Impact of Alternative Votes

Actually, to claim that it is the "alternative" vote (and by that I thinnk you mean those outside the main parties) that has forced this is untrue.

(Labour) Government targets have meant that the Lib Dems have HAD to take notice of recycling. Yes, 25% is not enough but it is the pressure from the givt that has forced the Lib Dem hand.

Likewise, their reaction to anti-social behaviour has been down to the Labour party in Liverpool pressing the issue and taking a lead on it. Again the Lib Dems are opportunists as their federal party claims to want to give rights to those who are guilty of ASB as well as opposing any measures that have been brought in to tackle it. However, the campaign ran by the Labour party in Liverpool has forced them to take notice.

I have no doubt that the influence of some "alternative" votes goes into some policies but these two are more due to the impact of Labour than anything else.

on the left the status quo remains.

the spinless labour MPs will unlikely make a challenge against blair. he will continue his deadly campaign in iraq, attacks on the working class and still worship neo-liberal policies.

in my opinion the left have to make a stand. thank goodness that the FBU have severed links with labour.make no bones about it ,this decision came from the rank and file members, the FBU leadership desperately wanted to keep the link. The reclaim the labour party types are going no where, the only option is for left alternative parties to hurt labour MPs where it hurts them most i.e loss their previlege jobs.

the UKIP will probably make an impact with the tories, u can expect them to be more right wing.

lib dems are a joke, opportunistic to the core and cannot be trusted.

if the left join forces e.g greens respect ect then we can have a impact.

FBU members will be looking for a party that represents them and will fund it with serious money. RMT have already given money to respect, i wonder if the FBU will do the same.

it is unlikely that respect will get any MPs, more likely ukip will. however it is likely that respect will gain council seats over next year or so and on the back of this be a spring board to gain credibility and influence. otherwise the future looks bleak. the only hope is that we by pass the house of commons and shake the power from there.

As usual the Left has had little to no impact whatsoever. The only promise shown has been the Independent Working Class Association which won 3 seats on Oxford City Council.

 http://www.bliwca.fsnet.co.uk/

It is great that the government has ambitions to increase recycling, but the fact that Richard Oglethorpe is now in charge of "Green Issues" in Liverpool is a direct result of the large Green Party vote.

The targets have existed for a while, but this new cabinet post was created following an election where the average vote for the lead Green candidate was over 10% in the wards in which they stood. The 2% rate of recycling in Liverpool (up until 2002) has been about the same under both Lib Dem and Labour administrations.

I am entertained by your attempts to claim credit for Labour in all circumstances! Especially as you lost seats and in most independent analysis, Labour's results in Liverpool were poor.

Of course, as I claim credit for Labour, you wouldn't dream of doing that for the Greens would you?! Course not. It's that massive Green lobby that has changed anything to do with the environment. I mean, after all they are called "Green" aren't they?

And as for most people seeing it as a poor result for Labour - consider the fact that 9 seats were going from the council and they were spread - 3 lost from Lib Dems, 3 from Labour, 3 from Independent/Other. Also consider the fact that the share of the vote has changed little and. along with the national climate towards Labour, you see that it wasn't as bad as you think. Wasn't good but was, at worst, no different from previously. A "standstill position" as Joe Anderson labelled it.

What about the Greens? Well, if only for the students eh? Ridiculous pinning your hopes on the idea that enough students would be in Liverpool to vote for you (and rather pompous to suggest they would have mainly voted Green!)

Thought it rather amusing that the Cranie man, with his face pastered over their campaign, trailed in after Faye Griffiths!

Thanks for your comments - I've never been called pompous before. I'll add it to the list.

It was always in our minds that Faye would probably finish ahead of me, as witnessed by a female pattern of voting on some ballot papers for Alison Campbell, Faye Griffiths and Sharon Sullivan.

It would have taken a massive swing from our results in 2003 (31 votes in Everton, 89 votes in Smithdown and 230 in Abercromby) for us to win in Central, so we did of course gamble on the student vote, which was largely ignored by Labour and the Lib Dems (although not by Liverpool Labour).

We are obviously disappointed not to have got more votes. We do know that over 120 of Faye's votes definitely came from students in halls, an improvement on our 2003 effort in Abercromby. We also know that we suffered because the best polling district we had in the Abercromby ward was now absorbed into Princes Park.

However, there are 2 things to point out in advance of 2006:

1. Only 300 votes separated Faye from Nick Small, who will be up for re-election then, despite the massive percentage difference. This is in an election where turnout (for residents) was up and there was the feeling that this was a genuine contest, which had not been the case in Abercromby or Everton.

2. Top up tuition fees for new students are introduced in 2006, so once again it will be a topical issue. Unlike this year, the election will be in early May, when student halls are full not empty, and hopefully we won't have the postal vote fiasco. Nick Small will have his work cut out, and I very much doubt that Labour will be taking many student votes (irrespective of how they are distributed between Lib Dems and ourselves).

The question I'd put to Edseam (and I am always interested in dialogue) is whether his preference is for a Lib Dem councillor or a Green one at some future point? I'm pretty sure Liverpool Labour will stand again, even if they don't have a chance of getting elected. There will be even more upwardly mobile professionals moving into the city centre (natural Lib Dems) and even more student halls.

The demographics don't look good for Labour in the medium term, and if just 600 or so votes are enough to win the seat, really it is anyone's. The fact is, a red/green coalition is a natural progression to challenge the Lib Dems at some point in the future and I'm not in the business of sabotaging long term prospects. We are always willing to talk.

In order for us to be taken seriously, we'll need to get councillors elected and we'll keep trying to do so. Faye's share of the vote (based on 1/3 total votes cast) was 15.3%, which was slightly up on Abercromby and massively up on our results in Smithdown and Everton. We are moving in the right direction and we are not going to disappear. We'll be standing a full slate in 2006 and I feel at that point we will have arrived on the scene properly, and we are looking forward to running against both Lib Dems and Labour once again.

A fair synopsis of the situation in Central. Personally I would have thought St Michael's would have been a good area for the Green's to exploit. It has shown that a strong Green vote can be achieved (one candidate getting over 500 votes) and there is a receptive audience to the Green's message there - in my opinion.

However, I can understand the focus on Central Ward. Yes, in the Labour party we will have our work cut out in (less than) 2 years time. However, it is always dangerous to project what we think the mood will be in a few weeks time never mind two years. I will, naturally, be working to achieve another Labour victory and have every confidence that we can achieve it. Kensington Fields is a massive area to any party serious about winning and I believe that Labour matters most to those people.

You are almost correct in saying that the Lib Dems could rely on support from the upwardly mobile young professionals but I believe that Labour can drive home its message to them too, whilst also supporting its traditional voters.
It is particularly galling to see Labour Government ideas and funding, hijacked by the Lib Dems and made out as if they are responsible. For the vast majority of things, it is in spite of the Lib Dems that Liverpool has been slowly changing. It is my belief that if we can make people see that, then the so-called "obvious" Lib Dem vote will see through them. The truth is that the Lib Dems do not have a core vote as a party and rely on opportunism and personalities.

Liverpool Labour are a reactionary, unfocused party with little real support as has been shown by their demise. If they do attempt to come back in Central, then they will undoubtedly suffer again. If all they wish to achieve is to damage Labour then you have to ask whether they support the right-wing Lib Dems. (The same can be said of many of the far left parties).

Minor point: it annoys me that parties such as Liverpool Labour and Socialist Labour use the term in their name. The only reason they do is to try and claw votes from Labour. They are not Labour, never have been and never will be. The Labour party is broad enough and mature enough to accomodate many different views across the left. These parties only serve a purpose for the right-wing Lib Dems.

A fair synopsis of the situation in Central. Personally I would have thought St Michael's would have been a good area for the Green's to exploit. It has shown that a strong Green vote can be achieved (one candidate getting over 500 votes) and there is a receptive audience to the Green's message there - in my opinion.

However, I can understand the focus on Central Ward. Yes, in the Labour party we will have our work cut out in (less than) 2 years time. However, it is always dangerous to project what we think the mood will be in a few weeks time never mind two years. I will, naturally, be working to achieve another Labour victory and have every confidence that we can achieve it. Kensington Fields is a massive area to any party serious about winning and I believe that Labour matters most to those people.

You are almost correct in saying that the Lib Dems could rely on support from the upwardly mobile young professionals but I believe that Labour can drive home its message to them too, whilst also supporting its traditional voters.
It is particularly galling to see Labour Government ideas and funding, hijacked by the Lib Dems and made out as if they are responsible. For the vast majority of things, it is in spite of the Lib Dems that Liverpool has been slowly changing. It is my belief that if we can make people see that, then the so-called "obvious" Lib Dem vote will see through them. The truth is that the Lib Dems do not have a core vote as a party and rely on opportunism and personalities.

Liverpool Labour are a reactionary, unfocused party with little real support as has been shown by their demise. If they do attempt to come back in Central, then they will undoubtedly suffer again. If all they wish to achieve is to damage Labour then you have to ask whether they support the right-wing Lib Dems. (The same can be said of many of the far left parties).

Minor point: it annoys me that parties such as Liverpool Labour and Socialist Labour use the term in their name. The only reason they do is to try and claw votes from Labour. They are not Labour, never have been and never will be. The Labour party is broad enough and mature enough to accommodate many different views across the left. These parties only serve a purpose for the right-wing Lib Dems.

Always find it entertaining when the Greens claim to be of the left - especially when on Leeds City Council they've just entered into coalition with Michael Howard's Tories and the Lib Dems.

One wonders how many students would have voted Green if they knew they'd been supporting a party that imposed the Poll Tax on students and would massively restrict higher education participation.

Having just read the guff about the Green Party I was going to make the same comments as Nick, above. It just goes to show that the Greens are trying to be seen as the radical, middle-class alternative to the other parties, but when they get a sniff of power they are just like the other middle-class parties: cold, callous, and lacking in backbone.

No doubt the betrayal of their principles will be justified as "we got a percentage increase in waste recycling so it was worth it."

---------------------

Join the INDEPENDENT WORKING CLASS ASSOCIATION - the best fiver you'll ever spend!

 http://www.iwca.info/membship.htm

Cannot comment on Edseam's/Pete's debate on Central in Liverpool but I do wish to say something about the Greens.


From Green policy docs:
"Local democratic control over housing inevitably suggests an increase in local authority housing provision. However an increase in mass provision by the local authorities is not the way forward."

"The Green Party opposes the privatisation of ownership and/or management of social housing."


So the Green's are for AND against council housing? Another section of the policy goes on to explain that housing associations are the way forward (with changes in their structure). So how does this marry with the aims of the far left that Greens are so wanting to cultivate in Liverpool?

They also want to curb the size of "inappropriately large" companies but don't say what makes them so or have any idea just how this would work in international law/trade decisions.

The Citizen's Income idea is a confusing mess which claims to bring people out of the poverty/unemployment trap but makes no reference to relative poverty and the effects such a scheme would have on inflation.

This could go on forever. However, suffice to say that most parties' policies could be dragged over the coals but the Greens more than most. Saying that, at least the Greens can be commended for actually having a comprehensive list of policies - not like the far-left parties who are big on talk but small on detail.

As for Nick's comment about Leeds - well, Blue and Yellow makes Green!!

Glass houses Nick...

"One wonders how many students would have voted Green if they knew they'd been supporting a party that imposed the Poll Tax on students and would massively restrict higher education participation."

Anyone under 20 hardly remembers the Poll Tax unless they are politically clued up or study the subject. What they will find relevant is the 2001 manifesto pledge not to introduce top up fees, and the broken promise this year, which will actually be introduced in 2006. Those of us who are students find that most of us who do bother to vote, choose Lib Dems or Green (in Liverpool anyway) and a few are voting Tory because of their policy on tuition fees. Hardly any vote Labour.

No one likes doing a deal with Lib Dems and Tories, but Labour in Leeds are so heavily discredited it would be ridiculous to go in with them. I'll have a look at Leeds Bradford indymedia first and see if there are any threads there to contribute to.

Greens in the NW put forward legislation in Lancaster to cap council tax increases for pensioners. This was voted down by Labour, Lib Dems and Tories together. Hardly right wing stuff.

Points for Edseam - the ASBOs bit was undoubtedly the heart of Labour's campaign in Liverpool so you can take credit for it if you want, but it was the Green vote that frightened the Lib Dems into setting up a portfolio. I've had this confirmed by my local Lib Dem councillor who tries to be a bit "green" himself.

There's a real credibility issue here for the Greens - you've spent so long demonising Labour that your judgement has become clouded. How else can you justify joining a Tory/LibDem coalition? Do you really think this is what Green voters want? There will be a heavy electoral price to pay for the Greens joining forces with the Friends of Pinochet.

As for students, lets stop bashing Labour and recognise that Labour's policy is infinately preferable to that of the Tories. It is surely better to have massive expansion of HE and increased access in return for top-up fees than the Tories' policy - free education for a selected few while everyone else gets trained as plumbers. How many working-class kids in inner-city Liverpool will benefit. Very few.

The LibDems' policy is even worse because of its latent dishonesty. Even if a future Labour government was to cross the political rubicon of a 50% top rate of tax, there's more radical (not to mention popular) ways to spend the increase than to aboish top-up fees. How about a Sure Start scheme in every neighbourhood? Or increased Pension Credits? Or a laptop for every schoolkid? Or free child care for working families? Lets get beyond the slogans and stop defending an inadequate status quo which never delivered anyway.

I welcome Nick's positive contribution to the debate. There are practicalities at every level, and we can talk about tinkering around the edges, upping marginal tax rates, etc... but in reality we need big changes.

The Greens would make big cuts in defence spending. That doesn't mean that ordinary squaddies would be out of jobs, but it would mean that the big gravy train for all these (unethical) big arms companies would end. 10% of all our taxes are spent on the military and bringing some of that money to ordinary people would be really progressive.

We don't need nuclear weapons which are one of the largest military expenses. They are obsolete and were always offering an illusion of protection. Labour in the 1980s had the right policy but were unfortunate they did not elect Healey as leader instead of Foot. The Tories werethe most unpopular government in history before the Falklands war and were re-elected through circumstances in 1983, not because people rejected Labour policy. Labour's policy was right then and the trade off between military spending and welfare needs to be considered.

So when the Greens talk about redistribution, or education funding, we are not arguing from a Sure Start OR Top Up fees perspective. We could and should have both. We are not in a national position to do that yet, but we keep making steady progress. I'm not sure I like the Leeds situation emotionally, but we'll have to see what the outcome is.

It isn't too far away from the situation on the Wirral where Labour, Tories and Lib Dems have all had to share power. Surely Labour have been (under a simplistic analysis) working with the Tories there? I'll be having a look at the records on this.

Hackney 2000/01: Tory and Labour coalition

Perth and Kinross 1999: Tory, Labour & Lib Dem coalition

This is more for the benefit of those on the thread that support Labour, rather than those from a socialist perspective.

In most cases, Greens seek coalitions with groups on councils they are able to work with, which usually means Labour or Lib Dems. In the case of Leeds it means that this time we are with the Tories. However, Labour activists should be aware that this is something that their own party does now and again.

If you are Respect, SA, SLP or other left, I don't expect this to make it any easier. All I can say is that there will be considerable internal debate about this at our next conference. We are on the "left" in political terms but there is a strong case that we should refuse to be defined by the politics that preceded us, and that Greens are a distinct "political polarity".

I'll save that one for another time.

Mr Cranie, if you are going to use two different names on here then at least remember which one you were using in a thread. I stated that pingupete was pompous but you reply:

"Thanks for your comments - I've never been called pompous before. I'll add it to the list."

Interesting!