Local and
General Election Summary
As my
initial reaction to the results indicated, Greens were awaiting the
County Council election results to truly measure our progress on the
night. In Oxfordshire we gained 4 seats to take our total to 5
(compared to 9 for Labour). We also gained a seat in Norfolk and in
Hertfordshire, while holding our seats elsewhere. Good progress was
made in terms of vote share and the Greens now have 69 local
authority councillors.
The General
Election may have grabbed the headlines, but our steady progress
towards the psychologically important 100 councillor mark continues.
We will expect defections during the year to add to our existing
totals and in London and other large cities, we expect further gains
in 2006. This is not an overnight success and has been built up over
time, with hard work on the ground and increased credibility with
local voters.
We fought
the General Election knowing that for the first time ever we had an
outside chance of winning a seat in Brighton. However, even if we
had repeated our 27% Euro vote in 2004, we would have fallen short
of winning the seat. Yet to achieve 22% is a major improvement and
reflects the ongoing progress of Greens on Brighton's council,
something that is set to continue. In other target areas such as
Norwich and Lewisham, we also registered a substantial increase in
the vote.
I think it
is fair to say that the Greens have attracted considerable criticism
for the arrangement we have in Leeds with the Liberal Democrats and
the Tories. Some have argued that this is why our share of the vote
in Leeds went down. It would be easy to blame this local arrangement
for a 0.5% drop but my feeling is that there are a number of factors
involved. Leeds opted for a locally run campaign ahead of our
national freepost scheme. Judging by the success we saw in
constituencies such as Liverpool Riverside, where we did an
addressed freepost, this is a much more plausible explanation for
the failure to translate local success of Leeds councillors to a
national level.
Many of us
are uncomfortable with the situation in Leeds but the decentralist
nature of the Green Party does mean that we allow local parties to
make these decisions. If Leeds Greens were to contradict national
policy or vote through Tory policies, then we would have a major
problem, but this just hasn't happened. Many of us will remain
uncomfortable, but no more so than many Labour party members in
Hackney (2000/01) or Perth and Kinross (1999), where they were
forced by local circumstances into a Labour-Tory coalition. I expect
us to go on attracting criticism and for many of us to remain
uncomfortable but the fact is that the Leeds factor did not have a
negative impact on our national vote.
We were
successful in retaining 24 deposits, compared to 10 in 2001 and none
in 1997. This steady progress continues and the Labour Party is on
notice that Greens will stand in even more constituencies in
2009/10. The current debate on fairer voting is important. At this
election Labour benefited from UKIP/Veritas votes, which prevented a
Tory victory in 27 seats. At the next election a similar effect on
the left, with Green and socialist candidates in an increased number
of seats, Labour will be putting at risk a number of marginal
seats. The argument used by the Labour hierarchy this year, that a
failure to vote Labour will let in the Tories, will ring very hollow
after 12 or 13 years in power and a systematic failure to reform a
voting system that allows a party to govern with little over a third
of the popular vote. If such a government had been established in
Iraq by our occupying forces, there would have been a massive
outcry.
I will be
arguing in the coming months for a sophisticated targeting strategy
that will push Westminster towards a hung parliament at the next
election by picking off key Labour marginals. UKIP, having lost a
huge amount of deposits, are likely to do the same but in a way that
curtails the number of marginal seats the Tories can successfully
win. The influence of significant "Other Parties" on our First Past
the Post system increases with each election. I expect that any hung
parliament in 2009/10 would have Green MPs from Brighton and
elsewhere who would play a vital role in implementing voting reform.
What is true for the Greens is equally true for other parties on the
left. Proportionally, we are likely to take votes from Labour (or
arguably the Liberal Democrats) and unlikely to take them from the
Tories if we stand in marginal seats.
This year
the Greens did not stand in 13 Labour seats where a swing of less
than 1.5% will now hand the seat to the Tories or another
challenger. I can guarantee that in we will have candidates in at
least 4 of these seats next time, and that number is set to grow.
Nor did we stand in a further 13 seats where a swing of less than 3%
will unseat the sitting Labour MP at the next election. In 25 out of
these 26 constituencies, UKIP and/or Veritas candidates stood,
damaging the Tory vote. There is no guarantee these right wing
parties will stand next time. This dual effect renders these seats
particularly vulnerable. We could also carefully ensure that
we avoid seats that require a larger swing (say 5% - 10%) and that
will help limit the extent of any Tory advance in seat numbers. This
is not a precise science and Greens cannot rely on UKIP to have the
political intelligence or motivation to mirror this tactic. All the
more reason for Labour to take note of the 280,000 Green votes in
less than one third of all the constituencies, and to implement some
form of electoral reform.
As I stated
in my initial reaction to the results, I felt that Respect did
really well in their target constituencies. George Galloway's
victory in Bethnal Green and Bow was the surprise of the night, but
there were very good votes in Birmingham Sparkbrook, West Ham, East
Ham, Preston and Tottenham. Respect are to be congratulated on their
excellent targeting work and securing the generosity of a few
individual contributors who made very substantial donations. The
next chapter for Respect will focus on its political direction, one
which Greens are observing with keen interest.
On the one
hand, Respect can quite legitimately continue to
target constituencies with a high Muslim population. In Birmingham
Sparkbrook, West Ham and East Ham, Respect can go to the next
election in these constituencies positioned as the main challenger
to Labour, and if successful could establish a small but vocal group
within Parliament. This is a "narrow" focus approach and has some
merit within our existing First Past the Post system as a way of
gaining representation for a party on the left. However it also
poses a whole range of difficulties in maintaining the support of
the vast majority of a non-homogenous Muslim vote in these areas and
pursuing progressive socialist policies with regards to health and
education.
Alternatively, Respect may use George Galloway's presence
in Parliament to build a real left of Labour presence nationwide.
This would involve reaching out to those currently involved in
the Socialist Green Unity Coalition and other groups on the left. It
would involve compromise and considerable reform of Respect's
internal structures. Respect would hope to mirror the success
achieved by the Scottish Socialist Party. At this point, there would
be a real opportunity to engage the Green Party. Many reading this
article might be disappointed that my response is not more
immediately positive but my local experience typifies why many rank
and file Greens are highly sceptical of engaging with the left while
it remains fragmented.
In my
constituency in Liverpool, Greens spoke with Respect in 2004 about
who should stand, and on the basis of our results in the European
and Local Elections, it was clear that the Greens were in a much
stronger position to do so. I also spoke informally with a number of
members of other socialist groups in Liverpool that year, making
them aware that we were standing and that there would be a
progressive anti-war alternative. Shortly before close of
nominations, I learned that we would have a socialist candidate on
the ballot paper as well. Local members were quite rightly critical
of the time I had spent engaging with socialist political groups.
For them, this effort had been wasted, and explaining the finer
points of differences between socialist groups is something that
is entirely lost on the vast majority of Green members and
supporters.
At a
national level Greens and Respect face a similar difficulty. There
is absolutely no doubt in my mind now, following the election of
George Galloway in Bethnal Green and Bow, that Respect will stand a
list of candidates in every region of England in the 2009 European
Elections. This is a political must and in their position, I would
be planning to do the same. Similarly, Respect strategists must know
that the Green Party is not prepared to do hasty deals or
contemplate a partnership unless it is in the interests of the Green
Party who will once again contest every region in the 2009 European
Elections, with a view to adding to our existing MEPs. I cannot go
to our members arguing for a major engagement with Respect in their
current state or argue that we would benefit from such an
engagement. This is the reality of the situation we are in for the
next three to four years. The Green Party and Respect will be
political competitors, despite our common view on some policies.
Prospects
for Local Co-operation
I am aware
that there is a suggestion that in London, Greens and Respect
somehow carve up the capital as a means to challenging Labour at a
local level. Clearly, I am not expecting the Green Party to win
council seats in Bethnal Green and Bow, but it would be damaging for
the Greens politically to pull out of areas of the capital where up
until now we have been standing increasing numbers of candidates,
and steadily improving our vote share. I also think that it is clear
from the General Election results that the core Green vote is
unlikely to shift to Respect (the Green vote went slightly up in
Bethnal Green and Bow) if we are in direct competition.
The
thousand pound question is how much is the potential overlap in
Green/Respect votes? Are Green voters all middle class ABC1s who
would otherwise vote Lib Dem? I think many Green voters are on the
left (and more Green activists) but it is uncertain how Green votes
would be "distributed". I'm yet to see any political research on
this and without it, the idea that we can simplistically add the
results as follows is absurd:
Green vote
+ Respect vote = Total vote for Green/Respect candidate
At this
point, my advice to our activists and local parties has to be that
we continue to contest seats we planned to contest, whether Respect
are standing or not. As someone naturally at home on the left, this
is a tough position to be in, but I feel it is the correct
one. Decentralist decision making in the Greens still leaves local
parties able to consider local factors. It also makes sense for
local Greens and Respect members to continue to communicate with
each other. Duplicating non-target candidates in wards without a
progressive alternative is something we should seek to avoid and I
would encourage us to come to that arrangement locally with any left
leaning party. Where that left leaning party is unlikely to contest
the European Elections (eg Mebyon Kernow), then it may make
strategic sense for the Greens to be prepared to cede a little more
than just duplicate seats.
The Greens
are nothing if not long term planners, and every decision made
nationally is looking towards the 2009 Euro Elections. Respect
should not expect Greens to concede ground on a territorial basis as
this would affect our potential to make gains in the 2009 poll. I
must also point out that Greens have had to fight hard to win every
council seat we've gained so far. No larger local party has ever
ceded seats or wards to us voluntarily, nor did we expect them to.
The
biggest potential for future co-operation is the next General
Election where I have already outlined that parties on the left can
have a profound bearing on the election result. Whether the party is
Green, Respect or part of the SGUC, where we stand candidates will
have the potential to significantly affect the overall balance of
the next Parliament. As no progressive party is likely to be able to
field 600+ candidates in 2009/10, this is something that should be
discussed sooner rather than later. In the meantime, dialogue should
continue but on the basis of an honest and open understanding that
we are political competitors despite being campaigning allies.
I know for
many that this will fall short of very high expectations for
change but the political realities of 2009 demand clarity
about Green / Left relations, which can only develop in the context
of political honesty. The Green Party will continue to fight
elections on a progressive agenda and socialist voters can judge us
on our policies, locally and nationally. Progressive forces within
the Greens are growing in strength and reshaping our social
policies, and we will continue to make electoral gains. We remain a
radical alternative to the three major parties and for that reason I
hope to see other socialists voting for us, joining us and
campaigning with us for a fairer and sustainable future society.
