming close to winning one. This election isn't even remotely about the BNP and the only people going into the polling station thinking of the BNP will be the genuinely tiny number of people who will be voting for them.

It's also frustrating because this tactic of mobilising the vote against the far right has a real use under particular circumstances. The classic example is that of Derek Beackon, a BNP member who won their first ever council seat back in 1993, the same year Stephen Lawrence was murdered. The anti-fascist movement came out in droves to get Beackon out and the next year he was out of the council again.

However, whilst inspiring it is worth noting what, specifically, the anti-fascists achieved electorally. Leaving aside the added confidence in the area to those opposing the right, the BNP's vote actually increased from the '93 by-election to the '94 full council election where Beackon gained more than 2,000 votes in his ward (over 28%) but the Labour vote was also dramatically increased as the obvious candidate to beat the BNP.

In the context this was an incredibly useful strategy, but in areas where they have no chance of winning this tactic (which inevitably increases the far right vote) serves simply to advertise the presence of the far right in areas where they do not have the man-power to make their presence felt themselves. In other words in places like Edinburgh ignoring them in elections where they don't have a chance is the best and most effective anti-fascist tactic even though banging the drum might make you feel better and allow you to recruit to your organisation.

The only people going out of their way to let the people of Edinburgh know they can vote for a Nazi this May are the small group of anti-fascists, and the only possible result of their activities is that the BNP's impact in the area is increased. I'd also say that this tactic is less well suited to proportional representation elections (which the second vote is) anyway, because concentrating the "not fascist" vote into one party doesn't stop them getting elected.

The BNP is dying on its arse. In those remaining eleven council seats it needs to be squashed out of existence, but everywhere else the very worse thing we can do is to make out they are still a significant force in UK politics, because frankly the only thing that could save them now is if people start to believe that.

Hustings report: Edinburgh Southern

It was a beautiful sunny day today, so what better place to spend it than in a church hall listening to politicians. Glorious. This time it was the Newington Churches Together hustings for Edinburgh Southern and we had Andrew McPake from the SSP list, Gavin Brown the Tory constituency candidate, Jim Eady the SNP constituency candidate, Margo MacDonald the respected independent, Mike Pringle, the outgoing Lib Dem MSP and Paul Godzik Labour's constituency candidate.

Alison Johnstone for the Greens (pic from here)

Oh, and Alison Johnstone for the Greens who was the best of all of them (pictured).

I'm going to be nauseatingly pleasant for a moment and say I thought they all came across well, in terms of speaking style and personability. In other words there were no 'duds' on the panel, but there was a great deal to disagree with. I wrote sporadic notes throughout but wont attempt to give a blow by blow account, just a flavour.

Alison (Greens) started off and managed to set the agenda of the initial discussion by raising the cuts, whether they are actually necessary and the amount of social harm that they will do. She praised groups like UKUncut for their sterling work against corporate tax evasion and talked about the need for tighter legislation to ensure even the richest companies and individuals have to pay their fair share of tax. As she said the private sector will not fill the jobs gap when public sector workers have been laid off.

Andrew (SSP) said how we used to have a colourful parliament. Full of different parties that represented different view points and this was good for democracy. He hoped to see a 'rainbow parliament' again, with SSP members in it. Like Alison he railed against the cuts and felt that in order to tackle tax avoidance we needed an 'independent Scotland with teeth'. We didn't need cuts but increased taxation revenue, and that was to come from the rich.

Gavin (Conservatives) listed all the money the Tories were giving to various small business schemes and market organisations. For me this came across as hand outs for businesses and we'll close your library. Later he also said that the cuts were *not* savage, but more a gentle rebalancing of the books.

Jim (SNP) was a competent speaker but lacked detail I thought. So for example he said the cuts weren't necessary but I was never sure why he thought that, unless it was his comment about using the wealth oil would bring in - which I'm pretty sure is not a sustainable model. Certainly though he came across as a steady social democrat, but I did drift off a bit when he was speaking. Sorry.

It was good to hear Margo (Independent) in the flesh as I'd heard nice things about her. I was very disappointed then when the main thrust of her opening address was on how essential the cuts were, and that they needed to be deep. She claimed that the politicians (including herself) did not understand the current situation (which I took to mean she didn't) and that we needed to get the election "over with as soon  as possible". Frankly I think the date is set at May 5th and it would be a bit of a hassle to change that now.

Mike (Lib Dems) agreed with Margo about how necessary the cuts were but that his priority at this election was police numbers, and opposition to the merger of the Scottish police forces. He stated very clearly that he was against free prescription charges and opposed to a council tax freeze (at least I can agree with him on that last one).


Paul (Labour) made quite a motherhood and apple pie introduction talking about protecting jobs and "frontline" services, although he was opposed to getting extra revenue from taxation. I wondered how he was going to achieve this, well, "efficiencies" in the "backroom" (where clearly nothing useful happens because the public can't see them) and "Scottish solutions for Scottish problems". In particular he wanted further efficiency savings in the police, fire-service and health. That's all sorted then, job done, no harm to anyone.

Of the highlights of the debate I'd say there were three. First on crime. The Lib Dem and Margo MacDonald both came out against mandatory sentencing for carrying a knife and although the Labour guy tried to defend it he just sounded like someone who likes locking people up and doesn't mind if they deserved it. It was Andrew from the SSP who took it up a  notch getting very impassioned about the low conviction rate for rape in Scotland and noted that it was time we thought about lowering the evidence threshold on rape. I'm not for that, but it was a strong point well made.

The Conservative, Gavin Brown, felt that we weren't sending enough people to prison and that we were letting them out too soon. I should have heckled that Ken Clarke didn't agree with him, but was too lazy.


The second was on renewable energy. Now this is an area which I think is difficult for the Greens (at a hustings). Everyone expects us to be good on this, it's our topic as it were. So if we shine - well, that's as it should be - and if the others all say they like turbines, sun and wave (as they all say they do these days) it's harder for us to be distinctive on this unless we're prepare to really hammer the record of the other parties.

So we had a few comments about how windy and wavy Scotland was and that the SNP were going to make us 100% renewable powered. Then Alison stepped in and, I think, blew the others out of the water. It's all very well arguing for new wind turbines, she argued, they're ok I suppose, but the key problem is that we're using too much energy, not simply that we're producing it in the wrong way.

If our home insulation scheme was rolled out properly (unlike the half hearted scheme the SNP proposed) it would have a phenomenal impact on our energy *needs* as well as making the poorest households warmer. Without tackling waste and reliance on oil fancy renewable technologies wont take us nearly far enough. I thought that was great, as it challenged the idea that green ideas are something you can just buy in and carry on as normal.

The last highlight (there were lots of other questions) was on what party the panelists would be a member of if they couldn't be in their own. It's a great innocent sounding question that is an incredible minefield for all the parties, but especially the Greens.

SNP Jim got in quick with his "The Margo MacDonald Party" which was promptly banned as an answer for further panelists. Then Labour, Lib Dem and the SSP candidates all said they'd be in the Greens (the SSP candidate pointing out that many members of his party had actually been expelled from Labour so might find it hard to go back).

Alison for the Greens, faced with all this love, had to do some quick thinking. She basically ran through the fact that we like some of the policies of other parties and work with them (for instance the SNP and nuclear) but would have real problems digesting some other policies (for instance SNP and road building). In the end she plumped for the Green Party of England and Wales - which in no way answers the question, well dodged that woman.

That only left the Tory who made some weird remark about Solidarity... but I don't think he was considering joining them.

Anyway, those were my impressions. I'm sticking with the Scottish Greens for the list vote, as you might expect, but you'll have to wait and find out who I vote for in the Constituency list where the Greens aren't standing.

Welsh Green Party broadcast

Hot on the heels of the Scottish Green broadcast, here's the Welsh version. A lovely combo of Ivor the Engine and election geekery.

What's happening in Australia?

Last week saw two events in Australia that should give all right thinking people (ie people who agree with me) a little chilly shiver. The first was barmy, the second much more substantial.

The Liberal leader Tony Abbott chose to back and speak at a major anti-government rally. Not against cuts, as here, but against taxes - carbon pricing to be exact (pdf) - an imperfect measure intended to aid the fight against climate change.

Unlike the UK where climate change is often seen as an issue for people far away in Australia they *are* far away and have seen bush fires, droughts, floods and disasters over the last ten years on a really frightening scale. They've even had record hail storms.

There really is no excuse for anyone to be a climate denier in Oz, but the main opposition Liberals (read Tories UK people) had a mini-coup last year deposing one leader who was seen as too reasonable on climate with an out and out denier.

However, under pressure from the right Labor has taken it's traditional position of buckling. This has led to Labor's leader, Julia to issue instructions to the troops to distance themselves from their Green partners, even as the Greens are welcoming the deal both partners just signed. As per usual the electorate have scented weakness and signalled that they just don't respect it.

Meanwhile in the New South Wales state election we saw a massive swing to the right giving the Liberal/National Coalition seats they never dreamed they might win. Of course, the small crumb of comfort here is that the Greens also achieved their best ever result including electing their first ever representative in the NSW lower house (who's from the midlands). However, in the context of an incredible swing towards the climate denying right that win is a very small chink of light.

At least we know there is a growing audience for left and green ideas as Labor's failure to deliver a progressive agenda becomes more and more apparent. Right now they're lost and in government, a terrible combination. Here's the results.

	%	Swing	Seats	Change
Liberal	38.6	+11.7	51	+29
Labor	25.6	–13.4	20	–32
National	12.5	+2.5	18	+5
Greens	10.3	+1.3	1	+1
Independent	8.8	+1	3	–3
Other	4.2	–3.1	0	0
		Total	93

For the geek minded I thought I'd also compare percentage seats to percentage vote under AV, just because it backs up the contention that AV accentuates trends which can, sometimes, lead it to less proportional than First Past the Post. That's by the by though.

	Vote	Seats
Liberal	38.6%	54.8%
Labor	25.6%	21.5%
National	12.5%	19.4%
Greens	10.3%	1.1%
Independent	8.8%	3.2%
Other	4.2%	0.0%

What's clear is thatthere is a space for a clear left progressive party in Australia, despite the growing vigour of the right, and that Labor's capitulation to the right's agenda does not just signal a lack of principle but is going to cost them dear over the next few years.

German Greens continue to advance

The results of the important Baden-Württemberg election are rocking Germany. In an area that has been Tory (CDU) since the fifties we are due to see their historic first Green President as a Green/SPD coalition rolls into power.

The Greens were the only party (bar the Pirates who hadn't stood before) to increase their vote share. Incredibly they doubled their vote to just under a full quarter of those who voted.

This comes as the Greens have been riding high in the polls for a while - what this spells out for the next general election though it is far too early to tell.

Party	Vote %	Change	Seats	Change
Christian Democratic Union (CDU)	39	-5.2	60	-9
The Greens	24.2	12.5	36	19
Social Democratic Party (SPD)	23.1	-2.1	35	-3
Free Democratic Party (FDP)	5.3	-5.4	7	-8
Die Linke	2.8	-0.3
Pirate Party	2.1	2.1
The Republicans	1.1	-1.4
All Others	2.4

Info source

More Scottish Crunch: Glasgow Kelvin 2007

When you're an emotionally one dimension political hack like me you tend to do strange things for fun, like analyse spreadsheets in your spare time. I did think about taking up a hobby, like a sexual deviance, to break things up. However, I heard that rubber can chafe and I didn't fancy the taste of wee, so instead I've taken a look at an unusual Scottish constituency in the 2007 Holyrood elections.

What made Kelvin interesting was that unlike most constituencies, where only four Holyrood parties stood (Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Conservatives) there was an array of candidates, including the Green Party's own force of nature Martin Bartos - who danced past both Tories and Lib Dems to take third place.

This, for me, is particularly interesting because the Lib Dems beat us to fourth in the regional list *in the same constituency* so we have Lib Dems voting for Martin on the First Past the Post ballot instead of where you might expect them to favour us, on the list. Mind you, this could simply be an extra argument for only standing in the list seats to prevent voters casting their Green vote on the "wrong" ballot paper.

This gives us an interesting contrast to Edinburgh Central where the constituency candidates were drawn from a far smaller pool. This time I've chopped off quite a few lower placed parties from the regional list, for the sake of sanity, if nothing else. Regional lists are along the edge, constituencies along the top;

Region	Kelvin Constituency candidates
	Tory	Christian	Lib Dem	Green	Ind	Labour	SNP	Total
Labour Party	0.84%	0.47%	2.29%	2.96%	1.18%	84.41%	1.71%	7016
SNP	1.14%	0.56%	2.25%	5.34%	1.74%	3.98%	81.67%	6742
Liberal Democrats	1.11%	0.39%	70.85%	8.19%	4.69%	9.59%	3.36%	2796
Scottish Greens	0.95%	0.23%	9.56%	64.27%	4.38%	11.35%	8.11%	2625
Conservative	76.58%	0.72%	3.67%	1.86%	3.88%	7.39%	3.26%	1934

OK, what do we see?

Once again the Labour  Party voters are the most consistent/tribal with Lib Dems and Greens most likely to split their vote. For those who did split their vote the Greens were the most likely option for Labour and SNP voters, and a whacking 8.19% of those who voted Lib Dem in the list voted Green in the constituency. Only the Tories shied away from the Green vote, which is only fair as the feeling was mutual.

For those who voted Conservative on the list but split their constituency vote I was surprised to see they were twice as likely to choose Labour than Lib Dems. I do wonder if there is something interesting, if anecdotal, brewing here about what AV might really mean for the Lib Dem vote - particularly at a time when the yellows are seen as the dishonest half of the Coalition.

While many commentators seem to the think that AV will 'naturally' favour the 'center' party the evidence does rather point to the idea that AV accentuates existing trends and a low first preference turnout for the Lib Dems may well signal a low second preference rating too where Labour and Tory *voters* choose both parties as their first two picks. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

As always you can find the figures for yourself here (xls) and my ongoing gratitude to the Peat Worrier for bringing this up in the first place.

More on Edinburgh Central: 2007 data

Time for a little more data analysis. Courtesy of Lallands Peat Worrier it has come to my attention that in Scotland they record comparisons of how people vote in the list and constituency votes. That means we know how many Tories, in a specific seat, voted for, say, the BNP on the list. And they have this for every seat in Scotland - Glorious!

So obviously I've taken a look at Edinburgh Central, which is where I'll be casting my votes in May. Last time round while Labour won the vote for the constituency, it actually came second to the SNP on the list vote from within the same area.

The table shows the total votes cast for each list (right) and the proportion of those votes that were cast for each of the four choices we had for the constituency. It's worth bearing in mind this was in 2007 before the Coalition, for example.

I've cut off those parties who did not out poll the BNP, partly because xl is being quite, quite insolent tonight and I had to do some of this by hand;

	Tory	Labour	SNP	Lib Dem	Total Votes
Scottish National Party	2.05%	3.71%	82.05%	7.77%	6876
Labour Party	1.42%	88.56%	0.98%	4.37%	6756
Liberal Democrats	2.16%	6.62%	1.56%	87.69%	4621
Conservatives	85.37%	4.89%	1.10%	6.31%	4107
Scottish Green Party	4.59%	26.80%	17.13%	47.06%	3619
Margo MacDonald	18.06%	27.55%	20.17%	31.18%	1844
Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party	17.78%	30.28%	22.22%	23.61%	360
Solidarity	4.29%	26.29%	39.14%	20.86%	350
Scottish Socialist Party	1.53%	25.46%	37.12%	25.15%	326
British National Party	34.72%	18.13%	24.35%	10.88%	193

Out of the voters for the four main parties on the list the SNP appear to be the party that voters were least likely to switch to and the Lib Dems the most likely. By the same token those who voted SNP on the list were the least likely to stick to their list choice in the constituency - whilst Labour were the more consistent / tribal.

However, it's actually the other parties who yield the most interesting results because they actually couldn't stick to their list choice, even if they wanted to.

BNP voters followed by voters for Margo MacDonald were the list voters most likely to choose the Tory candidate. The Senior Citizens were most likely to plump for Labour. Solidarity and SSP voters were those  most likely, proportionally, to choose the SNP and the Greens were most likely to choose Lib Dem.

Of course, it's just as easy to see it in reverse and that a large portion of Lib Dem voters (for example) chose to lend the Greens their second vote whilst staying loyal in the constituency. The figures alone couldn't tell us which way round was the most sensible way to interpret the numbers.



There are some interesting little tit bits in their too if you look. For example, those voting for Solidarity on the list were more likely to vote Tory in the Constituency than even Labour, Lib Dem or SNP voters. Bizarre.

Lib Dems come sixth in Barnsley by-election

Scan courtesy of Darren Johnson.

Time for a Triple Scotch in May?

In May this year the Scottish Parliamentary elctions will be the most significant election for the Greens in the UK. There are prospects of the great leap into the Welsh Assembly with the possibility of our first Welsh Assembly member and breakthroughs on local councils throughout England, all of which will be most welcome news. But north of the border things look even more exciting, if you can imagine it.

The Scottish Greens (donate) have been represented in Holyrood since the very beginning of time (1999) and currently have two MSPs in the shape of the mellifluous Patrick Harvie and the incredulous Robin Harper.

However, a YouGov poll released yesterday (pdf) suggests the Scottish Greens could be looking for a very happy May election indeed on 6.4%. These figures would mean a leap upwards to six Green MSPs fighting against the cuts agenda and for a sustainable society.

Indeed this is the second recent poll that suggests the Scots Greens might triple their representation. However, where the Times poll (which had only half the number of respondents I believe) was surprising in that it placed the SNP and Labour neck and neck, the YouGov poll confirmed the impression most people are getting that the gap between the Nats and Labour is, in fact, even widening with Labour in the lead.

This is not, I should hasten to add, because Labour are such a vigorous and dynamic force God bless them but because, with the Coalition in power, Labour's army of donkeys in red rosettes are benefitting across the UK from a tidal surge not of their own making, and which, personally, I don't think they deserve very much.

Similarly the Lib Dems couldd run the best campaign in history and they'd get obliterated - the electoral climate is just too inclement for them poor souls. This is probably just as well as they don't appear to have any campaign money.

Of course, we have to caveat all of this with the fact that there is only one poll that matters, and that's in May (no, there isn't a new series of X-Factor then). I really don't want to be like some (not all) SNP supporters who welcomed with open arms the previous Times poll and then are picking apart the more substantial YouGov poll based upon the convenience of the results.

After all, if I was going to cheery pick I'd point to the fact that more people YouGov spoke to said they'd vote Green than Liberal Democrat. I'd dearly love that to be the result on the day but that's before weighting and the poll actually says the Lib Dems are a whopping 0.4% ahead of us.

However, I should to like add "Woo Hoo!" at this juncture.

The thing that makes me nervous and excited by turns is that if you enter the figures into the excellent Scotland Votes site you quickly realise that very marginal differences to the SGP vote can impact on how many Green MSPs we elect. Every second vote counts as they say.

Caroline Allen: my final top tip for the Green's Assembly List

It's selection fever in the Greens at the moment. You'll hear from this blog very soon on the London Mayoral selection but I wanted to give you my final top tip on the London Assembly race, Caroline Allen.

When I sit back and think about what I really want in an Assembly candidate, the quality I'm most looking for is that I can trust them.

I don't simply mean political integrity - although this is a quality I prize very highly, and I would not back a candidate that lacked it - but I also mean can I rely on them to be a decent, hard working candidate that's there for the party?

It means they are disciplined enough that even if he or she fancies going into a self-indulgent rant or pursuing their own agenda they remember they are representing others, not just themselves. They need to be capable of restraint at the right times. They need to be sound.

Often this means people who are making a sacrifice to run, rather than simply indulging their egos. Not that there are any of those in the Greens.

One of my first impressions of Caroline was when we were taking different sides on a particular issue. I was impressed by the professional and political way she handled the disagreement and when the issue was decided she moved on without rancour. This left a very good impression with me, and one that has been reinforced many times since then.

Caroline has a sharp analytical mind and understands policy. Not just understands what our policies are (which is useful) but also what policy is for. It's a quality rarely talked about, but absolutely invaluable.

I'm endorsing Caroline Allen because I know that if she was selected to the Assembly list she would bring cast iron self-discipline to the team. I know that we could trust her with the responsibility because she understands the need for basic competence in everything we do.

Sue Luxton for the London Assembly

Continuing my theme of who I will be voting for in the London Assembly elections (after Natalie Bennett [1]) I’d like to put in a word for Sue Luxton, or General Luxton as she is commonly called by me, if no one else.

Sue is another hard working and talented Green whose deep commitment to her area, Ladywell in Lewisham, is absolutely unquestionable. Sue came to the Greens from a place relatively alien to me – the animal rights movement – and her consistent veganism I can only admire from afar as I tuck into a chicken and bacon sandwich. Smiling.

Sue was elected as one of the Green Party’s batch of six councillors in Lewisham in 2006 and was a key organising force on that group, helping to ensure that the council passed policy on a Living Wage for all staff and contractors as well as being widely recognised as an excellent local councillor with a deep understanding of local issues.

She was the very definition of a community campaigner in that time, working with all kinds of residents to help make Lewisham a better place.

However, what gives her the edge in this selection process is her extremely strong experience of organising election campaigns. The London Assembly list needs someone like her, placed well, to give it real beef when it comes to the logistics of the campaign.

As the constituency organiser in Lewisham she helped organise a formidable and well-oiled election machine. While the electoral tide may have been against us this just proved her mettle all the more as she assembled a small army of volunteers who did not have a single wasted moment on the days they volunteered to help across our target wards.

The team of leading candidates needs those skills and that commitment, not because there are no other candidates who understand election logistics but because no other candidate understands them to the degree that she does, particularly when fighting a difficult election.

That General’s Star was earned with blood, sweat and tears born of an obsession with canvassing databases and different coloured highlighter pens.

We currently have the opportunity in the Green Party to assemble a strong team of candidates for London whose skills and politics make the perfect fit. It’s my contention that we’d be missing a trick if we did not place Sue Luxton among our leading candidates in this election.

Why Caroline Russell is one of my top picks for the Assembly

As I mentioned Natalie Bennett is getting my first preference for the London Assembly, but there are a host of other good candidates that I'd like people to consider. One of those is Islington Green Caroline Russell.

Caroline is a relatively new member of the Party, but she is by no means a new comer to street politics. As a long term environmental activist in her area she has been beavering away diligently for years to make our communities better places.

She came to the party with a wealth of experience, talent and energy and she is exactly the kind of new blood that the party needs to help it become more rooted in London's boroughs and more grounded in the actual needs of those communities rather than the wants of political activists.

Passionate about her area she has done the kind of serious work that leave many of us full of admiration. Indeed one of the reasons why I'm hoping Caroline will get on the list is that when she was thinking about running she was extremely self effacing, constantly asking whether it was presumptuous of her to stand, etc.

Any Assembly list with Caroline Russell on it would be all the stronger for it. The more decent, hard working community activists we have at the forefront of our party the better. Matt Selwood once said to me that he thought the Green Party should be the electoral wing of community campaigns. That's been a very influential thought for me, and Caroline is part of making that dream a reality.

Watch out for my further tips for the Assembly over the next few days. It's going to be a hard choice deciding what order to put people after Natalie Bennett [1].

Irish polls axe parties of government

While the Times today reports that the Scottish Greens could double their representation in May (although I think we can do better) life looks rather different to the West. The Irish Independent has published a rather comprehensive poll of voter intentions and it makes for fascinating reading.

This pie chart can give you some context in which to read the rest of the data. Yes, that is a lot of red. It essentially represents the colour of the voters' faces when they think about their government.


I should point out that you don't have to go back that far to see voter satisfaction in their government was over fifty percent (p. 11) - in other words the Irish aren't just people who hate the government historically, they hate this specific government. Well, all but 5% of them who are presumably the sort of people who are naturally cheerful and even if set on fire would remark at how toasty warm things had become.

So who is benefiting from this anti-government Tsunami? A party that's almost identical to the current government. Hard to imagine that isn't it?

But first for the caveat - this bar graph compares the actual result of the 2007 election with the polling figures (excluding don't knows) this January. They aren't going to be 100% accurate but the polling just before the last election was pretty accurate so let's not pretend they're meaningless either.

Who are the losers? Well, the only two parties to lose support, and lose it badly are the two parties of government (there was a third but it has ceased trading). Fianna Fail and the Greens are bracing themselves for the inevitably of being electorally washed out to sea. For Fianna Fail it means a generation in the wildness, for the Greens it probably means the end of the organisation permanently. I did say this was a likely outcome at the time but no one listens to me, hurumph.

If 'the others' do get 15% it could lead to an extremely interesting Dail. People like socialist Richard Boyd Barrett came very close to winning a seat in 2007 and this surge in the 'others' could well see him and others like him win an intimidating handful of seats. This would be a very welcome outcome as far as I'm concerned.

However, for those parties that are gaining support like Labour and Sinn Fein the future is not entirely rosy. The report (p. 17 and p. 19) also shows that the 'satisfaction' rates for Labour have not been lower for ten years despite the fact that Labour leader Eamon Gilmore is well respected. Also more people are dissatisfied with Sinn Fein and less satisfied with it since polling began on this. Indeed, in terms of the polls both parties are actually losing momentum and slipping back as voters begin to gravitate to Fine Gael, of all people.

It's also difficult to see the Sinn Fein vote as a shift to the left when (p. 26) Sinn Fein voters are the most likely to want to see compulsory redundancies as "part of public sector reform". That's more likely than Fine Gael or Fianna Fail - blimey.

Finally I just want a quick look at where the party votes are going.
As you might expect those who voted Green last time are the least likely to vote the same way in this election with just 13% of those who voted Green last time intending to do so again - the masochists. Most of those voters will be splitting their votes between Labour and Fine Gael, although they are also the people most likely to defect to Sinn Fein.

Fine Gael's voters are the most sticky and, if they are going to defect, will defect to Labour. The same is true of Sinn Fein as it happens.

Both Labour and Sinn Fein (and the hard left) will be hoping this is a game changing election for them. Indeed if you can't make a great leap forwards at a time when the government has disapproval ratings of 95% (which is probably worse than for Mubarak) you're doing something wrong - like being part of a ridiculous coalition.

Oldham East and Saddleworth result

It was no surprise that Labour won, although I have to admit the fact that the Lib Dems managed to slightly increase their vote share was unexpected. Of course this was aided by the Tory strategy aimed at bolstering the coalition by fighting a low key campaign where they might, arguably have been able to fight their way into second place. However, it's useful to note that the Lib Dems are still able to mobilise a viable, if losing, campaign.

The results taken from wikipedia show Labour's current increased poll ratings being borne out on the ground.

	Debbie Abrahams	Labour	14,718	42.1%	+10.2
	Elwyn Watkins	Liberal Democrat	11,160	31.9%	+0.3
	Kashif Ali	Conservative	4,481	12.8%	-13.6
	Paul Nuttall	UKIP	2,029	5.8%	+1.9
	Derek Adams	BNP	1,560	4.5%	-1.2
	Peter Allen	Green	530	1.5%	N/A
	Nick "The Flying Brick" Delves	Monster Raving Loony	145	0.4%	N/A
	Stephen Morris	English Democrats	144	0.4%	N/A
	Loz Kaye	Pirate	96	0.3%	N/A
	David Bishop	Bus-Pass Elvis	67	0.1%	N/A

In other news I was pleased that the BNP failed to either get their deposit back or achieve their previous fourth place in an area they think of as a target. I also happen to think that Peter Allen's 530 votes were very good considering the Greens had not stood in the area before.

I'm never sure about standing candidates in these kind of elections where we're unlikely to come fourth or better. It seems to be a prime opportunity to risk coming below Bus-Pass Elvis without any likely returns. I do wonder whether taking the lost £500 deposit and instead spending it on any random area in the country in a membership recruitment drive would actually have a better longer term impact.

I'm glad Peter got a good result as I would have been worried about mentioning this if he'd got less than 1% but it's hard enough for the Greens standing in by-elections where we have a good electoral history and a strong local party - but here this was the first time we'd ever stood, so it was a real gamble.

It reminds me of when the Greens stood against David Davis in his vanity resignation/restanding during the last Parliament. Ultimately we came second, which was a relief, because if we'd been beaten by the English Democrats et al it would have been a real embarrassment. I'm unconvinced we gained very much by putting ourselves in the firing line on that occasion.

If we're going to stand in these things it would be handy to get more of a by-election machine going, in the way the Lib Dems do - so we're prepared to give local parties support when they fight by-elections like this. But I do think it's worth considering that we don't have to stand just because there's an election and no result can someties be better than a poor result.

From the archives: why we stand in elections

One theme that is emerging is that, these days, I use the word socialism a lot less when I write - and a good thing too. However, I was intrigued when I came across this piece I wrote in July 2004 on 'Why we stand in elections'. Tempted as I am to tinker with it to reflect some changes in my perspectives I think I'll be brave and post as is.

It's not that long ago that many on the left assumed that we never stood in elections. There is no Parliamentary road to socialism, meant we never use parliamentary elections. Now the assumption has flipped the other way. Not only does everyone believe that we must stand in elections, but there is very little questioning of why we might be doing it.

I want to take a quick look at what a socialist election campaign is meant to achieve - and the kind of thing we should attempt to avoid.

Obviously, for socialists, we see elections as an opportunity to advance "socialism" and persuade people over to left wing arguments on a whole host of questions.

We hope that by standing in elections we can raise crucial questions that no one else will raise and can help build campaigns in the estates and on the streets that fight for social justice, often uniting with people who fall well outside of 'socialist'.

A socialist campaign should try to reflect the principles that launched it. Team work, democracy, fraternal discussion and working class politics need to be crucial threads running through those campaigns.

We don't avoid certain questions or adapt our answers because we think they might be vote losers. Nor do we go out of our way to bludgeon people with a full list of socialist demands, or pick out what think might be our most unpopular demands.

None of this means that we never compromise, that we always stand no matter how bad the vote might be or anything like that. Tactical questions are important to make sure we don't end up finding ourselves stepping backwards, but it's this overall picture - the real reason for standing in elections that we should not forget.

A socialist election campaign needs to draw new people in and give those with less time the opportunity to do a little on this special occasion. There are a whole layer of progressive people across the country that simply will not become 'activists' attend meetings and regularly support demonstrations - but they will, once a year say, go out and leaflet and stick a poster up in their window. We need to find ways of going to them rather than expecting everyone to be head banging activists.

This layer is particularly important because we should be striving to give them as much democratic input as possible so they feel this is their movement and when they go to work or are waiting at the school gates they are confident to put the arguments of that movement.

If activists and supporters are to give their all they must feel they are part of the campaign, they have a say in decisions and that it represents their views - rather than simply supporting someone that they think will do a good job. In short it must be accountable to the supporters on the ground rather than a top down plan by the 'leaders' of the movement.

All of this raises the question of the difference between our democracy and theirs and it all points us in a very different direction to the careerists and opportunists that pollute the Labour Party. Protests are not simply good opportunities to get your face in the paper - they are the essential building blocks of the struggle for a better world. Elections and elected officials are worth only what they add to this fight.

We do not stand to get elected, but we do hope to get elected, to win greater support for the left and gain a profile for our ideas that we could not otherwise achieve. The press will always suppress information on minority candidates, particularly socialist ones, but we can twist their arms if we prove ourselves to be news and to ignore us would clearly smack of censorship.

However even when we get a hearing, we should never expect that we get a FAIR hearing. Despite all this the media is a crucial tool in any modern campaigning work.

Whilst those socialists who remain in Labour may conceivably argue that a fight inside Labour may push it to the left - there is no Labour election campaign (for instance at the June 10th elections) that can be said to be a real fighting expression of the anti-war movement, or that connected with the local population on a socialist basis, no matter how left wing the candidate.

For the Labour Party power is an end in itself, and protest is useful only where it enhances the vote - for socialists political power is only worth bothering with if it gives the movement more confidence, shifts the population to the left and strengthens our ability to fight. Socialists never say 'we will do this for you' what they must say is that 'no one but yourselves will protect your interests, rise up and fight.' And in this unity is strength.

Oldham and Saddleworth Candidates announced

The vile Phil Woolas (Labour) has long gone, but who will replace him? The candidates have been announced for the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. I make that one woman and nine men;

Debbie Abrahams (Labour)
Kashif Ali (Conservative)
Peter Allen (Green Party)
Derek Adams (British National Party)
Paul Nuttall (UK Independence Party)
Elwyn Watkins (Liberal Democrats)
David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis Party)
The Flying Brick (Monster Raving Loony Party)
Loz Kaye (Pirate Party of the United Kingdom)
Stephen Morris (English Democrats)

The by-election will take place on the 13th of Jan 2011.

According to wikipedia the May results were as follows;

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Labour	Phil Woolas	14,186	31.9	−10.7
	Liberal Democrat	Elwyn Watkins	14,083	31.6	−0.5
	Conservative	Kashif Ali	11,773	26.4	+8.7
	BNP	Alwyn Stott	2,546	5.7	+0.8
	UKIP	David Bentley	1,720	3.9	+1.8
	Christian	Gulzar Nazir	212	0.5	N/A

Which means only the Tories and Lib Dems are standing the candidates they stood in May. A Lib Dem win seems unlikely given the current circumstances so I guess that makes it a straight Tory - Labour fight for the seat.

Any predictions for placing the parties? Anyone want to predict that the Lib Dems come lower than third place - and if so who would beat them?

Update on the Australian Greens

I forgot to do an update on the Victoria State election in Australia, which is remiss of me because it's rather interesting and I need to get out of the habit of talking about something and then never mentioning it again (Ali Dizeai's court case was adjourned to a later date, by the way).

This election is significant because it's the first major Australian election since the game changing General Election. With the Greens gaining their first MP in a seat that had been held by Labour since 1904 the other parties had been reassessing their attitude towards the party - which under AV is extremely significant.

Labor had been vacillating between down the line attack politics and loving up to us, and I'm not sure which is worse. In the end I think they settled on... I'm not quite sure what this is. Certainly they'd hoped for Green Party second preferences but negotiations between the parties got nowhere.

The Liberals (Tories) chose to preference the Greens last in all seats, behind Labor, which is a switch from their previous position where Labor had been seen as their main enemy, despite many of the right's absolute hatred of the Greens' deliciously left leaning policies.

While how to vote cards are not the be all and end all of the vote studies show that a significant proportion of the electorate do follow the parties' recommendations. For instance a study in 2006 showed that "49 per cent of Labor voters did so, 48 per cent of Nationals, 46 per cent of Liberals and 31 per cent of Greens." It may not be a majority of people, but it's enough to make or break a contest and shows just how brutally tactical AV elections really are.

Ultimately, of the parties that stood in all areas only Labor did not place the Greens last (after even the bonkers right) and almost all of the minor parties placed us last too (the Christian Democratic Party placed the Sex Party last then us, and the Sex Party had us in the middle somewhere) (pdfs: West, East, North). In fact not a single party second preferenced the Greens.

It seems the Green success in winning a Parliamentary seat and their record levels in the polls has meant it may well be harder to win seats under AV from now on. Indeed our first Ozzie MP was elected on the back of Liberal voters preferencing our candidate before that of Labor's - this may well happen less in future.

Despite all this, the Victoria Greens managed a record vote in the election - 11% of first preferences - but it wasn't enough to win a single seat across the state. Labor were significantly down as the State swung to the right - which made the vote gain for the Greens all the more remarkable.

Liberal

Party	%	Swing	Seats	Change
38.2	+3.7	35	+12
Labor	36.2	–6.8	43	–12
Greens	11.0	+1.0	0	0
National	6.9	+1.7	10	+1
Other	7.7	+0.4	0	–1
Total			88
Liberal/National Coalition			45	+13
Labor			43	–12

Table adapted from Wikipedia.

New times in the Ivory Coast

Last Sunday's Presidential election in the Ivory Coast has ended in farce. Both candidates have claimed victory and have sworn themselves into office. One, Laurent Gbagbo, has been the incumbent for the last ten years, the other Alassane Ouattara has been a leading opposition player associated with the New Forces, the armed rebel group in the north.

Gbagbo led in the first round of elections 38% to 34% resulting in Sunday's run off election between the two.

The Electoral Commision has claimed that Alassane won Sunday's election with 54.1% while the Constitutional Council claims Gbagbo won 51.45% of the vote.

The Council claims that there was widespread ballot stuffing and irregularities in the north where the New Forces are based. The international community does not seem to agree.

The US has strongly backed Alassane and Barack Obama warned Gbagbo: "The international community will hold those who act to thwart the democratic process and the will of the electorate accountable for their actions." The IMF has also come out for Alassane and told Gbagbo in no uncertain terms that it will not work with him if he remains President.

It should, of course, be remembered that neither the US nor the IMF are neutral players in the country. Neither have been fans of Gbagbo's determination for the Ivory Coast to pursue an independent economic policy, whilst they have tight personal ties with his rival.

Alassane was a leading economist for the IMF based in Washington for much of his career. He became the governor the Central Bank of Western Africa and, through this position, managed to become the Prime Minister of the Ivory Coast in 1990 a post he held for a rocky three years until he was forced to resign when he returned to the IMF as Deputy Managing Director.

At the turn of the century Alassane returned to Ivorian politics resulting in a civil war breaking out in 2002. In 2004 Ivorian planes bombed a rebel 'New Forces' position - which killed nine French and one American 'observer' who 'happened' to be there. This resulted in French tanks parked round the Presidential palace, the counter bombing of the Ivorian air force and French forces taking over the airport, killing a number of civilians in the process.

It has long been thought that the 'New Forces' had international backing of institutions like the IMF, as well as the US and French who hope to see an economic policy that's more multi-national friendly.

Gbagbo's personal history is rather different from his rival's. A history teacher who was jailed during the years of French control (when Presidential 'elections' were usually uncontested). A leading member of a teachers' strike in 1982 he helped to form the FPI, a party which is now an affiliate of the Socialist International (that Labour is part of).

Under Gbagbo the Ivorian economy has done quite well. It is the largest economy in the West African Economic and Monetary Union with a relatively high income per capita. Compared to its neighbours the Ivory Coast has done reasonably well for itself despite being in the bad books of the IMF.

From a distance it is impossible to know whether there was widespread electoral fraud in the north, although it does seem sensible to regard it as a possibility. The eagerness of the US and IMF to declare their candidate the victor don't convince me that this was the will of the people, or the best thing for the Ivorian people.