I know a few people who voted BNP, suspect a few others. Also know many more who voted Green or Respect. I'd say the BNP got the vote because people actually believe that we are being 'flooded' by immigrants, and they hate the 3 main parties because, well, they're all virtually the same innit! Unless the mainstream media is diversified, or the alternative media breaks out of the internet where its strongest, I don't see these views being changed in much of a hurry.

I'll tell you why people vote for right wing parties. Because these parties actually organise in working class communities, and have their base in real communities, which the left are consistently failing to do. If you are a citizen in Burnley, who are you going to listen to. The BNP candidate who has been living in your community, talking to you in the pub, and ( at least what they are saying ) looking out for your interests. Or are you going to listen to a bunch of students who turn up for the day to hand out flyers and shout at people.

It is not to do with the policies of the BNP, which are typical nazi policies. It is to do with the way the BNP operate. The left wing in this country isolates itself. It sits in an ivory tower of marxist theory and idealism, and uses it to shield itself from dealing with the people. We have to get our act together, and take this much more seriously. The fact we are so disorganised in fact pushes people away to the right. The consequences of extreme fascism succeeding in this country has global consequences, so let's figure out a way of using our ideals to actually engage with real issues of real people in the real world.

One statistic to think about: If the Greens had formed an alainace with Respect they would have beat the Tories into 3rd place!! Now how cool would that be??

Beat the Tories into 3rd place? The Tories came first in the Euro elections didn't they?

If Respect and Greens would have worked together, they would have done a lot better. But Respect did very well considering they have only been around for 20 weeks! To gain a quarter of a million votes in 4 months is pretty impressive.

The pitiful number of votes for the "Respect The Moustache Give George Galloway a Job Party" (nationally a third of the BNP vote) reaffirms what everyone in Newcastle and most people around the country know well. Despite the claims of the Lib Dems and Labour, the Iraq war had nothing to do with Labour's hammering in the local and Euro elections. The reason they got screwed in Newcastle is the obscenely high level of council tax (at one point last year it was second highest in the country after Richmond), regeneration projects that basically amount to destroying working class communities and handing millions to greedy developers to build yuppie flats, shitty privatised hospitals, shitty 'public' transport. Think about it - who the fuck casts their local vote based on an international issue? Certainly no-one round here I've spoken to did. If the Lib Dems won Newcastle because of Iraq, why was it that the Iraq protests in Newcastle amounted to five or six students mincing around the Monument?

Unfortunately the bad news is that the rightwing vote has gone up and the left eg Green and Respect has not.To say that Respect has done well is just wishful thinking.
I have to admit that I voted respect but now feel should have voted Green then we might have a Green Euro MP in the Northwest

all the local results for Manchester council elections can be found on

 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/elections/local2004/results.htm

Of particular interest are the traditional(mainly white) working class areas like Miles Platting and Charlestown,now areas with huge unemployment and people working in low paid jobs, areas where the left rarely tread.In particular compare the Green votes with BNP in Miles Platting/Newton Heath
 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/elections/local2004/miles.htm

Its just as well that people turned out to vote labour here,even though they probably think labour are crap.

Another area where the (white)left rarely go is Moss Side which had a massive turnout for Labour.noone else came near the Labour vote here.
 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/elections/local2004/mossside.htm

For some reason,Respect decided to campaign in Chorlton,a nice area with expensive houses.In spite of all their campaigning they could not match the Green vote who as far as I know did little or no campaigning.
 http://www.manchester.gov.uk/elections/local2004/chorlton.htm

I think Green party could do better if they did some local campaigning they seem to have no idea,for instance,STW and REspect have done street leafletting but I have never seen the Greens do this.Also I have never seen a public meeting of theirs advertised,local libraries have free noticeboards for this purpose that other groups use.

I think the greens could easily be taken over,they are ripe for it.Or perhaps they already have been in some areas and that is why they treat elections as a joke.

The libdems have done well in some areas with large Muslim areas,because of protest against the war and because(except for Cheetham Hill) the left and Greens largely ignore the muslim and other asian populations.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the Euro results by ward
other than the regional results if anyone knows

Newcastle local election statistics by ward are available here:

 http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/election2004.nsf/adminweb?openview

It is wrong to say that Greens ignore groups of voters. What you see in cities (where most of us are from) is widespread fly posting / bill posting of Respect stuff, which gave them a high level of visibility to people who are actually interested. The Greens on the other hand decide not to do this (environmental considerations) so their recycled leaflets go out commuters on trains, hand delivered through doors in target areas and of course the freepost leaflet. Their strategy this time has been to reach out to try and attract more mainstream votes. Unfortunately, what would have been one of our key campaigning themes (GM foods) was cleverly sidelined by the government 3 months before the election.

Greens worked very hard to put their anti-war credentials and important tactical position across to the MAB and other organisations. John Whitelegg talked and listened to representatives from local Muslim communities at more than one mosque. If the BNP had gained 1.5% more and FCUKIP 1.5% less we would have seen the BNP getting 1 MEP. Even if we had combined Green and Respect votes, progressive parties would not have had enough to stop the BNP, and the Green had argued that it was absolutely essential that they finished ahead of the BNP to minimise the BNP's prospects of election, but this didn't happen in this election.

As for campaigning, there are things the left do well and there are things they do badly. The same goes for the Greens. I think their mainstream media coverage is better (and believe me, it takes a lot of hard work) and they are deliberately not too "in your face". I'd also agree it didn't work this time. The Greens held steady at a Euro level with big improvements in local votes but without gaining extra seats. Respect did no better in the North West than the combined SLP and Weekly Worker share of the vote in 1999 (1.2%). Given that neither made progress, it makes sense for us to to have dialogue so we can make some real progress.

However, the terms will have to reflect the respective strengths of the Greens and Respect. Unreasonable demands (such as the now re-elected Green MEP Jean Lambert standing down in favour of George Galloway) will rightly be ignored, as Greens are four to five times stronger electorally. It will make sense that in some local areas, where Respect did buck the trend (Preston in the North West), that Respect stands general election candidates. But everywhere else in the NW region, it makes much more sense for the Greens to stand against pro-war Labour MPs and get endorsed by Respect. As pointed out, such an arrangement would have put the Greens ahead of the Tories in Manchester, although would not have been enough region wide to win a seat.

The reasonable results for Respect in London may mean that they can maintain an effective organisational structure there. They have kept their deposit. Everywhere else, it will be understandable that Respect are under financial pressure having lost their deposits, and it has been pointed out to me that there will be a lot of people who will have given small amounts of money to Respect who were expecting some real impact. These are people that may become disillusioned with politics unless we can constructively deal with the implications of these results. Denial is not an option.

Keep the dialogue going.

Lots more discussion at Urban75. Probably a more appropriate place than Indymedia.

A problem is that the Greens turned down even talking to RESPECT about a joint slate in the North West, and they talk about RESPECT in public in hostile terms that is nothing short of red-baiting.

A further problem is that when Greens get elected in local government they seem more willing to make alliances with the right wing than the left wing. See Leeds City Council (www.leeds.gov.uk) where the Greens have actually made a coalition with the TORIES (!!!) as the largest party to run the council.

How can sectarianism towards socialists and being prepared to go into coalition with Tories further the anti-war and environmental cause?

For the benefit of Preston resident, I can tell you there were two meetings between the Greens and Respect at the highest level in the NW. John Whitelegg and I initially met Michael Lavalette and Alec McFadden at Preston Town Hall. We talked about many things, and we were able to agree on some, but not others.

I personally asked Michael to withdraw the Respect list in the NW because a split anti-war vote would benefit the BNP. Both Michael and Alec were keen for us to stand a join list (but under the name Respect) with John Whitelegg as the lead candidate. We did agree that in the NW there would be none of this so-called "red-baiting" or criticism of the other side.

The Green Party in the NW had some internal dialogue after this, and I am sure Respect had the same. The Greens felt that a joint list under the name "Respect" was not possible because:

1. We would no longer qualify for a European Election Broadcast (a national issue - and no doubt why my request for Respect in the NW to withdraw their list was a non-starter for the same reason).

2. We felt we had a better chance of being recognised under the name "Green Party" rather than Respect. Our results did not improve on 1999, but we held our percentage of the vote steady while making big local election improvements in various parts of the NW.

3. Although Respect undoubtedly had anti-war credentials, they were untested, with only a fledgling internal structure and we had less than 4 months before an election we had been preparing for over a four and a half year period. We did not want to gamble.

There was a follow up meeting where John Whitelegg and I met Alec McFadden in Liverpool. Again, relations were very cordial but it was clear no agreement would be found. We are still talking now, in Liverpool, post election. To say that there was no dialogue is wrong and to say that red-baiting went on the NW is clearly wrong.

I understand that there were very strong feelings in London and SE where Greens had a lot more to lose, and the terms were a lot less favourable. George Galloway demanded that he headed a joint London list as a starting point for negotiations. Whatever negative fall out from London, the Greens were right to reject this offer. I'm not speaking for them.

Here in the NW and locally in Liverpool, there is progress between both organisations. To say anything different is to fail to recognise the reality that the Green Party in the NW did no better in percentage terms than 1999 and that Respect did worse than the combined percentage vote of the SLP and Weekly Worker in the NW in 1999. We do need to talk, and Preston Resident's comments are unhelpful if we are to progress things in the future.

Peter Cranie
Liverpool Green Party (2004 NW Euro candidate)

Whatever local Green parties decide to do is up to them, as long as they don't contradict national policy. It was probably a tough decision, but if the alternative is not getting anything done, or going in with an unpopular and ineffective local Labour party, they will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Greens are not in the business of elections just to register a protest. When we get elected we need to get things done, and that means looking at the practicalities in local government. I certainly wouldn't countenance a deal with the Tories, but they are irrelevant in Liverpool (Greens get more local election votes than they do). We might end up getting forced to do a deal with a hugely unpopular Labour Party in 2008. When you do get elected, unless you want to remain a protester on the outside, you sometimes have to be pragmatic.

Preston resident - you are on the ground in Preston. What is the situation there? What has Michael been able to achieve city wide on his own? Some things I am sure, but other things need cooperation and compromise. In Lancaster, 7 Green councillors have a lot of say, and it is a pretty Green place to live. We are in coalition with the pro-war Labour party and the pretending to be anti-war Lib Dems. It isn't ideal, but it is a reality, and the Greens are having a positive impact.

From a report on the recent meeting of the SWP's National Council, taken from the Weekly Worker. Check out the Urban 75 newsgroup on this subject. This, if the case, is a shocking failure to take responsibility at a national level. I know individual Respect members in Liverpool and Manchester worked very hard (and I'm saying that from a Green perspective).

"Lindsey German responded in the time-honoured manner of the machine bureaucrat under pressure. She blamed the members. Areas like Manchester were attacked; she damned one of that city's branches as 'rotten' and - a bizarre idea - infiltrated by Workers Power and members of the local Social Forum."

"...comrade Rees joined in the blame game. In his reply to the debate he noted that 'the
framework of a revolutionary party' is provided by objective factors. Since there was nothing in this framework that dictated that Respect could not have made a breakthrough, subjective factors must have been to blame for the poor results in places like Bristol and Manchester. He attacked those in the SWP he believed had effectively sabotaged Respect, specifically citing people such as Birmingham's former district organiser, who was labelled 'liquidationist and sectarian' "

This is no way to run a party, but it seems clear that it is a party within a party if you are looking from the outside.