83 Responses to “London European Elections”

1. Peter Crerar

   Robert Evans was the Labour candidate in the Brent East By Election.

   Why is he standing down?

   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 am
2. Paul H-J

   Peter,

   Probably to save himself the embarrasment of “losing” his seat. Do MEPs get a better severance package if they “retire” as opposed to being defeated ?

   April 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
3. Frederic Stansfield

   Why is Sharar Ali’s job listed just as Green Party London Policy Coordinator? No doubt he is, but I thought he is also Institute Administrator for the Institute of Philosophy, University of London. Anyway, he was when I went to events there and on the Institute’s website he is still listed as such.

   As a general comment, it is sad, indeed wrong, that a list system means that there can be excellent candidates ranked by their parties so that they have effectively no chance of election, even though they might attract personal votes.

   April 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
4. Warofdreams

   The three Conservatives must be safe here, as are the Lib Dem and two of the Labour seats. Of the remaining two seats, the Greens will probably hold theirs, but the last may be close between several groups: UKIP, the BNP, a third Labour seat or a fourth Conservative. Much will depend on what happens to last time’s UKIP vote – how much of it stays with them, and how much goes Conservative or BNP.

   April 17th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
5. Frederic Stansfield

   The last seat is very problematic in a list system. Not just here, it is also true of South East England. A minor party getting a sudden late surge can get disproportionately represented by just reaching quota in a number of seats. So the overall Euroresult is difficult to forecast.

   April 17th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
6. sneyton

   Frederic, at the last euro elections the last seat in both London and the South East went to “major” parties that had already won seats. In London Labour got the last seat and in the South East the Lib Dems won it. I agree the greens are disproportionately represented, they received 6.3% of the national result at the last euros but won only 2.56% of the seats.

   April 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
7. Frederic Stansfield

   Sneyton. Yes, I agree that in both London and the South East a major party got the last seat. But in each case the Green candidate got the penultimate place with only a few thousand more votes. You can only just meet quota even if you are not the last candidate elected.

   In the South East, Labour were not far off getting their second seat last time. Unfortunately, the Labour list had been presented such that the Labour MEP with the better environmental record lost his seat.

   Sneyton is right. If a minority party just reaches quota in many seats it can be over-represented in terms of MEPs as compared to percentage votes. But it is also true that if a party just falls short of quota in a number of seats it can end up under-represented.

   I agree with the point that the Greens got fewer seats than their percentage of the vote justified. This was in part due to the unfairness introduced into the system by unequally sized constituencies, a point I have repeated posted about on this site. Although if the UK Euroseats were all equal in size the Greens might lose everywhere.

   The Greens would in theory benefit if the whole of the UK were one large PR consitituency. However, other parties like the BNP would also benefit. I suspect that many people are glad that the system effectively excludes parties that fail to get well over 5% of the vote. Even if they are rather sad this may sacrifice good Green candidates.

   The List system and first-past-the post have in common that they favour regionally based parties, e.g. the nationalists, as compared to ones whose support is evenly spread across the country.

   If I may express my feelings, they are torn. On the one hand I am glad that I have a Green MEP (for whom I voted) because I live in a particularly large Euroconsitituency (South-East, not London, as it happens). On the other hand, the list system is not the fair system it is claimed to be and as a psephological”anorak” I am concerned to post about its shortcomings.

   April 19th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
8. Neil

   My prediction for this region, taking into account the loss of one seat:

   The first 7 will be: 3 Conservatives; 2 Labour; 1 Libdem; 1 UKIP. The 8th seat will be close run – I would say that marginally the most likely is a 3rd Labour seat, but other contenders are: 4th Conservative; 2nd LibDem; BNP; Green.

   I think that both the Greens and the BNP are very much outsiders here, one of the 3 main parties is almost certain to get the last seat. I can’t see the UKIP vote dropping enough to deprive them of their seat, but even if it does, I still dont think that extra seat will go to the Greens or BNP.

   If UKIP lose their seat (unlikely) then:
   First 6 seats: 3 Conservatives; 2 Labour; 1 Libdem
   Last 2 seats: 2 out of these 3 again.

   April 21st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
9. Joe James B

   Whatever happened to Pauline Green?
   she seemed quite a character.

   April 21st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
10. Andy Stidwill

    UKIP could have one of their worst results in London in terms of the change in their share of the vote. I say that because I personally would expect UKIP to hold on to its 2004 vote more strongly in rural areas. I could be completely wrong on that since it’s not based on any evidence, just my own hunch. They may do worst of all in the East Midlands in terms of change in vote because Kilroy-Silk isn’t standing for them there this time.

    April 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
11. Pete Whitehead

    I think Andy makes a fair point about where UKIP’s vote is likely to fall most and sadly I have to disagree with Neil that UKIP are unlikely to lose their seat here. Of course the East Midlands is going to see the biggest drop because the result there last time was so skewed by the Kilroy effect. I think Gerard Batten has proved one of the more effective UKIP MEPs and has attracted some good publicity over the case of Andrew Symeou, but unfortunately personal votes count for little in these kind of elections. He di very badly in the Mayoral election last year, but this is a very different kind of election so I hold out some hope of him holding on, but it is a slim hope

    April 21st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
12. Klaus

    I am very scared that the BNP will pick up a seat. UKIP won’t, they have imploded, and that leaves a lot of very right wing votes floating around. The Tories will obviously surge and the Lib Dems will get squeezed and or lose votes to the Greens who are better at these kinds of elections.
    Tory 4
    Lab 2
    Green 1
    BNP 1

    April 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am
13. Pete Whitehead

    you expect the Lib Dems to be beaten by both the Greens and the BNP? surely not? your results envisage a Lib Dem share of probably half what they got in 2004

    April 25th, 2009 at 10:51 am
14. Andy Stidwill

    The LDs should beat both the Greens and BNP in London although it’s difficult to say exactly how the LDs will do in London. It depends on whether people continue to vote for them in large numbers in the boroughs of Richmond, Kingston, Sutton, etc.

    It is possible that in London a lot of UKIP votes might move over directly to the BNP which might not necessarily be the case in other regions. UKIP may do badly in places like Lewisham for example where they polled 6,452 votes in 2004; that could be reduced to about 2,000 or less.

    April 25th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
15. Neil

    If the UKIP vote collapses it will be the Conservatives that benefit – the BNP will pick up hardly any old UKIP votes.

    April 30th, 2009 at 10:35 am
16. Frederic Stansfield

    I’m not convinced the UKIP vote will collapse. Despite that party’s troubles, they are still identified as the anti-EU party. Except perhaps, sadly, for the BNP.

    Voters are becoming quite sophisticated at voting differently at different levels, e.g. Green for the EU and Labour/LibDem for Westminster, or UKIP for the EU and Conservative for Westminster. And minor parties with MEPs will have resources with which to campaign over the coming month.

    I am not sure how we could identify psephologically how likely voters are to swap between UKIP and the BNP. There is a lack of past electoral data to go on. In addition, it would be hard to investigate the likelihood of such a swing because, for obvious reasons, electors often do not admit to pollsters or canvassers that they are going to vote BNP.

    I think we’ll just have to wait and see. And in the case of parties opposed to the BNP to campaign hard and to put across clearly policies that are better than the BNP’s.

    April 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
17. ozzimandius

    With just 4 weeks to voting day does any party want me to
    vote for them.So far a complete zero in regards of policy
    literature,is there any wonder that the majority of the
    general public suffer from terminal apathy.Since coming of
    voting age some 35 years ago I have voted in every contest
    that has come my way,but I fear it is coming harder and harder
    to be motivated when in my opinion the political debates seam
    to be solely about slaging off all and any opposition,rather
    than trying to educate me in the rights of their own manifestos.

    May 6th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
18. Paul H-J

    Well, a choice of least 10 different parties to tempt London voters, of whom 7 were on the ballot paper last time (and 5 have MEPs).

    Compared with 2004, we have 2 new left-wing parties plus Libertas, while losing 2 left-wing parties (Respect & People’s Party ??) plus CPA – so overall the spectrum on offer is not that different..

    I suspect that the current line-up is more of a problem for Labour than Conservatives – especially as Bob Crow is well known in London and so could pull in more disgruntled working class votes than Respect did. Combined with BNP inroads in east London, could this be enough to see Labour slip under 20% ?

    LDs should stay comfortably in 3rd place here, even if they shed 1-2%, while I think UKIP are likely to fall back into single-figures. Could make for a tight three-way contest between UKIP / Green / BNP for 4th place. The other four parties will be also-rans, but may pick up 8-10% between them, thereby reducing the threshold for UKIP / Green / BNP.

    Conservatives will pull well ahead of Labour, perhaps opening a double digit lead and/or topping 30%, which could give them a 4th seat.

    First four seats will be
    1. Con 1
    2. Lab 1
    3. Con 2 / LD 1
    4. LD 1 / Con 2

    After that it gets interesting, especially if Lab fall below 20% such that #5 is Con 3.

    May 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
19. Joe James B

    Sometimes turnout does improve a bit more than people think, in the last few years.
    I think the rock bottom was 2002, and things have got slowly better, but not enough of course.

    I remember a lot of doom and gloom that it would fall further in the 2005 election. It didn’t.

    May 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
20. Anthony Wells

    Updated to reflect full nominations.
    The official list is here:

    http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5A43D733-BDFD-4E89-BFF7-E3EA724CD9EB/0/StatementOfPersonsNominated.pdf

    May 7th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
21. Neil

    Updated prediction:

    1. Conservative
    2. Labour
    3. Conservative 2
    4. Libdem
    5. Conservative 3
    6. Labour 2
    7. UKIP/Conservative 4
    8. BNP/Green

    The final 2 seats will be interesting. If the UKIP vote disintegrates (I am still sceptical) then the Conservatives will be the beneficiaries – thus, if UKIP lose their seat it will almost certainly be picked up by the Conservatives. Whoever gets more votes of BNP and Greens will get the final seat – it is far too close to call.

    May 7th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
22. benjamin

    The 8th seat will be more likely a Lib Dem than either of the minor parties.

    May 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
23. Pete Whitehead

    2 Lib Dem seats in London is spectacularly unlikely

    May 7th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
24. Paul H-J

    14 party lists plus 5 individual candidates. Is this a new record for a Ballot paper in a national election ?

    (I think there have been parliamentary by-elections with as many, if not more, candidates – though not many.)

    I don’t envy the voters in London, let alone the returning officer and staff at the count. Bet this delays the London results as it offers significant scope for recounts and disputes between scrutiny agents.

    Labour must be worried by the number of avowedly left-wing options on offer here. 20% for Labour looking decidely ropey, and if they fall to 16-17% they may even lose out on their second seat – that would be a shock.

    Bob Bailey must be pleased, the hurdle to get elected may now be as low as 6-7% in London.

    May 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
25. Neil

    Benjamin,

    It is possible for the Libdems to take the 8th seat, but quite unlikely. They would need to get more than double the vote of both the BNP and the Greens. Given that both these parties could quite feasibly get over 8%, and perhaps one of them up to about 9%, the Libdems would need to increase their share to a healthy 17%, maybe even over 18% – and I really can’t see that.

    May 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
26. Neil

    Paul,

    I doubt it will drop that low. Even though there are a lot of options on the paper, there are still only 8 seats up for grabs. My guess is that the threshold will be between 8 and 9%.

    May 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
27. Warofdreams

    Paul -

    On number of candidates, there have only been two Parliamentary by-elections with as many candidates (Newbury 1993 with 19 and Haltemprice and Howden last year with 26).

    I’m not sure what your definition of national is, but several of the seats in the Northern Ireland Forum election had 20 or more party list/independent candidates, as have some electoral regions in the Scottish Parliament elections.

    Some Northern Ireland Assembly elections have had even more candidates, and under STV they can all be ranked, although they have never totalled 20 different affiliations.

    May 8th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
28. Gene Alcantara

    Interesting to see how the parties are already dividing the spoils at the start of the European Parliamentary campaign. But one cannot underestimate the frustration felt by those who have traditionally not had a voice in British politics, and who I hope will now turn out and exercise their vote in favour of Independent Candidates.

    True, it would be an uphill battle as we would not have access to the media in the same way that parties have, and we do not have endless resources. But we will reach out nevertheless to our supporters. I would be happy if a minimum of two Independent Candidates actually get seats.

    May 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
29. Neil

    Gene,

    I am not passing any judgment on whether the election of independent candidates would be good or bad, but you must admit it is highly unlikely.

    That said, I don’t know your politics, but good luck to you – are you still a Veritas member, or does it exist anymore? Their politics were very close to mine on most issues.

    May 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
30. Paul H-J

    Warofdreams

    By national I meant a nation-wide election as opposed to a by-election.

    STV in multi-member constituencies – especially if for 5 or 6 seats – would typically produce 20 or more candidates, and this is why STV ceases to function well beyond 4-member consittuencies, and breaks down at 7 or above.

    In this case we actually have 110 candidates for 8 seats. If this were an STV election as opposed to d’Hondt closed-list the winner would undoubtedly be “spoilt ballot”.

    May 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
31. Ian R

    Paul

    In practice, under STV, you do not get parties putting forward a “full slate” of candidates, as this is counter-productive (first preferences widely spread so risk of early elimination).

    The perceived wisdom is that the optimal game-theory strategy is to have one more candidate than your realistic best-case prediction. if you look at the Scottish local elections under STV that is more or less what happened, and it is noticeably the case in the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections.

    May 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
32. Ian R

    On the number of candidates in a parliamentary by-election I was going to challenge War of Dreams because I recalled a vast number at the Rotherham by-election of 1963, but in the event only three were valid nominations.

    For those too young to remember, some 493 people applied for nomination papers when the writ was moved, over 450 of these being servicemen.

    The point being that those who had deferred National Service for educational reasons but had then taken a five or seven year contract had no legal means of getting out of the Army (principally). Servicemen were not allowed to stand for parliament, but the convention had become well established that any who were nominated would be discharged, but with the option of reinstatement if they wished if they were unsuccessful in the election.

    At the Middlesbrough West byelection earlier that year one Malcolm Thompson had stood as an Independent and been discharged so he could take up a place at University. The press ran the story and by the time the Rotherham byelection was liable to be called they had established that under the convention people did not actually have to stand (and thus lose their deposit), it was sufficient merely to apply for nomination papers.

    How the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office managed to counter this is a long and devious story, and I doubt if in the less deferential era we now inhabit it would have been accepted. On the other hand, the government did not resort to draconian or retrospective legislation, so in some respects it could be argued to have been more civilised than today.

    May 8th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
33. Gene Alcantara

    Hi Neil

    I left Veritas back in 2006 and have not heard from them for a long time.

    I have been working quietly since as an Immigration Caseworker helping people with legitimate claims to this country (as British or European citizens). However I have seen how Labour has messed up immigration in the UK over the years, with the resulting blame heaped on migrants, ethnic minorities and Central/East Europeans for a lot of the ills in Britain. This is of course very unfair for most British migrants who have done nothing but serve the country. I am therefore campaigning for fairness to all Londoners, among other things. As I am a Londoner, and 29% of the capital’s population are migrants, this is a major plank of my campaign.

    May 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
34. Gene Alcantara

    Perhaps in the past an independent candidate would never get elected for lack of solid votes, but this time I believe that for example British-Filipinos (est 250,000) are more politically aware and will not just waste their vote on a political party that does not represent their interest. I think you can say the same for eg British-Chinese (est 200,000) or whatever combinations of nationalities. Five years ago we started getting people more aware of their voting muscle and we are confident they will flex this in the European Elections.

    May 9th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
35. Paul H-J

    Ian R,

    Agreed, but in an 8 member constituency major parties would feel impelled to put up at least five candidates each, and also seek to ensure that they did not put up fewer than their main opponent – so over time you end up with a full slate anyway.

    I used to adminster multi-member STV elections as a student and I can assure you that the re-allocation of an elected candidate’s surpluses is far more complicated than the relatively simple second or lower preferences of minor / fringe candidates. It is fine when there are only 3 seats up. When there are 8 or 9, it is a nightmare.

    May 11th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
36. benjamin

    It’s great fun – we used to end up with little piles of ballots all over the office with their fractional values attached as post-it notes!

    May 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
37. Pete Whitehead

    Prediction

    Con 32%
    Lab 26%
    LD 15%
    Grn 8%
    UKIP 8%
    BNP 7%

    3 Con 2 Lab and 1 LD are certain. The last two seats will go to two of either 4th Con 3rd Lab Green or UKIP.
    My unrounded figures produce 4 Con 3 Lab and 1 LD but the expenses scandal is likely to boost the non-mainstream candidates and I tend to think the Greens have a reasonable chance of holding their seat here.

    May 13th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
38. Warofdreams

    “In this case we actually have 110 candidates for 8 seats. If this were an STV election as opposed to d’Hondt closed-list the winner would undoubtedly be “spoilt ballot”.”

    But if it was an STV election, there would be far fewer candidates – parties soon learn that they should come up with a realistic assessment of how many seats they might win, and run one more candidate than that. 14 parties + 8 seats = around 22 candidates for this constituency, if parties made sensible judgements as to how many candidate to run.

    Seats with more than 4 representatives exist in most present STV systems and do not cause problems. There is, of course, an upper limit before voters get confused, and 8 seats might be around that.

    Then again – in the 1925 Irish Senate elections, 76 candidates ran for 19 seats, and the country somehow got through the process.

    May 13th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
39. Andy Stidwill

    Is there any chance of both the Greens and the BNP winning a seat?

    May 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
40. Warofdreams

    “Agreed, but in an 8 member constituency major parties would feel impelled to put up at least five candidates each, and also seek to ensure that they did not put up fewer than their main opponent – so over time you end up with a full slate anyway.”

    Unless the party were fairly confident of winning four seats, this would be a disasterous strategy – as the UUP have often found in Northern Ireland, where they have a silly habit of putting up 3 candidates when they could take either 1 or 2 seats. Very often, two candidates are eliminated early, and they only take one seat, but with two candidates and better vote balancing would have been likely to take two.

    As discussed elsewhere, parties only run full slates in list elections because there is no disadvantage to it, and there might be minor benefits. In an STV election, if your main opposition is foolish enough to run a full slate of candidates, you don’t follow suit, you run a sensible number and reap the benefits.

    May 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
41. Pete Whitehead

    I dont think the BNP can reach the threshold to win a seat in this region. You would need to alter my figures to something like the following for it to happen

    Con 31%
    Lab 24%
    LD 15%
    Grn 9%
    BNP 8.1%
    UKIP 8%

    Given the demographics of large areas of London I dont think it is feasible that the BNP could get as high as that across the region, but that configuration of votes would give 3 Con 2 Lab 1 LD 1 Grn 1 BNP

    May 13th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
42. Warofdreams

    “Is there any chance of both the Greens and the BNP winning a seat?”

    I think there is a possibility. For this to happen, there would need to be a strong Green and BNP performance, weak UKIP and Labour performances, no advance for the Lib Dems and not too great an increase for the Conservatives.

    For example, the following shares of the vote would give Con 3, Lab 2, Lib Dem 1, Green 1, BNP 1:

    Conservative 31%
    Labour 23%
    Lib Dem 15%
    Green 8%
    BNP 8%
    UKIP <8%

    May 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
43. Pete Whitehead

    Needless to say my last post was also in reply to Andy’s question

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
44. Warofdreams

    I hadn’t seen your reply when I posted mine, but I’m glad to see we agree on the figures needed, and hope that you are correct that the BNP won’t make 8%. I think it’s unlikely, but is definitely a possibility.

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
45. Andy Stidwill

    The BNP will obviously need to do well in boroughs like Barking & Dagenham to reach the 8% level which might give them a seat. Last time they polled 5,266 votes or 14.8%. I think they’ve done a lot better than that it council elections since 2004. UKIP polled 7,500 votes or 21.1% in B&D in 2004 which is a very large percentage which might go largely to the BNP. I don’t think Cameron’s brand of Conservatism is particular popular in places like B&D, at least according to local council results.

    In Havering they polled 9.6% to UKIP’s 24.0%. Once again they might be the main beneficiaries of a decline in the UKIP vote, (although in the country as a whole most of the decline in the UKIP vote will probably go to the Conservatives).

    The BNP would obviously have to increase their vote right across the capital to have any chance of winning a seat, which means improving their share in places like Brent and Lambeth where the only polled 1.7%, and Haringey where they polled 1.5%.

    Last time the BNP outpolled the Greens in only 4 London boroughs (B&D, Havering, Bexley, Hillingdon), but they were less than 3% behind the Greens in another 9 boroughs (Bromley, Croydon, Enfield, Greenwich, Harrow, Hounslow, Newham, Redbridge, Southwark).

    I think the Greens will still beat the BNP across London but the BNP might win a seat, although I think there’s a 60/40 chance they won’t.

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
46. Pete Whitehead

    “The BNP would obviously have to increase their vote right across the capital to have any chance of winning a seat, which means improving their share in places like Brent and Lambeth where the only polled 1.7%, and Haringey where they polled 1.5%”

    Which is their problem because they simply cant achieve more than about 2-3% in boroughs like that and that is true of most inner-London boroughs.
    I have worked out regional projections by first of all working out predictions in each local authority area. I have the BNP up to 23% in B&D, 16% in Havering 15% in Bexley, 10% in Hillingdon.
    But these areas are not enough and I come out with a total of 7% for the BNP in London even with these somewhat optimistic figures (from their perspective)

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
47. Neil

    The main beneficiaries of the expenses row will be UKIP and the BNP – UKIP in particular will benefit from Lord Tebbitt’s pronouncements.

    My view is that the three secondary parties each correspond with a primary party – UKIP with the Conservatives; BNP with Labour and Greens with Libdems. Obviously this is not universal, but these are the parties they are most likely to take votes off. The Greens will not benefit greatly, not because the Libdems are clean, but because the BBC have taken great pains to portray them as cleaner than the other two.

    I think that UKIP will still finish 4th here:

    Conservative – 31%
    Labour – 21/22%
    Libdems – 15%
    UKIP – 8%
    BNP – 7.5%
    Greens – 7.5%
    Others – 9/10%

    That gives 4 Conservatives; 2 Labour; 1 Libdem; 1 UKIP. The final two seats are definitely unpredictable though.

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
48. Pete Whitehead

    Well I prefer your predcition to mine Neil
    That is an awful lot for Others though ?

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
49. newbie nick

    Do these elections give any substantial pointers interms of May 2010?
    If so what ‘numbers’ will the three main parties be realistically hoping for.?
    Also, how is the turnout % significant?

    May 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
50. Neil

    London is the sort of place where others will do well. I’m sure Respect still have some sort of following here, which will keep them on around 3%. Last time Others managed 8.4% – so 9 is not a huge rise, and there are a lot more others this time, covering the entire political spectrum, which was not the case last time.

    May 13th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code *