128 Responses to “North West European”

1. Matt

   Surely this is the North West region, not the London region!

   April 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
2. Gwyn

   er, that photo doesn’t look like Helen Foster-Grime to me …………

   April 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
3. Anthony Wells

   It was Jonathan Fryer, sneaking in there
   Corrected it now.

   April 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
4. Joe James B

   This is a very good addition to the site.
   I hope Jacqueline Foster has a chance to get back in again, now third on the list.
   Rather unrewarded after a good result in Newham South 1992, and getting pushed below a Lib Dem defector (although welcome of course) on the list in 2004.

   [edited - AW]

   April 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
5. Doktorb

   The best chance of a BNP seat, something I am sure every party will fight against as strongly as possible.

   My other half, who lives in Blackpool, tells me they have received 2 BNP leaflets in the last few weeks, all branded with the Euros in mind.

   April 3rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
6. Peter Cranie

   I understand the Liberal Party won’t be standing. They appear to be backing the NO2EU slate who are having a selection meeting this weekend. Cllr Steve Radford is one of the signatories backing them http://www.no2eu.com/supporters.html

   Respect North West have announced they won’t be standing, and are advocating a tactical anti-racist vote for the Greens. http://john-nicholson.blogspot.com/2009/02/vote-against-bnp.html

   Any news on who is standing for Libertas and Jury Team in this region?

   April 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
7. RLC36

   It’s late and my senses aren’t as sharp as they should be – that’s why I spent far too long pondering the biographical details for the BNP’s no 3 candidate Mr. Greenhalgh until I noticed the similarity with Tory no. 3 Jacqueline Foster (I assume hers are the correct details?)

   April 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
8. Andy Stidwill

   It’s a bad failure for the main parties that Nick Griffin is quite likely to win a seat in this region. I wouldn’t have thought they have much chance of getting a second MEP elected in the NW.

   April 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 pm
9. Anthony Wells

   RLC36 – you don’t think he’d have made a nice airline hostess? Anyway, corrected.

   April 4th, 2009 at 7:52 am
10. benjamin

    What will the BNP have to poll to qualify for a seat now that there are fewer MEPs. I honestly don’t quite see it happening but agree all parties need to be out there campaigning for votes to make sure their list gets elected and not Griffin’s.

    April 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
11. Anthony Wells

    Benjamin – they need to get more than a third of what either the Conservatives OR Labour get, AND more than half what the Lib Dems get.

    Probably something around 8% would do it

    April 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
12. Paul H-J

    Anthony,

    In addition, they need to come fourth (ie ahead of UKIP or Green).

    Based on the 2004 figures, BNP would need at least another 35K to get the 8th seat. May not sound much – less than 2% of total votes cast – but that represents an increase of over 25% in their vote.

    I suspect that Cons will pull ahead of Labour here to keep 3 seats. LD should hold at least one, but in order to get back up to two, they need to add a few points – feasible ?

    Labour could face losing their third seat if they drop more than a couple of percent – with a strong likelihood that seat goes to Nick Griffin. This must be the one region in the country where I would actually like the Labour share of the vote to hold up !

    The task for UKIP is simply to keep ahead of BNP. Vote UKIP to keep out the BNP ! How about that for a tactical voting slogan ?

    I note the comment from Peter Cranie, and yes, if the Greens can collect sufficient votes from here there and wherever to get ahead of the BNP they will deny Griffin his prize. But, since Greens will be starting from nearly 20k behind, and don’t have the momentum BNP undoubtedly do, is that realistic ?

    April 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
13. Pete Whitehead

    I think both UKIP and the BNP could win a seat here, whereas in some of the smaller regions like Yorkshire or East Midlands there will definately only be room for one of them to win a seat (and quite possibly neither). Agree the Greens are not in contention for a seat, though their clever tactical voting ploy might syphon off some votes from the other left of centre parties, possibly having the amusing effect of assisting Nick Griffin’s election at the expense of a third Labour or second LD MEP.

    April 5th, 2009 at 1:31 am
14. Andy Stidwill

    I think the BNP and UKIP will win at least one seat in every English region apart from the north-east.

    April 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
15. Andy Stidwill

    That’s at least one seat between them.

    April 5th, 2009 at 10:56 am
16. Paul H-J

    Andy,

    Phew ! For a moment there I thought you were suggesting we were going to end up with 8 BNP MEPs.

    By my calculations, UKIP should come out with 6-8 MEPs, but could fall lower if their share overall in England drops below 10%.

    This is probably the only region where BNP can secure an MEP – and it is by no means easy for them to do so. This is also a region where there will be County Council elections in Cumbria and Lancashire, but no local elections in Merseyside, Gtr Manchester or Cheshire. That could mean higher turnout in the rural areas where the BNP are weakest, and lower turnout in the urban areas where they have pockets of strength.

    April 5th, 2009 at 11:11 am
17. Pete Whitehead

    This may be one place where the differential turnout caused by county council elections could actually help the BNP. Their best part of this region is in East Lancashire while their weakest area is probably Cheshire. Cumbria has not been a good area for them traditionally but they are making major efforts to redress this situation and not without some success (witness the recent byelection result in Kells where they won 40% and came within a whisker of taking one of Labours safest CC seats in the country)

    April 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
18. Andy Stidwill

    I think it’s pretty certain UKIP will poll more than 10%. Even in 1999, when they had only just started, they managed 7%. It’s probably fair to say there’s a 90% chance of them polling somewhere between 12% and 15%.

    April 5th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
19. Galloglass

    Pete I’m not sure I agree with you that both the BNP and UKIP can win seats.

    I think it will be one or the other and unfortunately I’m shading towards the opinion that Griffin will come out ahead, .

    April 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
20. Pete Whitehead

    It is certainly possible to construct a realistic scenario where both do win a seat. I have had a play around with the figures and a seat allocation of 3 Con 2 Lab 1 LD 1 BNP 1 UKIP would result from a result along roughly these lines:

    Con 28%
    Lab 26%
    LD 15%
    BNP 11%
    UKIP 9%
    Grn 5%

    This does represent a drop of about 25% of UKIPs 2004 share. I realise many people are expecting them to drop 50% or more but I disagree with this (while not being quite as optimistic as Andy about UKIP’s prospects)

    April 6th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
21. Galloglass

    UKIP ‘borrowed’ a good deal of the anti euro vote from the three main parties in a small way in 1999 and a bigger way in 2004.

    I may be wrong but I can’t see them doing it to any great extent this time when the focus is on current economic problems.

    Also they have no TV personality to give them a boost with the press this time.

    The converse is true with regard to the BNP who do very well indeed from economic misery.

    April 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
22. Andy Stidwill

    UKIP may do slightly better than expected due to some people entering the polling booth intending to vote BNP but at the last minute feeling it’s a step too far and then going for UKIP instead. I can’t see people suddenly changing at the last minute from BNP to the other parties in any numbers. (I’m not trying to imply there’s any association between the BNP and UKIP, but they both represent a kind of thumbs down attitude to the whole European enterprise).

    April 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
23. benjamin

    I haven’t got the figures to hand but since 2004 there have been quite a lot of council areas in the North West where the Lib Dems have come on in leaps and bounds – running Warrington, Oldham, Rochdale etc; gaining seats in places like Knowesley and winning Manchester Withington, Westmoreland and Rochdale at parliamentary level.

    It’s going to be a struggle but I wouldn’t be astonished to see Lib Dems holding onto that second MEP here.

    April 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
24. Paul H-J

    Pete,

    I think your figure of 26% for Lab, being a drop of only 1.4% from 2004, is optimistic, especially if you are predicting a rise of 5% for BNP.

    Personally, I think Lab may fall to around 22-24% in this region – which of course would help UKIP to hang on with only 8% or so.

    For LD to retain a second seat they would need to poll more than twice the lower of UKIP or BNP, and more than two thirds of whatever Lab get, which probably means they need to increase their vote to 16.5-17%. Pace Benjamin, but I can’t see that kind of increase relative to 2004, especially as LDs were under 12% here in 1999.

    I don’t buy the BNP / UKIP interchangeability Andy suggests. While the two parties may both be described as “patriotic” and “anti-EU”, that is where the similarity ends.UKIP appeals to disaffected Tories. BNP to disgruntled Labour. I suppose one votes Green to register a protest against LibDems ?

    As this region will be the focus of media coverage on the BNP threat, will that encourage another high turnout, even without postal voting ? (40% in 2004, compared to 30% in 1994 and a miserable 19% in 1999) With partial local elections (Cumbria and Lancashire) will turnout be variable ? How will that impact the parties ? Probably not good for Labour.

    April 6th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
25. Andy Stidwill

    I hadn’t realised Saj Karim had defected to the Conservatives as far back as 2004. Shows how little reporting there is of things involving Euro MPs. In fact, looking it up, Wikipedia says he defected in 2007.

    April 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
26. Pete Whitehead

    It wasnt 2004 – 2007 sound about right as I remember discussion about it at another place (if anything i’d have said it was only last year, but 2007 could be right)

    April 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
27. Galloglass

    Saj jumped ship in November 2007 shortly after coming second to Cris Davies in the ballot for the forthcoming election.

    April 7th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
28. Andy Stidwill

    Some of the things politicians do are awfully blatant, aren’t they.

    April 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
29. Paul H-J

    Andy,

    He was clearly impelled by an overwhelming sense of duty to continue serving his constituents – whatever the personal cost of having to feign a different allegiance.

    Surely you cannot imagine that our esteemed representatives are motivated by anything other than altruistic dedication to duty ?

    April 7th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
30. Frederic Stansfield

    I don’t know about Atkins’ expenses, but I am with Joe James B’s general view of him. This is a prime example of the list system enabling a Party to almost effectively rubber-stamp the election of a candidate when many voters would, given the chance, give preference to other candidates, perhaps any other candidate, on the list of the party concerned.

    Readers of previous posts concerning Westminster seats will know that I, and others, have not forgotten how way back in 1979 Robert Atkins came from London to stand in Preston North and defeated popular local MP Ronald Atkins by 29 votes.

    If the BNP reaches quota by 29 votes, many people will feel that the Tory candidate selection was irresponsible.

    April 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
31. Warofdreams

    The BNP have clearly identified this as their best chance of a seat by standing Griffin here, and I believe they are correct. It’s difficult to come up with a plausible scenario in which neither UKIP nor the BNP take a seat, as I can’t see the Lib Dems taking twice the vote of whichever one comes out on top.

    Provided the BNP beat UKIP, which looks likely, they should take a seat. The other seats look straightforward – three Conservatives, three Labour (barring a disaster for them) and one Lib Dem.

    April 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
32. sneyton

    It seems likely that the 4th party and probable taker of the 8th seat will be either the BNP or the Green Party. UKIP has completely collapsed in the area. I don’t want to wake up on 5th June being represented by a nazi.

    April 18th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
33. danofnewcastle

    I think the British National Party will win 2 seats and hopefully destroy the EU from inside over time

    April 19th, 2009 at 12:16 am
34. Frederic Stansfield

    A second seat appears not impossible for the Liberal Democrats.

    A thought here. A list system is supposed to cut down on tactical voting. However, given that the third Labour candidate easily got past quota last time, but there appears to be no chance of a fourth MEP, would it not be worthwhile for some Labour voters to plump for the LibDems in the hope that a second LIbDem MEP gets elected instead of the BNP?

    Moreover, I have recently posted about Atkins’ long remembered dirty trick of standing against a Labour MP with the same surname. But if people are going to indulge in such tactics, why don’t Labour put Theresa Griffin at the head of their list? Minor party Lists tend to be identified with their first-placed candidate. A Labour list headed by a Griffin might divert a critical few votes away from a party they hate. I suspect that more minor parter supporting voters than Labour ones will vote for a named candidate, so Labour would on balance win out from such a tactic.

    April 19th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
35. benjamin

    The candidate names on the ballot will be barely legible and the names and logos of parties are much more prominant – I doubt any tactic like that would help.

    Your tactical voting idea is an interesting one – though not terribly democratic, honest or workable.

    On the other hand, using STV rather than straight party lists would make it much harder for parties like the BNP to gain representation as they work on a preferential basis.

    April 19th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
36. Pete Whitehead

    The tactical voting idea is totally unworkable, especially as Labour’s share is likely to be down anyway and in fact their third seat is at some risk. Who would decide which Labour voters should vote LD? If left to their own devices how would you stop too many voting LD and allowing a LD to win an extra seat at Labour’s expense? As Benjamin says totally unworkable and I agree with his first point as well.

    His last point howver shows that STV is itself not terribly democratic or honest. If the BNP do win a seat here it will be because they have the support of a certain number of electors in this region which is roughly proportionate to the number of seats available. I think this is what most people understand by the term ‘proportional representation’. STV seems not to work on this basis but on some kind of Byzantine distribution of various second, third and fourth preferences with a result which bears little relation to first preferences.

    April 19th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
37. James youd

    Isn’t it lovely to have a good debate on this site about different forms of PR. I thought I would never see the day.

    April 19th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
38. Pete Whitehead

    I dont think it is the first and I’m sure not the last, though I doubt Anthony will thank us much if we go toof ar down that road

    April 19th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
39. benjamin

    STV’s very simple – if your first preference is eliminated, your vote goes to your second preference until such time as you manage to help elect someone.

    If a candidate receives more votes than required, the extra votes are redistributed so as not to be “wasted”.

    STV does tend to reflect votes cast on the first round as long as the number of seats per division is large enough. WHat it DOES allow, however, is for voters to give their preferences in such a way as to support a favoured party but avoid a particular individual they don’t like AND to allocate their votes so that they never go to a party they particularly DON’T want to be elected.

    I would expect voters for the three main parties would disproportionately support one another rather than casting a 2nd pref for the BNP and thus the majority’s DISlike for them would have some bearing on their chances of getting elected as well as a minority voting FOR them. It wouldn’t eliminate them altogether and nor should it, but it would make it that little bit harder because there are many people out there who would vote against them rather than merely supporting another party.

    April 20th, 2009 at 1:01 am
40. Noel Nowosielski

    Benjamin is right. Essentially, what STV does is to ensure that there is a “consensus” of voters behind any elected candidate. In the case of this seat, any “candidate” would need to acheive 12.5% plus one vote to win a seat. It would be hard for the BNP to get any candidate elected under such circumstances because there will be very few transfers to them away from other parties’ candidates, but plenty of transfers away from the BNP after the 2nd and 3rd transfers.

    The simple principle is that there would be no general consensus in favour of the BNP, therefore the system would rightly reflect their marginalisation.

    Unlike FPTP of course, where the quota for election could be very small due to the number of votes cast divided by the number of candidates plus one formular for election….where, if the bNP contest a seat well they can appear to be making progress.

    April 20th, 2009 at 10:13 am
41. benjamin

    Noel – one little thing – you talk about votes transfering “away” from the BNP.

    Under STV your second and third prefs only come into place once A- your first preference is elected over quota or B- your first preferece is eliminated for being unable to acheive quota. Therefore where BNP voters place their 2,3,4 etc has no effect on their first choice’s chances of being elected.

    April 20th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
42. Pete Whitehead

    I’m glad that James Youd is enjoying the discussions about diferent forms of PR and I hope he will find it informative and that it may increase his understanding of the D’Hondt system which is currently used for European elections.
    I have in front of me a leaflet from the Eastern Green party, promoted by one James Youd, which advises that ‘If 10% of our region’s voters make Green their first or seocnd choice, a Green party MEP will be elected’.
    There is sadly no explanation of how one is to express a second preference for the Green party, nor that to attempt to do so would most likely result in the ballot paper being spoilt.

    April 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
43. Paul H-J

    The main difference between STV and the D’Hondt system is that in the former, electors can choose not just between parties, but also between individual candidates within a party, whereas under d’Hondt the decision on who actually gets elected rests primarily with the Party hierarchy except at the margins.

    The other factor to bear in mind is that STV is designed to work best with 2-4 member constituencies, while d’Hondt is designed for list based systems electing larger numbers, and does not work well with 6 or fewer seats.

    Just imagine what an STV ballot paper would look like in this region where there are already over 50 candidates.

    Pete / James Youd – 10% would not get a Green MEP elected in the Eastern region under STV in any case, since the quota would be 12.5%. They actually stand a better (though negligible) chance under d’Hondt. But then if we used FPTP for the Euros this year we could end up with a result similar to, if not even more than, 1979.

    April 20th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
44. Neil

    I cannot see the BNP beating UKIP here, I think people are underestimating how well UKIP will do on 4th June. If the BNP do take a seat it will be the third seat of either Labour or the Conservatives, whichever comes second. This region will be interesting in terms of whether or not the Conservatives can overhaul Labour and come top here.

    My prediction:

    Conservative – 3
    Labour – 3
    Lib Dem – 1
    UKIP – 1

    If the BNP do take a seat, which is very possible, it will not be at the expense of UKIP.

    April 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
45. Pete Whitehead

    Paul – I agree that the Greens have a neglible chance of a seat in the Eastern region and will not approach 10%. The point I was drawing attention to was that the leaflet made reference to voters making ‘Green their first OR SECOND choice’, when of course no mechanism for recording second choice exists in the D’Hondt system

    April 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
46. TH

    Can somebody answer me this question

    does the reduction in seats from 9 to 8 make it harder for one of the smaller parties (BNP, greens etc) to win a seat?

    And why is the likley lower % limit for winning a seat not about 12-13% (100/8) but rather about 9% for the BNP as implied in these posts

    April 20th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
47. Neil

    TH,

    Yes, the reduction in seats makes it harder for smaller parties to win, as they need a higher share of the vote. However, they do not need 12.5% because some smaller parties will gain a significant %age of the vote and not be elected, meaning the seats are split between a smaller number of meaningful votes. The system where (100/8)+1 is used is STV, where voters can vote for more than one candidate in order of preference.

    April 20th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
48. Andy Stidwill

    Neil makes a brave prediction, expecting the BNP not to win a seat in this region. I think the main question, unfortunately, is whether they will have more than 1 MEP and this is certainly their best chance of winning a seat.

    April 20th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
49. benjamin

    An STV ballot paper would be fairly long but I doubt parties would put forward as many candidates as they do now.

    The normal wisdom with STV is to put forward as many candidates as you expect to win seats + 1.

    That way you don’t dilute your vote and risk your candidates getting eliminated because no individual has enough votes.

    April 20th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
50. Neil

    I would say the 8th seat will be pretty close between Labour and the BNP, and although I called it for Labour I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if the BNP took it.

    I would be extremely surprised if they win 2 seats however. In order to do so they would need to have more than a third of the vote of both Labour and the Conservatives – which is possible – but they would also need more than double the vote of either UKIP or the Libdems – which is practically impossible.

    Even if the BNP vote rose to 200,000 – which would be a fantastic result for them – they would need UKIP to drop below 100,000 (from 257,158) or Labour to drop below 400,000 (from 576,388) in order to win a second seat. It simply is not going to happen.

    April 20th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
51. Neil

    Incidentally, I am one of those people who believes it would be no bad thing if the BNP got a couple of MEPs. I am probably one of the furthest from the BNP in ideological terms, but some of the issues they raise certainly need to be discussed seriously and sensibly, and many of the points they make are valid, although they should perhaps be toned down a bit.

    It doesn’t do to label a party (or individual politician) as “racist” or “nazi” or anything else, without pointing out specifically what it is that they advocate which you find abhorrent. Trying to silence a party (and a sizeable section of the public) with whom you disagree by resorting to such insults is not democracy in my book.

    April 20th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
52. Pete Whitehead

    I assume Andy was referring to the possibilty of the BNP winning seats in other regions besides this one, rather than that they would be likely to win more than one here. Obviously that is excpetionally unlikely. My feeling is that the balance of probablity lies in favour of them winning a seat in the NW, though it is by no means a certainty, but in other regions where a higher threshold is needed they would struggle. Their best regions besides this one are likely to be Yorkshire and the East and West Midlands, but each have only 5 or 6 seats which means a share of 12% or more would probably be required. As things stand I think the BNP are just about on the level of support where it will be a close run thing between them winning no seats, or only one, and winning four seats.

    April 20th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
53. Neil

    I realised after my post that this was what Andy meant, sorry.

    I think it will be possible for the BNP to get more than 1 seat nationally – even probable – they could be the story of the month come June.

    April 20th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
54. Andy Stidwill

    Pete’s right that I meant more than one seat over the whole country, (I didn’t phrase my comment very clearly). I agree that a second BNP seat in the NW can’t be completely ruled out although it’s extremely unlikely, probably something like 100-1 chance. I think more than one BNP seat in any other region can be ruled out. They polled a higher share in Y+H last time and might do so again this time, but since there are only 6 seats there compared to 8 here I don’t think it’s possible. Maybe Nick Griffin standing here will probably give them a higher share in the NW this time.

    April 21st, 2009 at 12:49 am
55. Neil

    I think the budget makes the prospect of Nick Griffin being elected here altogether more realistic.

    April 25th, 2009 at 12:37 am
56. benjamin

    I would say the opposite.

    The introduction of the 50% tax rate will be pretty ineffective in tackling the economic crisis but it is a brilliant dogwhistle to “underclass” white voters of exactly the kind Labour are scared will either stay at home or vote BNP.

    By appealing to the baser instincts of the voter and offering a different scapegoat (”toffs” rather than immigrants), Gordon may just have shot Nick Griffin’s fox.
    This was certainly the intention of the tax rise, to consolidate Labour’s base in advance of coming elections, particularly the GE.

    April 25th, 2009 at 1:00 am
57. James youd

    The Greens have just set up a new website to try and get the last seat by picking on the anti-BNP vote, i.e. ethnic minorities etc. http://www.stopnickgriffin.org.uk/sites/stopnickgriffin

    April 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
58. benjamin

    As unimpressed as I am by the Green Party and by candidacies based on “stopping” any other party, it goes without saying that I’d rather see Peter Cranie elected than Nick Griffin.
    That website is also rather well-designed.

    I would pull you up though on the “i.e. ethnic minorities”. The anti-BNP vote is not just the BME population and there are few places where targeting non-whites could hope to deliver anyone victory anyway. Any anti-BNP campaign, if you have to have one, needs to be crystal clear that racism and Nazism (not wanting to invoke Godwin’s Law but they are a party using nationalist appeal and socialist policies) are a threat to EVERYBODY and should offend the sensibilities of ANYONE who values freedom and humanity.

    Portraying the BNP and racism in general as only a problem for black people is deeply counterproductive and just plain wrong.

    April 26th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
59. Andy Stidwill

    So will LD supporters in the NW be offering to vote Green in order to stop Griffin?

    April 26th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
60. benjamin

    I sincerely doubt it – we will be making the most of our increased areas of success since 2004 like Oldham, Rochdale, Warrington, Knowsley, Burnley, Westmoreland and various others to make sure we get enough votes to hold the two seats we won in the North West last time. It’ll be a challenge but I’m sure the guys on the ground are up for it.

    I think it would be pretty difficult for Lib Dems to endorse a left-wing party like the Greens, never mind when they are backed by an even more extreme grouping like Respect. All the more so when the party in question is BEHIND us in the polls by some way and stands every chance of getting no seats at all.

    Plus, short of not standing at all, how would such a pact evenbe administered? There are no preferences to reallocate, just an X and we want that for ourselves, thank-you very much.

    April 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
61. Galloglass

    I agree entirely with Benjamin. The guiding principles of Liberal Democracy are grassroots democracy and individual choice. The Greens are the antithesis of this with centralised state control and no choice for the individual at all.

    The best chance of preventing the BNP being returned here is to maximise our own vote and aim for the 17 to 18% mark that should be enough to see us hold two seats.

    April 26th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
62. Pete Whitehead

    Benjamin is right that trying to organise tactical voting in this electoral system is a mugs game. There is no way the Greens will get more votes than the BNP in this region and the effect of voters who might otherwise vote LIb Dem or Labour voting Green could be actually to help the BNP win a seat by effectively lowering the threshold. The last seat is not marginal between the BNP and the Greens (it is arguable that the BNP may be not fighting over the last seat anyway) – it will be marginal between UKIP or between a third Labour seat or a second LD seat. I dont think the LDs will get double the BNP vote, but on the kind of figures Galloglass is discussing then you are looking at it being close at that point between a second LD seat and a BNP seat. If for example the LDs won 17% and the BNP 8.4% the LD second seat comes ahead of the BNP. If the LDs drop to 16% because a few of them have drifted off to the Greens and helped push them up to 6% then the BNP wins.

    Incidentally I wonder if this pact between the Greens and Respect will be repeated elsewhere. I can see it having a less than beneficial effect on the soft Green vote in parts of the South East, where many vote for the party in the misapprehension that the Greens are some kind of cuddly liberals.

    April 27th, 2009 at 12:48 am
63. Andy Stidwill

    I agree that the Green campaign to stop the BNP by voting Green is completely wrong-headed for the reasons Pete points out. The Greens are not going to beat the BNP – from a logical point of view they should be telling people to vote LD if their campaign to stop the BNP has any seriousness about it.

    April 27th, 2009 at 1:15 am
64. Frederic Stansfield

    Pete, awareness of Respect in the South-East outside London is more or less non-existent. If voters have heard of that party at all they probably identify it with George Galloway, who they see as Scottish. So Respect is about as relevant as the SNP (or less so). It follows that a Green pact or understanding with Respect will have negligible effect on Caroline Lucas’ Green vote.

    Indeed, I am a floating voter seriously thinking of voting for Caroline Lucas, and your making me aware of this pact frankly makes no difference to me. It’s not worth bothering about.

    April 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
65. Rt Hon Sir Robert Atkins MEP

    I have just seen this posting for the first time and wish to correct two errors.
    1. I have NOT had any difficulties with my expenses and, indeed, have taken successful legal action against newspapers which have alleged so, resulting in full apologies, payment of my costs and financial damages. So that canard can be dismissed. I suggest that posters on this site should take more care in what they imply. I should also point out that Tory MEPs were the first political group in the European Parliament, from any country, to declare all our expenses publicly on our website. It is all there for every voter to see.
    2. It was not a “trick” to submit my name for selection as the PPC and then MP for Preston North. I was picked from amongst 76 applicants during a full and proper selection process. I won by 29 votes in 1979 and numerous people told me over my 18 years in Parliament for Preston North and then South Ribble that, had it not been for the similarity in names, I would have achieved the same swing as was prevalent throughout the NW at the time and had a much larger majority.

    May 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
66. Anthony Wells

    Sir Robert

    Thanks for the correction. Looking at Joe James B’s original posting, it was presumably the original libellous press article that he was recalling from his memory.

    On the subject of 1979, I was one of those sad enough to watch the replay of the 1979 election coverage on BBC Parliament last week, and on that David Dimbleby commented on the electors of Preston North chosing to replace their MP Mr R Atkins with a new MP, Mr R Atkins.

    May 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am
67. Joe James B

    I know of no details of this – but scanned that there was some issue or other – I think it was on Conservative Home and maybe also a newspaper – and thought don’t like the sound of it.

    I think I might have wrongly assumed it had more weight because it looked quite a long article, and the national party was doing something about it.

    Here Sir Robert Atkins has corrected this story – as untrue –
    I apologise unreservedly to him for referring to it.

    Anthony Wells, please remove that part of the post near the start of this thread.

    Thanks.

    May 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
68. Matt

    Can anyone tell me why the Conservatives only have 5 candidates when there are 8 seats?

    May 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
69. Joe James B

    I couldn’t answer that point properly – in General Elections one stands in every seat, but this list system does rather make a mockery for those near the end of the list, so perhaps they decided to put up just the number realistically could win.

    May 10th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
70. Andy Stidwill

    It’s a sensible move by the Conservatives if it’s correct. Pretending there’s a possibility of winning 100% of the vote is a bit Stalinist.

    In the other regions I think the Tories are fielding a full block of candidates which is a bit strange. You would have thought they’d have a consistent policy throughout the country on this subject.

    May 10th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
71. Matt

    I seem to remember Fiona Bruce (Warrington South 2005 candidate) was one of the candidates, but withdrew when she was ranked outside the top4, so maybe they just never bothered replacing her

    May 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
72. Doktorb

    There is a full 8-member Conservative list;

    Robert Atkins MEP,
    Saj Karim MEP,
    Jacqueline Foster,
    Alex Williams,
    Greg Morgan,
    Tony Samuels,
    Peter Wilding,
    Andrew Large

    May 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
73. Matt

    Thanks Doktorb!

    May 10th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
74. Anthony Wells

    Yep – it’s just because I haven’t finished the long slog of transferring all 700+ officially announced candidates onto the website. 7 regions done, 5 still to go.

    May 10th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
75. Matt

    No problem Anthony. Btw, I have some more candidate selections for you, can I just mail them to you as before?

    May 10th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
76. Anthony Wells

    That would be great

    May 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
77. Pete Whitehead

    I predict for this region

    Con 29%
    Lab 27%
    LD 15%
    BNP 11%
    UKIP 9%
    Grn 5%

    Seat allocation: Con 3 Lab 2 LD 1 BNP 1 UKIP 1

    (I have rounded my figures which therefore put the last seat on a knife edge between UKIP and 3rd Labour, but my actual figures have UKIP a bit above 9% and Labour a bit below 27%)

    May 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
78. Daniel Lee

    You’re going to be proven completely wrong come election day. The Green vote will certainly not go down on previous years, where exactly is it going to go? The Lib Dems haven’t done anything to merit it and there are no other serious left wing parties to vote for. Green voters will turn out year on year, add to that Respects small but committed vote, and the fact again that there are very few options for those on the left, the Green vote will hold up very nicely.

    UKIP are not going to keep their seat. Libertas and NO2EU will further put in a nail in that coffin.

    Depending on what he current expenses stuff has done the Tories will keep 3 or gain an extra seat (I always assumed they’d gain one but the recent stuff has dented that). Labour will lose a seat no doubt. The Lib Dems may just keep two but I doubt it. If the Tories get the 4th seat it’ll be UKIPs, and Labours 3rd seat will be up for grabs between the Greens and BNP. And it will be tight.

    I predict:

    Con 31%
    Lab 23%
    Lib 16%
    Green 9%
    BNP 9%
    UKIP 6%
    Libertas 3%

    Or thereabouts, few votes in between the BNP and Greens.

    May 13th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
79. Daniel Lee

    Of course under those figures the Tories only get 3 seats, and both the Greens and BNP gain. It’ll all come down to the Green and Tory votes in the end, and how far Labour falls.

    May 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
80. Galloglass

    All the polls so far show no real movement in the Green vote at all, rather the reverse.

    Almost certainly we are looking at 3 Tory 2 Lab and 2 Lib Dem with the last seat regrettably going to Griffin as what was the UKIP vote splinters between several anti EU parties from all over the political spectrum.

    May 13th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
81. Will Stobart

    I’m afraid, Dan, that recent election results have shown a consistent dramatic fall in Green votes. The way things are currently going you will be lucky to end up with any MEPs at all.

    May 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
82. Andy Stidwill

    The fact that the Greens were already trailing the BNP by nearly 20,000 votes leads me to believe that the Greens certainly won’t be in a position to get very close to the BNP. A good result for the Greens would be to hold their vote share from 2004, both in this region and around the country. It’ll be touch-and-go in both London and the SE as to whether they hold their MEPs. Sod’s Law says they’ll hang on in one of those regions but lose in the other.

    May 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
83. Pete Whitehead

    Daniel Lee – 3% for Libertas? That is even more laughable than your suggestion that the Greens will get 9% in this region. Actually I take your point about the Respect voters and the quite clever Green campaign on tactical voting here which may see their vote hold up better than in other regions. My unrounded figures had them on 5.3% which is certainly a lower decrease than I have envisaged elsewhere, but indeed the Green vote could rise a bit here – maybe to as much as 6%, but they will not win a seat and they will not outpoll the BNP (or UKIP)

    May 14th, 2009 at 12:49 am
84. Paul H-J

    First six seats will be Con 3; Lab 2 and LD 1.

    Last two seats will be a bun-fight between:

    Con 4;
    LD 2;
    UKIP
    BNP

    Pick any two according to taste.

    Since there are County Council elections in Lancashire and Cumbria, but not in Gtr Manchester, Merseyside or Cheshire, this is likely to hurt Labour, but not to the extent of losing their second seat.

    The BNP strength is mainly in the Mill towns north of Manchester, where there are Cty Council Elections, so will benefit BNP, but still a hurdle for Griffin to get elected – may depend on how badly UKIP do.

    Green vote may well rise thanks to their (fraudulent) tactical voting campaign and merger with Respect, but not by enough to catch BNP or win a seat.

    May 14th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
85. Pete Whitehead

    The BNP are something of a rising force in Cumbria now as well, judging by some recent local government byelections and are fielding a large slate of candidates for the CC elections there. Their weakness in Cumbria in 2004 was one of the factors that prevented Griffin from being elected then

    May 14th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
86. vote watcher

    Think folks are being very dismissive of the factors in national politics at the moment

    The Constituency will see

    Con 26%
    Lab 24%
    Libs 16%
    UkIP 12%
    BNP 10%
    Greens 8%
    Others 4

    So Con 2 Lab 2 LIb 1 UKIP 1 BNP 1 Con or Green for last seat

    May 14th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
87. vote watcher

    Think folks are being very dismissive of the factors in national politics at the moment

    The Constituency will see

    Con 26%
    Lab 24%
    Libs 16%
    UkIP 12%
    BNP 10%
    Greens 8%
    Others 4

    So Con 2 Lab 2 LIb 1 UKIP 1 BNP 1 Con or Green for last seat

    May 14th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
88. billwestall

    To use an old but true expression, “we have not yet begun to fight”.
    Libertas will come through and win in this election, of that there no doubt.

    May 15th, 2009 at 8:47 am
89. wezza

    Does anybody really think that the old % party splits will apply on June 4th.
    People are starting to think about who they are putting in seats of power.
    The latest revelations will cause a large number of the electorate to seriously think about who they vote for.

    May 15th, 2009 at 8:58 am
90. Andy Stidwill

    It’s interesting that the Daily Telegraph are reporting that the most likely seats the BNP will win are in the NW, NE, East Midlands and London. That seems like sloppy journalism to me. Surely the West Midlands and Yorkshire&Humberside and more likely to elect BNP members than the NE and London. In fact the West Midlands was the closest region to elect an MEP in 2004.

    May 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
91. Oliver

    Nick Griffin will almost certainly get elected here. He has a 80-90% chance In my opinion.

    Con – 28%
    Lab – 19%
    Lib D – 16%
    BNP – 15%
    UKIP – 9%
    Green – 8%
    Others – 5%

    May 16th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
92. Luke

    The ComRes poll for the North of England (not North West, but it is included) puts the Greens on 13% and the BNP on 6%, with UKIP on 11%.

    If translated through the North West, then the Greens would pick up a seat.

    May 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
93. Doktorb

    For the Greens to get a NW seat they would need to get every single on of their voters in lancaster to ask every one of their friends and family to vote Green too! I just cannot see the Greens doing it.

    May 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am
94. Daniel Lee

    That would make sense if you decide to ignore Manchester and Liverpool, being the two big population centres in the NW, where the Green vote is strong and growing… I think that can account for Lancastrian families.

    May 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
95. Cestrian

    Interestingly, the only party I have received literature from have been UKIP and the Greens!

    May 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
96. Pete Whitehead

    Manchester and LIverpool will account for less than 10% of votes cast in the region. The Greens may well top 10% of the vote in those two cities but they need to be getting that across the region to be in with a shout and they arent going to match that support in the other 90% of the region

    May 18th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
97. Daniel Lee

    I’m not sure where you get that idea from. Greater Manchester and Liverpool (Merseyside) account for nearly 60% of the NW population. Even if the entirety of Cumbria votes, Merseyside and Manchester, even at 10% turnout, would equal Cumbria alone in terms of numbers. We’ve a good local party in Cumbria and are very strong in places like Lancaster, so I’m quite confident we’re getting votes accross the region.

    May 18th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
98. Pete Whitehead

    Manchester and Liverpool , the cities of, which is where the Greens have some strength, will account for less than 1 in 10 vots cast in the region. It is no good start arguing that Manchester really means Greater Manchester or that Liverpool really means Merseyside because outside those two areas the Greens have negligble support (ie in Knowsley, St Helens, Wigan, Salford, Tameside, Bury etc etc).

    “[we] are very strong in places like Lancaster,”

    What do you mean by places ‘like’ Lancaster? Which places in the North West are in any way like Lancaster in terms of their support for the Green party? Why say ‘places like Lancaster’ when what you mean is ‘Lancaster’.
    Lancaster has c. 40,000 voters. This region has an electorate of over 5 million.

    May 18th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
99. benjamin

    I believe there is some Green strength in Preston as well.

    May 20th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
100. James Groves

     There are three Green candidates standing in Preston for the County Council Elections – although the fact that two of them live in Lancaster would seem to support Pete’s point.

     May 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
101. doktorb

     Benjamin – I am in Preston, and I can tell you, there is no Green strength at all. Their candidates have always been paper candidates from Lancaster.

     May 20th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
102. Pete Whitehead

     I suppose the Greens may benefit in Preston more than in most other places from the endoresement of Respect, since that was where Respect did best last time but I imagine that vote will scatter fairly widely and isnt that significant even in Preston. Respect got 6% in Preston in 2004 – the Greens got 4.7% which was well below the regional average

     May 20th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
103. Paul H-J

     Just to reinforce the point, while there are county council elections in Cumbria and Lancashire, there are no local elections in Merseyside, Gtr Manchester and Cheshire, so there will be differential turnout as between the northern and southern parts of this region.

     If the Green strength is concentrated in Lancaster (and this was the only place they made double digits in 2004) plus Manchester (8%), then they will not egt the 8-9% needed to win a seat here.

     May 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
104. JimPage

     Last NW by election before JUne 4th

     Labour 606
     Lib Dem 293
     BNP 276
     Con 189
     Green 125
     UKIP 123

     turnout 17.5%

     Big Winner- apathy

     May 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
105. Paul H-J

     JimPage

     You need to provide context (which the Beeb singularly failed to do when reproting this fantastic Labour victory in Hazel Blear’s seat).

     Firstly, Turnout: Was 1,744 votes at the full council election in May 2008. Total at by-election was 1,612 , so down by only 133 votes. Apathy was not any more in evidence than at full council election.

     What is more interetsing is how the share of vote compared to last time (May 08):

     Lab: 50.9% to 37.6% – down 13.3%
     LD: 19.3% to 18.2% – down 1.1%
     Con: 16.4% to 11.7% – down 4.7%
     BNP: 13.4% to 17.1% – UP 3.7%
     Green: n/a to 7.8%
     UKIP: n/a to 7.6%

     So, all 3 main parties down, all three minor parties up.
     Note that the UKIP vote is larger than the decline in Con vote (both in % and absolute terms).
     Green vote appears to have been mainly at Lab rather than LD expense.

     May 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
106. benjamin

     In fact BNP and Green votes both seem to be at Labour expense – no surprises really!

     Sorry for mistake re Preston – I was sure I’d been told they were doing ok there – possibly by an overpanicky local activist who sees a leaflet go through the door and assumes that means they have support!

     May 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
107. vote watcher

     As a Green Party activist who has been out on the street I’d say we’ll get about the 8% seen in this recent by-election at the Euro’s. Probably about the same for BNP and a bit more for UKIP.

     May 27th, 2009 at 8:55 am
108. Doktorb

     The NW seat 8 is going to be the closest in the whole country I think o.0

     May 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
109. Galloglass

     The problem the Greens have here is they start from a fairly low base last time and are fighting other left wing parties for the same ground which will inevitably eat into their vote. 5% is the best they can really aim for in the NW.

     If they do eat into the Labour vote more than I expect the result will be an almost certain seat for the BNP not one for themselves I fear.

     Its going to be very interesting to see if UKIP can hold onto their seat in the region. A few weeks ago I would not have thought so but with the collapse of the two main parties votes and the failure of Libertas to gain any media coverage I think this becomes very possible.

     May 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
110. Neil

     Final Prediction:

     Conservatives – 3
     Labour – 2
     Libdems – 1
     UKIP – 1
     BNP – 1

     The Conservatives will edge seat no. 8 ahead of Libdems(2), with the Greens not too far behind either. With a threshold of just over 8% I think the BNP seat is fairly comfortable here.

     June 4th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
111. Daniel Lee

     I think you’re very very wrong.

     And Labour’s second seat is by no means safe.

     It will be:

     Conservatives 3
     Labour 1 (2)
     Lib Dem 1 (2)
     UKIP 1 (2)
     Green 1
     BNP (1)

     i.e. if Labour lose 2 seats, the BNP probably get one, unless UKIP or the Lib Dems poll a bit better.

     June 4th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
112. Andy Stidwill

     I have a hunch which is probably complete nonsense that a lot of normally reliable Labour voters have defected to the Greens so maybe Daniel Lee’s prediction may turn out to be correct.

     June 4th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
113. Pete Whitehead

     I agree with Neil on this one

     June 4th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
114. Daniel Lee

     That’s been my experience on the street Andy.

     June 4th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
115. Champagne Capitalist

     Apparently the BNP took a seat on Lancashire CC. It looks like the BBC has listed this as ‘other’.

     June 5th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
116. Andy Stidwill

     The share of the vote in Lancashire so far is being reported as:

     C – 41.7% (+4.4%)
     Lab – 23.7% (-13.8%)
     LD – 14.6% (-4.2%)
     UKIP – 6.9% (+6.6%)
     Green – 4.0% (+2.2%)
     BNP – 3.5% (+1.6%)

     Those minor party figures are probably not very reliable because they won’t have contested all the divisions. I assume the changes are from the last county council elections in 2005.

     June 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
117. doktorb

     Preston provisional results

     Conservative – 9,410
     Labour – 8,072
     UKIP – 4,958
     LibDem – 4,509
     Greens – 2,438…
     BNP – 2,377
     Eng Dem – 835
     Christian – 572
     NO2EU – 462
     Socialist Labour – 461
     Jury Team – 281
     Libertas – 140
     Ind – 71

     June 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
118. Andy Stidwill

     Sky News are confidently reporting that Griffin has been elected.

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:02 am
119. Warofdreams

     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.

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:14 am
120. Andy Stidwill

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

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:16 am
121. Pete Whitehead

     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

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:18 am
122. Warofdreams

     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.

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:23 am
123. Andy Stidwill

     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.

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:50 am
124. Pete Whitehead

     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)

     June 8th, 2009 at 1:59 am
125. Pete Whitehead

     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

     June 8th, 2009 at 2:10 am
126. Peter Crerar

     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.

     June 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
127. Frederic Stansfield

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

     October 23rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
128. Iain Mackintosh

     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.

     October 24th, 2009 at 11:56 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 elections and polls.

You are currently not registered or not logged into UKPolling Report. Registration is voluntary, but STRONGLY encouraged - it means you don't need to type in your details, you don't have the annoying Captcha thing and your comments can appear in party colours if you wish. You can register or login here.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code