Comments on: North West European

By: Iain Mackintosh

Iain Mackintosh — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:49 +0000

I don’t think it will have a huge impact as the next Euro election is still 4 and a half years away. If the elections were next June, then it could result in them losing.

I don’t think Griffith’s performance will help his share of the vote in Thurock (West) next spring.

I would expect a higher turnout among non-BNP voters in NW England in 2014, so Griffin could still lose while polling more votes.

That’s what happened in Millwall in Tower Hamlets in 1994.

By: Frederic Stansfield

Frederic Stansfield — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:41:03 +0000

What impact, if any will the “Question Time” on 22nd. October have on the BNP MEP’s electoral prospects here next time?

By: Peter Crerar

Peter Crerar — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:02:09 +0000

The BNP appear to have taken the seat in Yorks & Humber by a larger margin than the NW.

Perhaps the reason why is that this was a more obvious BNP target and there would be more effort by the Greens in particular not only to win a seat but to keep the BNP out.

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:10:15 +0000

I dont think I expressed that too well. UKIP were 3000 votes off taking a second seat – the seat which went to the BNP, while the Greens were 5000 away from taking that seat. I dont believe that were it not for the expenses scandal that UKIP would have been in a position to poll double the BNP or that the Greens would be close to polling more votes than the BNP. Therefore it would have required one of the other parties to poll more votes to take the last seat and the numbers needed would have been:
Conservatives would have needed over 100,000 more votes
Labour would have needed 60,000 more
LDs would have needed 30,000 more

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:59:13 +0000

I disagree. If anything these issues almost prevented Griffin being elected as it boosted both the Greens and UKIP. UKIP were nowhere near getting two seats in this region before that and the Greens were nowhere near getting none. Griffinsd vote was no more than one would have expected before all this but the mainstream parties were well short of the numbers needed to stop him (ie Con 4 Lab 3 or LD 2)

By: Andy Stidwill

Andy Stidwill — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:50:31 +0000

It would be difficult to argue that the expenses scandal wasn’t responsible for just pushing Griffin over the top.

The expenses scandal happened because each MP looked around and saw that most other MPs were indulging in indefensible expense claims and so thought that it was okay for them. You couldn’t come up with a better example of group-think but it’s a group-think that has ended up with Griffin being elected.

By: Warofdreams

Warofdreams — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:23:35 +0000

In fairness to the Greens, the tactical voting almost worked – 5,000 votes in a constituency this size isn’t that much. And while tactical voting here is a challenge, in a smaller constituency it’s easier to see how it might work.

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:18:32 +0000

So he has. UKIP less than 3000 off taking a second seat which would have stopped him – a lesson to those (the Greens) who think that you can play tactical voting games in a D’Hondt system

By: Andy Stidwill

Andy Stidwill — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:16:45 +0000

BBC reporting that UKIP were 1,200 votes short of taking the last seat and the Greens 5,000.

By: Warofdreams

Warofdreams — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:14:27 +0000

The BNP leader just snuck in – very sad news. Poor performance by Labour who lost a seat, but even if they’d done rather better, it would have been unlikely to affect the people elected. The Greens did well but finished around 5,000 votes behind the BNP, but note the strong UKIP performance – they almost took a second seat and denied Griffin one.