Greens hit 90 seats

[TeeJay]

And what suited them best was to try and knacker Respect in Preston.

Have you actually talked to the local Green Party involved?

You do realise that the Lambeth Green Party, for example, volunteered to not stand in Vassall ward so as to give Respect a 'clear run'. They were not given anything else in return.

In 2002 the Greens got 11% of the vote and came third beating the conservatives, and this was with a socialist alliance candidate getting 5% as well.

This year the Greens didn't stand in this ward as a favour to Respect (they did not get anything in return) but Respect only got 8.8%.

Vassall ward
.........................2002..........2006
Labour...................41.2..........44.5
Lib Dem..................34.8..........35.2
Green....................11.0...........dns
Cons......................7.6..........11.5
Respect...................dns...........8.8
Socialist Alliance........5.4...........dns

(dns = did not stand. Figures quoted are my own calculations of the percentage of the vote based on the average vote for that party - ie adjusting for the number of candidates each party had. Greens Respect and SA all had one candidate whereas the other three parties had a full slate of three. The full results can be found here: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/DemocracyElections/ElectionsVoting.htm )

What I'd like to ask you and other Respect people who are complaining about Green Party behaviour is this:

What should Lambeth Green Party do in the future, based on this result?

Is it better for Respect to carry on putting in some kind of appearance in Lambeth, or should they note that they didn't even match the Green's 2002 result of 11% let alone capture the 16.4% of 'Green plus S.A.' ?

It is worth noting that since 2002 the Green vote in Lambeth has gone up from an average of 12% to 17.2% now, with 4 wards being above 20% and ripe for 12 Green councillors next time, following on from its Herne Hill result this time. In fact if there were P.R. in local elections the Green Party would now have 11 councillors in Lambeth which would allow it to hold control with the Labour group.

The Green Party is the only party in Lambeth that has seen its share of the vote increase this year (Labour's share was static at c.36% - they won wards back due to a fall in the Lib Dem vote)

This is also not to mention one saved deposit in the 2001 general election, and two in the 2005 election - the aim is to get well over 5% in all three constituencies (Vauxhall, Streatham, Dulwich & West Norwood) next time.

This is also not to mention building on the Green Party's successful results in the Euro Elections and London Assembly elections and the high perecentages across whole areas of South London.

I'd ask any Respect members and supporters who have some kind of complaint to contact their local Green Party and ask them about it. The endless whinging and trumped up charges here is only serving to piss off a lot of people who have nothing to do with this argument and actually serves to make any further cooperation and favours - anywhere - less likely. How on earth you can claim to be able to read people's minds, yet don't seem to have had a single conversation about this issue with the people involved is beyond me, nor can I understahd what anyone hopes to achieve with this stream of nasty, drivelling nonsense and shit-stirring, unless the aim is the exact opposite of what is claimed - ie to try and sabotage any cooperation and good will between local Green Parties and Respect.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Have you actually talked to the local Green Party involved?

They didn't turn up to our count.

I think Liverpool Princes Park raises some more interesting questions about Green Party tactics.

-

"the best Green result in the city in 2004" (pingupete 09-03-2006, 08:25 PM )

... but you deprioritised it and were beaten by Respect in 2006.

-

"we will be working to keep our core vote up" (pingupete 09-03-2006, 08:25 PM ).

It fell from a max of 420 in 2004 to 246 in 2006. (turnout was a little lower but not much).

I can understand why you didn't think you could beat Labour and Lib Dems, but did you really expect to come behind Respect?

-

"I do think that Respect coming in might just allow the Lib Dems to hold this particular seat, but it will no doubt be close." (pingupete 09-03-2006, 08:25 PM ).

Labour held it easily - majority of 500 20% and nearly double the LibDems, so the Green thinking was a bit out. It's hard to compare, but the Libs obviously took votes from LibDems, it's hard to believe that Respect actually took votes from everyone but Labour, so I'd imagine that Lab won significant votes from LibDems too (LibDems are in control of the council and fell back across the City). My guess is Respect also brought some new voters into the equation.

 

[red gone green]

Greens helping respect

And what suited them best was to try and knacker Respect in Preston.

Looking at the results for preston in wikipedia, I see no particular effect coming from the greens standing on respect's share of the vote. Respect stood in five seats - the greens also stood in two of them. In order of change to the Respect vote they were:

Town Centre Ward - Respect 37.18 +3.6 (Green 4.71%)
Riversway ward - Respect 25.73 +1.7
St George's ward - Respect 25.34 – 1.96 (Greens 6.98%)
Fishwick ward - Respect 18.45 -8.65
St Matthew's - Respect 23.29 -10.51

The two wards where the Respect vote declined significantly there were no green candidates - the ward that saw the best increase for respect had a green candidate.

Looking in more detail at town centre ward

Preston City Council Elections: Town Centre Ward 2006
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Labour Ronald Atkins 654 37.59 -2.3
Respect Mukhtar Master 647 37.18 +3.6
Tory Ronald Smith 235 13.51 +2.0
LibDem Liam Pennington 122 7.01 -6.8
Green Robert Douglas 82 4.71 N/A

Majority 7 Turnout 1,740

I would hazard a guess that the decline in the Labour and lib dem vote was partly due to the Greens. Looking at the respect results across Preston there doesn't seem to be a strong impact on the Respect vote because greens stood. It therefore seems likely that the Greens standing could
actually have helped Respect...

I am willing to be proved wrong, but it seems to me that FG and mutley have put forward no evidence that, whether by accident or design, Greens knacker respect's chances.

 

[TeeJay]

They didn't turn up to our count.

So that's a "no" then?

You haven't talked to them about any of this?

Do you have any comment whatsoever to make about my Lambeth example?

How exactly do you think you are helping things on this thread?

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Looking at the results for preston in wikipedia, I see no particular effect coming from the greens standing on respect's share of the vote. Respect stood in five seats - the greens also stood in two of them. In order of change to the Respect vote they were:

Town Centre Ward - Respect 37.18 +3.6 (Green 4.71%)
Riversway ward - Respect 25.73 +1.7
St George's ward - Respect 25.34 – 1.96 (Greens 6.98%)
Fishwick ward - Respect 18.45 -8.65
St Matthew's - Respect 23.29 -10.51

The two wards where the Respect vote declined significantly there were no green candidates - the ward that saw the best increase for respect had a green candidate.

Looking in more detail at town centre ward

Preston City Council Elections: Town Centre Ward 2006
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Labour Ronald Atkins 654 37.59 -2.3
Respect Mukhtar Master 647 37.18 +3.6
Tory Ronald Smith 235 13.51 +2.0
LibDem Liam Pennington 122 7.01 -6.8
Green Robert Douglas 82 4.71 N/A

Majority 7 Turnout 1,740

I would hazard a guess that the decline in the Labour and lib dem vote was partly due to the Greens. Looking at the respect results across Preston there doesn't seem to be a strong impact on the Respect vote because greens stood. It therefore seems likely that the Greens standing could
actually have helped Respect...

I am willing to be proved wrong, but it seems to me that FG and mutley have put forward no evidence that, whether by accident or design, Greens knacker respect's chances.

Certainly, the minuscule votes for the Green Party were irrelevant in the wider scheme of things, particularly because they did not canvass or campaign.

Like all local elections there were a host of local factors that explain some of the voting patterns.

Respect deliberately targeted the two wards we were most likely to win - Town Centre and Riversway - and did not campaign as vigorously in the other three. In both those seats we stood the same candidates as 2004, and that improved voter recognition and the idea that we weren't a fly-by-night party (like the Greens locally) but were here to stay. This helped increase the vote in both wards, almost to the point of winning in Town Centre.

There were also LibDem candidates in Fishwick and St Georges in 2006, which there wasn't in 2004, so you are not comparing like with like in those wards. The previously elected Tory councillor in Fishwick defected to the LibDems a few weeks before the election. The presence of the LibDems in those wards caused a fall in the proportion going to the three main parties (Lab, Resp, Con) for obvious reasons.

Labour also deliberately stood a muslim publicly anti-war candidate in St George's to try and stop the growth of Respect (something we welcome - the more publicly anti-war councillors on the Labour benches the better, even thought their conscious wrestling is their problem not ours.) The sitting Labour councillor in St Matthews is also a well known peace activist who has attended all the public anti-war events organised by StWC and the Respect councillors. We knew we were not in with a chance of defeating them individually, though we carried on maintaining our vote so that we might win the seats against weaker opponents in future (Labour is exhausting its stock of anti-war members prepared to stand on the party platform).

The point about Town Centre is that everyone knew it was going to be very, very close between Respect and Labour for the seat. Every vote mattered in the end. No-one knows whether the Green candidate changed things or not - only 30+% voted in both 2004 and 2006, they could have been completely different people. Respect is known as the anti-war, pro-environment party in Preston. On hearing the results a tory told me - "good, we don't any more communists in the town hall". The problem I have is not that the Greens stood, but that they threw their hat into these two wards in particular. There were 13 other wards in the city where there were NO Respect or Green candidates. Within four of the five wards you describe, the main challenger to Labour is Respect by a mile.

So what were the Greens hoping to achieve by standing candidates here and not elsewhere? As you say, we couldn't talk to them during the campaign because they are not visible and do not attend any meetings or activities, including those on environmental issues within the wards they contest (for example the neighbourhood forums). The Green party members in these elections are not 'activists' in the sense that U75 members would understand, they are armchair Greens and this increases the suspicion that they were sought out from outside the city, and put up to standing because they lived in these wards of Respect strength, rather than to establish a Green Party presence in Preston. Until they come forward and organise their own activity and presence - and will be warmly welcomed by Respect activists on joint action like stop the war and protecting the environment - this remains the suspiction. Any Green campaigning activity in the area will help Respect as it remains that Respect is the leading environmental party on Preston council.

In 2007, the Greens will be defending the seven seats they hold in the coalition with Lab and LibDems in Lancaster. It will be interesting to see if they devote the same time and attention to making sure they have candidates in these same wards in Preston. If they do, it will also be interesting to see if they have the same message about working with Labour and LibDems in Preston, as they do in Lancaster, and whether that boosts or hinders their vote.

 

[TeeJay]

What a load of waffly rubbish.

Basically it has been shown that the Green candidates standing had no impact on your votes.

No amount of flannel is going to change this fact.

It is also clear that you made no effort at all to contact the local Green Party before the election - saying that they didn't turn up to your meetings is a frankly pathetic excuse.

If you want to cut a deal with your local Green Party then it is up to you to contact them and up to you to make some kind of offer. You have not said what exactly you are offering the local Green Party and why exactly they should be supporting you or making life easier for you in any way.

After you contributions and accusations here I wouldn't be surprised if you have royally fucked up any chance that you will be able to do any deals with them in future.

I'm going to ask you one final time to comment on my post regarding Lambeth:

What I'd like to ask you and other Respect people who are complaining about Green Party behaviour is this:

What should Lambeth Green Party do in the future, based on this result?

Seeing as you have felt fit to hijack a thread about Green results to bang on about your local Respect results, maybe you'd at least have the decency to answer a direct question about future Green-Respect deals in Lambeth (and by extension other places where the Greens have done better than Respect).

 

[Matt S]

We're on 92 councillors now - Scarborough Council by election was won by Jonathan Dixon yesterday, to give the Greens their first Scarborough councillor.

Matt

 

[Fisher_Gate]

What a load of waffly rubbish.
...
I'm going to ask you one final time to comment on my post regarding Lambeth:



Seeing as you have felt fit to hijack a thread about Green results to bang on about your local Respect results, maybe you'd at least have the decency to answer a direct question about future Green-Respect deals in Lambeth (and by extension other places where the Greens have done better than Respect).

Don't bother to answer the points about coalitions then - sweep it under the carpet as usual. It doesn't matter what you say on the doorstep, once you get into power you can jump into bed with whoever you like.

I will get back to you on Lambeth but as I haven't studied the results there I do want to get the context right - it is clear that the borough's results were exceptional, Labour winning the council from the LibDems against the national trend. The result in the ward Respect candidates stood in need to be analysed against that context.

 

[TeeJay]

Don't bother to answer the points about coalitions then - sweep it under the carpet as usual. It doesn't matter what you say on the doorstep, once you get into power you can jump into bed with whoever you like.

I have already given my point of view (as a GP supporter, although not a member, so it isn't up to me) - that I think that a coalition can be justified in terms of being able to more effectively advance the Green policies on which someone has been elected, and that any involvement in a coalition can be judge by looking at concrete case-by-case voting. Noone has yet pointed out anything particularly evil that the Greens have voted for in Leeds, or shown that they have had less impact by doing what they have done rather than shouting powerlessly from the sidelines. If all someone wants to do is shout from the sidelines then it raises the question of why stand for election in the first place?

I know that various Green Party members (who have far more say in GP policies and strategy than I, as a mere voter/supporter/non-member, do) - for example Matt S - hold a different view. I also think that in many situations I would not personally support going into coalition and would prefer to vote on a case-by-case and policy-by-policy basis. In other circumstances I might think that a coalition is better. Like I said, it comes down to the detail of what is being down and what the outcome will be - in terms of concrete policies and impacts on the ground. I get the impression that for you ideological correctness and hyperbole are more important to you than any actual and real-life outcomes of decision-making. I am not going to apologise for disagreeing with this point of view.

I will get back to you on Lambeth but as I haven't studied the results there I do want to get the context right - it is clear that the borough's results were exceptional, Labour winning the council from the LibDems against the national trend. The result in the ward Respect candidates stood in need to be analysed against that context.

If you would like some detailed voting figures and anaylsis then there are several threads for you to look at:

Green results in Lambeth - percentages & analysis (by TeeJay)
Labour gain Lambeth (by PacificOcean)
Use your vote wisely tomorrow! (by aurora green)
Online manifesto hustings - Lambeth local elections (by memespring)

Of course you are going to need a little while to spin the results from a Respect point of view, but you are going to have a hard time explaining why the Vassal results:

Vassall ward
.........................2002..........2006
Labour...................41.2..........44.5 (+3.3)
Lib Dem..................34.8..........35.2 (+0.4)
Green....................11.0...........dns
Cons......................7.6..........11.5 (+3.9)
Respect...................dns...........8.8
Socialist Alliance........5.4...........dns

Where Respect managed to take a 16.4% 'Green + SA' 2002 vote and turn it into 8.8%

This is against a Lambeth wide vote:
Labour 36% (+0)
Lib Dem 26% (-6)
Green 17% (+5)
Con 17% (+1)

Surely this is a mirror-image of the places where you claim the Greens should stand aside and let Respect get on with it?

I don't see why you are so reluctant to simply acknowledge that people should apply your same logic to Respect in areas where the Green Party have proven they can get the votes.

On the other hand, maybe you would admit that unless Respect actually stand in an area it is heard for them to either know what level of support they have, to build up supporters and voters locally or to build towards PR elections such as the London Assembly and European ones?

Personally I'd be more in favour of having a full range of parties standing everywhere, giving voters the choice and letting them figure out if they want to vote tactically and/or according to their own tastes and preferences - even if this means that the Green Party loses a few votes here and there.

It's called democracy.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
Of course you are going to need a little while to spin the results from a Respect point of view, but you are going to have a hard time explaining why the Vassal results:

Vassall ward
.........................2002..........2006
Labour...................41.2..........44.5 (+3.3)
Lib Dem..................34.8..........35.2 (+0.4)
Green....................11.0...........dns
Cons......................7.6..........11.5 (+3.9)
Respect...................dns...........8.8
Socialist Alliance........5.4...........dns

Where Respect managed to take a 16.4% 'Green + SA' 2002 vote and turn it into 8.8%
...

I don't need to 'spin' - your basic premise is fundamentally flawed. There was no "16.4% 'Green + SA' 2002 vote".

The Greens and Socialist Alliance only stood one candidate each for three seats in 2002. All other parties stood 3 candidates - voters had three votes. You've worked out the proportion of the electorate voting for each candidate, not the proportion of votes casts. You can't just add them together - as each voter had two other votes that could have gone anywhere including cross voting between Green, Socialist Alliance and Lab or others. Voters could have voted Green or Socialist Alliance as a protest vote and then cast one or two other votes for their 'preferred' party.

The actual proportion of votes cast in 2002 was Socialist Alliance 2.0% (127 votes), Green 4.1% (257). All 127 of the SA votes could have been the 257 electors who voted Green, or it could have been none of them - no-one knows. It's not a reasonable basis for comparison. Respect stood three candidates in 2006 with votes of 234-282, about a doubling of the previous socialist alliance vote, and the highest Respect vote was above the Green vote in 2002. Not one of Respect's best performances, no doubt, but you have exaggerated the difference with 2002 and used false statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Council_election_2002

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
Personally I'd be more in favour of having a full range of parties standing everywhere, giving voters the choice and letting them figure out if they want to vote tactically and/or according to their own tastes and preferences - even if this means that the Green Party loses a few votes here and there.

It's called democracy.

I think you mean that the Green Party would lose (quite) a few seats as well as votes. If you don't mind that, I think you are mistaken.

The best solution would be proper PR (and not the system used in the Euro elections, which is not a fair system either). I think we can probably agree that in those circumstances, it would be legitimate for all parties to stand against each other. Under FPTP and with neither party having the resources to contest every seat, a more tactical approach is called for if the progressive vote against the main parties is to be maximised.

 

[TeeJay]

...You've worked out the proportion of the electorate voting for each candidate, not the proportion of votes casts...

I state quite clearly what I have calculated and if you add up all my percentages you will see they add up to 100%, not 300%.

"I have crunched the Lambeth numbers a bit and thought people might find this interesting. The percentages quoted are based on comparing the *average* vote for each party - ie adjusting for the number of candidates each party had in that ward."

I am willing to re-calculate things on any basis you suggest to compare the Green & SA vote in 2002 with the Respect vote in 2006.

Here is the raw data:
2002
1056 Labour 1 (16.9%)
943 Labour 2 (15.1%)
895 Labour 3 (14.3%)
851 Lib Dem 1 (13.6%)
846 Lib Dem 2 (13.5%)
744 Lib Dem 3 (11.9%)
257 Green (4.1%)
188 Con 1 (3.0%)
181 Con 2 (2.9%)
165 Con 3 (2.6%)
127 Soc All (2.0%)

total votes = 6253 (100%)

2006
1426 Lab 1 (15.4%)
1421 Lab 2 (15.3%)
1305 Lab 3 (14.1%)
1146 LibDem 1 (12.3%)
1044 LibDem 2 (11.2%)
1092 LibDem 3 (11.8%)
369 Con 1 (4.0%)
360 Con 2 (3.9%)
341 Con 3 (3.7%)
287 Respect 1 (3.1%)
257 Respect 2 (2.8%)
234 Respect 3 (2.5%)

total votes = 9282 (100%)

My calculation about share of the vote was based on taking averages for each party. Yet another way of doing it would be to use the turnout figure (number of ballot forms) and working out the vote as a percentage of the theoretical maximum possible but Lambeth have not yet published turnout figures that I am aware of.

I would be happy to see *your* calculations of how each party did in 2002 and 2006, and then we can discuss things on that basis. Whichever way you want to dress it up however it is clear that Respect didn't do as well as the Greens in 2002, so my basic point stands: what do you think Respect should do next time? Shpould they stand in Vassall or anywhere in Lambeth for that matter (I think they should). Or should they follow your suggestion and stand aside in favour of the more successful Green Party across large parts of South London?

Personally I think both parties should stand as many candidates as possible, and let the public decide who they want to vote for.

What do you think?

 

[TeeJay]

...used false statistics.

I have used the officially published figures as everyone can clearly see. I have made no secret of how I calculated the "vote share".

You complain "It's not a reasonable basis for comparison" but while you mention the Green (4.1%) and Soc All (2.0%) shares you seem not to want to mention the Respect (3.1%), (2.8%) and (2.5%), nor the fact that you were beaten into last by the Conservatives.

No doubt you could point to Tower Hamlets or elsewhere where Respect is stronger than the Greens, but my point still remains:

You are saying that the Green Party should not stand against Respect where Respect is stronger since this simply spoils the anti-war vote.

Do you apply this Respect not stand against the Greens Party where the Greens are stronger?

I'd like you to make it clear that this is what you think, if in fact you do think this. You seem to be having a bit of trouble articulating a coherent and consistent position. Maybe you need to go away and consult your party leadership? Maybe you could even talk to Lambeth Respect? In fact maybe you should go away and have a little thinbk about your argument, as it may well logically take you somewhere you don't really want to go?

 

[TeeJay]

I think you mean that the Green Party would lose (quite) a few seats as well as votes. If you don't mind that, I think you are mistaken.

However, I can actually produce figures about how popular or otherwise the Green party is rather than blather.

The best solution would be proper PR (and not the system used in the Euro elections, which is not a fair system either). I think we can probably agree that in those circumstances, it would be legitimate for all parties to stand against each other. Under FPTP and with neither party having the resources to contest every seat, a more tactical approach is called for if the progressive vote against the main parties is to be maximised.

Fine. You want a tactical approach...

...which is why I am asking you what these tactics of yours would consist of in - for example - Lambeth.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I state quite clearly what I have calculated and if you add up all my percentages you will see they add up to 100%, not 300%.

"I have crunched the Lambeth numbers a bit and thought people might find this interesting. The percentages quoted are based on comparing the *average* vote for each party - ie adjusting for the number of candidates each party had in that ward."

I am willing to re-calculate things on any basis you suggest to compare the Green & SA vote in 2002 with the Respect vote in 2006.

Here is the raw data:
2002
1056 Labour 1 (16.9%)
943 Labour 2 (15.1%)
895 Labour 3 (14.3%)
851 Lib Dem 1 (13.6%)
846 Lib Dem 2 (13.5%)
744 Lib Dem 3 (11.9%)
257 Green (4.1%)
188 Con 1 (3.0%)
181 Con 2 (2.9%)
165 Con 3 (2.6%)
127 Soc All (2.0%)

total votes = 6253 (100%)

2006
1426 Lab 1 (15.4%)
1421 Lab 2 (15.3%)
1305 Lab 3 (14.1%)
1146 LibDem 1 (12.3%)
1044 LibDem 2 (11.2%)
1092 LibDem 3 (11.8%)
369 Con 1 (4.0%)
360 Con 2 (3.9%)
341 Con 3 (3.7%)
287 Respect 1 (3.1%)
257 Respect 2 (2.8%)
234 Respect 3 (2.5%)

total votes = 9282 (100%)

My calculation about share of the vote was based on taking averages for each party. Yet another way of doing it would be to use the turnout figure (number of ballot forms) and working out the vote as a percentage of the theoretical maximum possible but Lambeth have not yet published turnout figures that I am aware of.

I would be happy to see *your* calculations of how each party did in 2002 and 2006, and then we can discuss things on that basis. Whichever way you want to dress it up however it is clear that Respect didn't do as well as the Greens in 2002, so my basic point stands: what do you think Respect should do next time? Shpould they stand in Vassall or anywhere in Lambeth for that matter (I think they should). Or should they follow your suggestion and stand aside in favour of the more successful Green Party across large parts of South London?

Personally I think both parties should stand as many candidates as possible, and let the public decide who they want to vote for.

What do you think?

You're missing the point - it's a critical issue in multi-vote elections that you take account of the number of candidates. In 2002, people who voted Green (or Soc All) had another two votes. Therefore you can't add the Green and Soc All %'s together - they could have been the same people. Neither can you say that the Greens won 11% of the vote in 2002 - what you can say is that about 11% of voters used one of their three votes to cast a 'protest' vote for the Greens - if they used all three votes (and most will have) then they could have used their other two votes to vote 2 Lab (ie a Lab voter casting a protest vote) or 1 Lab 1 Soc All (spreading across left of centre - I'd have voted this way in 2002 if I'd been in the ward), 2 LibDem (LibDem voter with Green tinges - plenty of them about) etc, etc. You cannot assume that if there had been 3 Green candidates in 2002, they would have got 11%.

You can only tell what's going on in these elections if tellers scrutinise closely each vote as the counters are counting them - I've done this and in one election, many years ago, I remember about 100 voters, cross voting 1 Lab, 1 Con, 1 Lib (!) because they were the only three women candidates, one from each party. But you can't tell these patterns afterwards from the totals.

The 2006 elections were different to those of 2002 in this ward in that there were 3 candidates for every party and therefore the scope for cross voting was reduced (ie there was no 'enforced' cross voting), though it will still have gone on to greater or lesser extents.

Unfortunately this makes London Borough elections extremely difficult to compare, let alone issues like how marginal the ward was and which of the major parties was pulling out the stops [we know there was an above average LibDem to Lab swing in this borough].

The best guide to the 'hard core vote' for each party in London is the first choice vote in the London Mayoral - any slightly shifting or uncertain voters will have likely voted for Livingstone. The Greens got 91 votes (3.6%) and Respect got 73 votes (2.9%) [of the non-postal voters]. Respect did significantly better in 2006 than the combined vote for both parties in this baseline election.

If you can't understand the simple fact that the two elections in this ward in 2002 and 2006 are not comparable in the way you are doing it, the rest of the discussion is a waste of time.

 

[TeeJay]

You're missing the point - it's a critical issue in multi-vote elections that you take account of the number of candidates.

Which is precisely why I calculated my percentages by taking the *average* for each party - ie the best (although not the only) way of adjusting for the number of candidates.

Neither can you say that the Greens won 11% of the vote in 2002 - what you can say is that about 11% of voters used one of their three votes to cast a 'protest' vote for the Greens

Sorry but you have got this wrong. That is not what the 11% represents at all.

Let's have a closer look at the 2002 results shall we?

On sheer percentages the results were:
Total votes = 6253
of which
Labour = 2894 = 46.3%
Lib Dem = 2441 = 39.0%
Con = 534 = 8.5%
Green = 257 = 4.1%
Soc All = 127 = 2.0%

But of course Lab, LD & Con all had three candidates versus one Green & one SA, so the average vote (ie total vote for party divided by number of candidates in that party) were (rounded to nearest whole number):

Labour = 2894/3 = 965
Lib Dem = 2441/3 = 814
Green = 257/1 = 257
Con = 534/3 = 178
Soc All = 127/1 = 127

I then turned these into "percentages" by taking the total of all the averages (965 + 814 + 257 + 178 + 127 = 2341) and turning each average into a percentage (to 1 decimal place):

Labour = 965/2341 = 41.2%
Lib Dem = 814/2341 = 34.8%
Green = 257/2341 = 11.0%
Con = 178/2341 = 7.6%
Soc All = 127/2341 = 5.4%

You are talking about the share of the voters who cast at least one Green vote, but this figure is not my 11.0%. Unfortunately the Lambeth document simply says there was a turnout of 23.33% but doesn't say how many ballots were returned (although if you contacted Lambeth Electoral services they would have this figure on record). We do know however that the total number of votes cast was 6253, so at the extremes there were either 6253 people casting just one vote (highly unlikely but theoretically possible all the same) or there were approximately 2084 people casting three votes each.

This would give a theoretical range of the percentage of people who cast at least one Green vote between (257/6253 = 4.1%) and (257/2084 = 12.3%).

As you can see you are simply wrong to say that the 11.0% figure is simply measuring the proportion of people casting at least one Green vote - in fact a more sensible assumption would give 12.3% for this.

You cannot assume that if there had been 3 Green candidates in 2002, they would have got 11% ... The 2006 elections were different to those of 2002 in this ward in that there were 3 candidates for every party and therefore the scope for cross voting was reduced...

Exactly - so by your reasoning logically with 3 Green candidates and less cross voting the result would have been even better for the Greens and not as good for other parties.

The best guide to the 'hard core vote' for each party in London is the first choice vote in the London Mayoral

Ha ha ha!

I could suggest a whole range of other results, showing Green Party support in Lambeth & Southwark of:

2005 general election:
4.6% (Vauxhall) -- Respect - did not stand
5.5% (Streatham) -- Respect - did not stand
6.5% (Dulwich & West Norwood) -- Respect - did not stand
source

2004 GLA elections:
10.4% (Lambeth & Southwark constituency vote) -- Respect = 4.3%
12.4% (Lambeth & Southwark GLA list vote) -- Respect = 4.2%
source

2004 European elections:
13.80% (Lambeth vote) -- Respect = 4.82%
source

If you can't understand the simple fact that the two elections in this ward in 2002 and 2006 are not comparable in the way you are doing it, the rest of the discussion is a waste of time.

Of course they are comparable, if not absolutely identical. I used exactly the same methodology for every single ward in Lambeth for both the 2002 and 2006 elections and all parties, so there is no cherry-picking or manipilation going on at all. In fact this technique is the only viable techniue I have seen anyone use for analysing multi-seat local elections with asymetric candidate lists. Please feel free to outline your method. I could do with a good laugh.

You are right in one way: if the Greens had stood against Respect you would have lost a large chuck of your votes - as would Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives even - just look at the results for every other ward in Lambeth!

But you are still dodging my main question: What should Respect do next time in areas where the Green Party is already doing very well?

Are you prepared to apply your "stand aside" idea to Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Hackney Respect for example?

Presumably you want the Green Party to not stand against Respect in certain places, so it is completely reasonable for me to ask you to list those areas where Respect will not stand against the Greens.

Come on - put your cards on the table and stop avoiding the central issue here!

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Which is precisely why I calculated my percentages by taking the *average* for each party - ie the best (although not the only) way of adjusting for the number of candidates.
Sorry but you have got this wrong. That is not what the 11% represents at all.

Let's have a closer look at the 2002 results shall we?

On sheer percentages the results were:
Total votes = 6253
of which
Labour = 2894 = 46.3%
Lib Dem = 2441 = 39.0%
Con = 534 = 8.5%
Green = 257 = 4.1%
Soc All = 127 = 2.0%

But of course Lab, LD & Con all had three candidates versus one Green & one SA, so the average vote (ie total vote for party divided by number of candidates in that party) were (rounded to nearest whole number):

Labour = 2894/3 = 965
Lib Dem = 2441/3 = 814
Green = 257/1 = 257
Con = 534/3 = 178
Soc All = 127/1 = 127

I then turned these into "percentages" by taking the total of all the averages (965 + 814 + 257 + 178 + 127 = 2341) and turning each average into a percentage (to 1 decimal place):

Labour = 965/2341 = 41.2%
Lib Dem = 814/2341 = 34.8%
Green = 257/2341 = 11.0%
Con = 178/2341 = 7.6%
Soc All = 127/2341 = 5.4%

You are talking about the share of the voters who cast at least one Green vote, but this figure is not my 11.0%. Unfortunately the Lambeth document simply says there was a turnout of 23.33% but doesn't say how many ballots were returned (although if you contacted Lambeth Electoral services they would have this figure on record). We do know however that the total number of votes cast was 6253, so at the extremes there were either 6253 people casting just one vote (highly unlikely but theoretically possible all the same) or there were approximately 2084 people casting three votes each.

This would give a theoretical range of the percentage of people who cast at least one Green vote between (257/6253 = 4.1%) and (257/2084 = 12.3%).

As you can see you are simply wrong to say that the 11.0% figure is simply measuring the proportion of people casting at least one Green vote - in fact a more sensible assumption would give 12.3% for this.
Exactly - so by your reasoning logically with 3 Green candidates and less cross voting the result would have been even better for the Greens and not as good for other parties.
Ha ha ha!

I could suggest a whole range of other results, showing Green Party support in Lambeth & Southwark of:

2005 general election:
4.6% (Vauxhall) -- Respect - did not stand
5.5% (Streatham) -- Respect - did not stand
6.5% (Dulwich & West Norwood) -- Respect - did not stand
source

2004 GLA elections:
10.4% (Lambeth & Southwark constituency vote) -- Respect = 4.3%
12.4% (Lambeth & Southwark GLA list vote) -- Respect = 4.2%
source

2004 European elections:
13.80% (Lambeth vote) -- Respect = 4.82%
source

Of course they are comparable, if not absolutely identical. I used exactly the same methodology for every single ward in Lambeth for both the 2002 and 2006 elections and all parties, so there is no cherry-picking or manipilation going on at all. In fact this technique is the only viable techniue I have seen anyone use for analysing multi-seat local elections with asymetric candidate lists. Please feel free to outline your method. I could do with a good laugh.

You are right in one way: if the Greens had stood against Respect you would have lost a large chuck of your votes - as would Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives even - just look at the results for every other ward in Lambeth!

But you are still dodging my main question: What should Respect do next time in areas where the Green Party is already doing very well?

Are you prepared to apply your "stand aside" idea to Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Hackney Respect for example?

Presumably you want the Green Party to not stand against Respect in certain places, so it is completely reasonable for me to ask you to list those areas where Respect will not stand against the Greens.

Come on - put your cards on the table and stop avoiding the central issue here!

Oh dear - your maths is totally up the spout. You just can't go around dividing the votes by the number of candidates per party where it is less than 3 and claim it is an 'average' vote. And you certainly can't compare elections with different numbers of candidates, especially where there is only a small difference and plenty of scope for tactical/cross voting.

And the other examples of votes you give were using PR, apart from the GLA member vote which was the lowest, as one would expect. You can't compare behaviour for minor candidates in FPTP with PR - as the more successful Green results in Euro elections show.

The point is that a Respect vote of just under 9% is not that far removed from the previous comparable 'bedrock' votes of the Greens+Respect or Greens+SocAll. I agree it's not the best Respect vote and I would have preferred something nearer 15% to indicate greater progress - but Lambeth had some unusual swings in that election that need further analysis. I have no idea for instance whether the Labour candidates were anti-war or what their track record within the ward was.

I'll have a look at the various votes in 2002,2004, 2006 across the Borough but as I said earlier it's not easy to compare multi-member elections with previous votes where the number of candidates was different - they can only give rough indications. The Respect vote in this ward was a modest 8.8%, rather than spectacular 15%, or a flop 4%, but that doesn't mean that it was not a reasonable one.

 

[TeeJay]

Where should Respect stand aside for the Green party?

(Just in case you are confused why I raised Lambeth as an *example*)

 

[Matt S]

Much though I hesitate to get into the crossfire of statistics between you two, this is an interesting analysis that might bear reading.

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/activate/Election2006/myths.htm

Matt

 

[Charlie Drake]

The Greens have just picked up another seat in Scarborough (by-election, 11th May) Fair play!

 

[BarryB]

The Greens have just picked up another seat in Scarborough (by-election, 11th May) Fair play!

Yes they gained it from the Tories. Unfortunately the BNP got a reasonable vote.

Stepney ward

Green 341
Con 253
LD 209
Lab 181
BNP 154 (12.5%)
Ind 96

BarryB

 

[TeeJay]

Much though I hesitate to get into the crossfire of statistics between you two, this is an interesting analysis that might bear reading.

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/activate/Election2006/myths.htm

Matt

Preston Town Centre ward
Ronald Henry Atkins..........Labour.............654..........ELECTED
Mukhtar Master...............Respect............647
Ronald Arthur Smith..........Conservative.......235
Liam Pennington..............Liberal Democrats..122
Robert Stuart Douglas........Green..............82


One obvious comment about this result is that if the Greens had not stood there is every chance that at least some of the people voting Green would have voted instead for Labour, the Lib Dems, even the Conservatives or maybe not bothered voting at all.

It has yet to be shown that Green votes automatically and inevitably transfer to Respect (or vice versa for that matter).

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Much though I hesitate to get into the crossfire of statistics between you two, this is an interesting analysis that might bear reading.

http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/activate/Election2006/myths.htm

Matt

Respect's policy is to stand candidates where there is a local activist base prepared to do campaigning to back a candidature.

The author of this article, Jim Jepps, is obviously unaware that the Green candidate in Preston Town Centre was a 'paper' candidate representing a moribund Green Party, not seen for the last five years, and who did not issue any leaflets, do any canvassing or campaigning, attend the count (nor any of his supporters) and whose election agent was based in Lancaster.


I doubt that any Respect candidate anywhere in the country has ever failed to issue any literature in their ward. It is inconceivable. For this reason alone the two parties cannot be compared.

Even where we stood candidates in 2005 in Preston in wards not previously contested (before or since), we absolutely made sure that every household received at least one leaflet (I know - I delivered a lot of them!).

If there is a revival of a Green Party in Preston Town Centre - eg they start attending meetings on local environmental issues, put out leaflets, etc - then I and others may start to change our views, but until then, 'spoiler' remains the best description.

 

[Fisher_Gate]

Where should Respect stand aside for the Green party?

(Just in case you are confused why I raised Lambeth as an *example*)

You're missing the point again. Respect has in the past and would offer to in the future stand down for the Green Party in future elections in favour of a mutual agreement - but the Green Party says it cannot reciprocate.

"we would like to know whether it would be possible for us to discuss where each respective party wants to stand in future elections with a view to agreeing a ‘non aggression pact’ where we try to avoid standing against each other."

http://www.respectcoalition.org/index.php?ite=441

No need to shout either.

 

[TeeJay]

Respect's policy is to stand candidates where there is a local activist base prepared to do campaigning to back a candidature.

The Green Party's policy is to leave the decision to stand candidates up to the local party. What level of campaigning the local party are able or willing to do is up to them.

Can you answer my question now:

Where are Respect going to stand down candidates in favour of the Green Party?

edit: oh I see you have just "replied"...

...well, where would you *suggest* Respect stands down? What kind of places? If th Green Party took you up on your offer of a mutual agreement, what kind of things would you be putting on the table?