Ten Reasons to Support AV | Yes to fairer votes

From the Yes to fairer votes website: In May voters will get the chance to choose a fairer voting system – the Alternative Vote. It’s a small change that will make a big difference.

The new voting system will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say.

This is because, with AV, MPs would now have to aim to get more than 50% of the vote, and so will have to work harder and represent more of their constituents.

The AV system will change this. It will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency, and the likelihood of decisive election results – and strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get and keep their jobs by giving voters more of a say.

Here are 10 good reasons for supporting AV.Click on your favourite ones to send them out on Twitter:

1. AV will force MPs to work harder to earn - and keep - our support

MPs need to secure a real majority of voters to be sure of winning, not just the 1 in 3 who can currently hand them power. They'll need to work harder to get - and keep - their jobs.
The expenses scandal showed how deeply out of touch some of our politicians became from the people who elect them. It arose from a culture where some MPs have ‘seats for life, and leads to poor service, complacency and taking voters for granted.

2. AV will give us a bigger say on who our local MP is

Forget tactical voting - just pick the candidate you really want to win. But if your favourite doesn't win you can still have a say.

3. AV will tackle the ‘jobs for life’ culture in Parliament

Too many MPs have 'safe' seats for life. We saw that in the expenses crisis. The AV system will change this.

4. AV is an upgrade on our current voting system

AV builds on the current system, eliminating many of its weaknesses, retaining its strengths and strengthening the link between MPs and their communities. Voters still have just one vote.

5. AV will keep extremists out of politics

AV is the anti-extremist system because candidates have to secure a real majority to be sure of winning. First Past the post enables candidates to win with a very small percentage of the vote, which means extremist parties such as the British National Party have more chance of being elected despite most people in an area opposing them. This is one of the reasons why the BNP is opposing AV.

6. AV lets you vote for who you really want

Forget tactical voting- just pick the candidate you really want to win. With AV you can back just one candidate (like now), or if you'd like to, state a second choice, or even a third choice. Voters can vote for what they really want so there is no need to vote tactically.

7. AV gives control to more voters

Less than 2% of voters decided the last election. To be sure of winning a seat with AV, candidates will have to get over 50% of the votes in that area. They will have to work harder and not just take us for granted.

8. AV will force candidates to positively engage with the wider community

First Past the Post has created a culture of complacency whereby most MPs know they can just rely on their core vote. AV rewards politicians who can reach out to a widest range of voters. Politicians will need to engage more constructively with more people if they want to be sure of winning.

9. AV is already used by 14m people in the UK

Alternative Vote (AV) is a widely used and trusted system in Britain outside public elections, because it is used by businesses, charities, trade unions and membership organisations

10. This referendum is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to have our say on the current system

MPs have been deciding their own rules for far too long. This is the first time that voters are being given a say on the system we should use to elect MPs. This is our chance to have a public debate and to demand more from our democracy.

Find out more
What is AV? Introducing the Alternative Vote
AV myths Let’s separate the facts from the fiction
A broken system What’s wrong with First Past the Post?
Why a referendum? Seizing our chance for change

Ten Reasons to Support AV Yes to fairer votes

Claim that a Yes vote in the AV referendum will waste £250m is incorrect

Excellent letter from Chris Millman in yesterdays Post about the AV referendum. The man deserves to be elected! Here's what he said...

J ACK Lopresti's claim that a Yes vote in the Alternative Vote referendum will waste £250m does not bear scrutiny.

Of this figure, £90m is for the cost of the referendum, which was sanctioned by his government, and will be spent regardless of the result.

He goes on to claim that much of the rest will be required for the purchase of vote counting machines.
How so?

They use AV in Austrailian elections where turn out is 100% (voting is compulsory over there) yet find that they are able to count the votes manually. Why should it be different here?

The No Campaign estimates these machines will cost £125m when the actual cost will be nil. The remainder of the £250m figure that they have plucked out of the sky is to cover the cost of educating the public in how to use the Alternative Vote.

Why should this be necessary? It is a perfectly simple matter to list the candidates 1,2,3, in order of preference and if you do not feel inclined to do so, a simple X will suffice to indicate that this is the only candidate acceptable to you. No doubt the Government will spend some money encouraging people to vote, as they always do, but a voter turning up at polling station without any knowledge of AV whatsoever would still be able to cast their vote in the old fashioned way.

Mr Lopresti's other claim, that AV allows supporters of fringe parties to have more than one vote, is equally ridiculous.

The system of listing candidates in preferential order allows an 'instant run off'' to take place, so that, effectively, there can be further rounds of voting without the voter having to return to the polling station. Yes, the votes of eliminated candidates are redistributed according to the voters preference, but the votes of those whose choices have not been eliminated will also count in each 'round.'

Mr. Lopresti's contention that AV will benefit the Lib Dems is less easy to debunk, because nobody knows how people will behave when free of the temptation to vote tactically.

I think it is more likely that UKIP will be the party to profit, as there are a great many Euro-sceptics who are unhappy with the Conservative party, but keep voting for them for fear of letting Labour in. I suspect that this is the real reason that Mr Lopresti is so frightened of AV.

Chris Millman, Coombe Dingle

Power to the people

Replied to a survey seeking the views of parliamentary candidates on various democratic reform proposals. In short I favour: fixed term parliaments; considerably more free votes ie not whipped, in parliament; a fair, proportional voting system (either Single Transferable Vote or Additional Member systems); open primaries; lowering the voting age to 16; a recall system so that MPs can be removed by voters between elections; a fully elected House of Lords/second chamber; and more power for local communities and individuals through decentralisation and greater use of referenda. Bristol East's voters will find the views of all candidates who respond to this survey here as the election approaches (looks like I'm the only one to respond so far).

[There were no questions on this but I also favour: removing the constitutional functions of the monarchy and the drawing up of a new written constitution defining the rights and responsibilities of citizens. I'm also a campaigner against an EU superstate and against the undermining of local democracy by organisations like the World Trade Organisation] Details of the DEMREF 2010 project and its survey questions below (slightly edited version of what I was sent):

On 12 February, DEMREF 2010 went live on the internet to allow ordinary voters to freely download the views of candidates on key questions about democratic, constitutional and political reform which will be centre-stage in the General Election debate.

DEMREF 2010 aims to be a comprehensive, constituency-by-constituency listing of where prospective parliamentary candidates in England stand on mainstream reforms that may - or may not - help to restore public confidence following the expenses scandal.

From the 12 February launch, voters will be alerted to the DEMREF 2010 listing via an internet/email campaign, advertising in local newspapers and news coverage in the regional and national press and broadcast media, as well as promotions at events.

The DEMREF project is organised by http://www.polinfluence.com/

Q. FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS. Do you agree with fixed-term parliaments or do you oppose them?

I do not support fixed-terms
I support fixed-terms - YES
I am undecid

Q. FREE VOTES. Do you think that there should be fewer, more or roughly the same number of free votes (votes not subject to party whip) in Parliament?

I would like considerably more free votes - YES
I would like more free votes
I believe we should have roughly the same number of free votes as at present
I would like fewer free votes
I would like considerably fewer free votes
I am undecided

Q. VOTING SYSTEM. Do you think that the present voting system for Westminster elections should maintained or should the voting system be reformed?

I am undecided
I support maintaining the present voting system (first past the post)
I support reform of the voting system (single transferable vote) - YES
I support reform of the voting system (alternative vote)
I support reform of the voting system (alternative vote plus)
I support reform of the voting system (other system)... Please state other system using no more than 10 words: I also support proportional voting systems such as the Additional Member one

*

Q. OPEN PRIMARIES. Do you agree with open primaries for candidate selection or do you oppose them?

I do not support open primaries
I do not support open primaries but I do support primaries with defined electorates
I support open primaries - YES
I am undecided

*

Q. VOTING AGE. Do you think that the voting age should remain at 18 or should it be lowered to 16?

I believe the voting age should be lowered to 16 - YES
I believe the voting age should remain at 18
I am undecided

Q. RECALLING MPS. Are you open to the idea of having a mechanism whereby constituents can vote on the recall of their MP in instances of "serious wrongdoing" or do you oppose having such a mechanism to recall MPs?

I am open to the idea of having a mechanism to recall MPs - YES
I am against having a mechanism to recall MPs
I am undecided

Q. HOUSE OF LORDS. What is your view on the composition of the House of Lords/second chamber?

I am undecided
I support maintaining the House of Lords in its present form
I support maintaining the House of Lords in its present form, but without hereditary members
I support a fully elected House of Lords/second chamber - YES
I support a House of Lords/second chamber with the majority of members being elected, but with some additional expert appointees
I support abolition of the House of Lords
I support a different composition for the House of Lords/second chamber... Please state proposed composition using no more than 10 words [type your max 10 word answer here]

Q. OTHER REFORMS. In no more than 20 words, please list other reforms/changes/measures that you believe would improve democracy/politics.
- More power for local communities and individuals through decentralisation and greater use of referenda

Greens agree to join the yes campaign for the alternative vote referendum

Green Party Greens to campaign for AV

This is a good sense, pragmatic decision. The alternative vote (AV) system has many flaws - not least that its not a proportional system - but nothing like as many as the current first past the post system. AV is a step in the right direction and has the advantage of demonstrating that electoral system change is wanted, if voted through. AV undermines tactical voting because every vote - not just votes for the eventual winner - will count given that voters can express first, second, third - and further - choices as appropriate. The referendum outcome may have an influence on the choice of electoral system for the second chamber/House of Lords when it is reformed also.

This is how the Electoral Reform Society make the case for AV:

The case for AV

*All MPs would have the support of a majority of their constituents. Following the 2010 election 2/3 of MPs lacked majority support, the highest figure in British political history.

*It retains the same constituencies, meaning no need to redraw boundaries, and no overt erosion of the constituency-MP link.

*It more accurately reflects public opinion of extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second-preference votes.

*Coalition governments are no more likely to arise under AV than under First-Past-the-Post.

*It eliminates the need for tactical voting. Electors can vote for their first-choice candidate without fear of wasting their vote.

*It encourages candidates to chase second- and third-preferences, which lessens the need for negative campaigning (one doesn't want to alienate the supporters of another candidate whose second preferences one wants) and rewards broad-church policies.

AV in Practice

*Leadership elections for Labour and Liberal Democrats
*Elections for UK parliamentary officials including Select Committee Chairs.
*Elections for the Academy Award for Best Picture
*Australian House of Representatives.
*Most UK Student Union elections.
*Australian Legislative Assemblies ("lower houses") of all states and territories (bar Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, which both use STV).
*Australian Legislative Council in Tasmania.
*Irish Presidential election.
*By-elections to the Dáil (the lower house of the Irish Parliament).
*By-elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
*Papua New Guinea National Parliament (1964-1975 and from 2007).
*Fijian House of Representatives.
*Numerous American Mayoral and district elections.

Poll: 56% support the alternative vote

The campaign to reform Britain’s voting system has been boosted by a new opinion poll showing that a majority of the public supports change.
An ICM Research survey for the Electoral Reform Society found that 56 per cent of people favour the alternative vote (AV), in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, while only 44 per cent want to retain the existing first-past-the-post system...

Clegg to be sidelined from his pet project - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Vote Yes to changing our unfair voting system

Good that an office has been opened in Bristol to campaign to change the voting system in next May's referendum. AV is a step in the right direction and has the advantage of demonstrating that electoral system change is wanted, if voted through. AV undermines tactical voting because every vote - not just votes for the eventual winner - will count given that voters can express first, second, third - and further - choices as appropriate.

A CAMPAIGN office to promote a Yes vote to change the voting system in a referendum next May is being opened in Bristol today.

More on why the alternative vote (AV) is an improvement on the current first past the post voting system here.

AV is much fairer: letter

Great letter on a fairer voting system by Chris Millman in todays Post: AV is much fairer

IN his letter to the Post on December 4, Oliver Tunnah shows little faith in the intelligence of the British electorate, who he thinks will be "befuddled" by the alternative vote (AV) system. But it is he who is confused. He claims "with AV you must vote for a party you don't believe in."

What?

The AV is quite simple. It allows the opportunity to list candidates in order of preference. If only one candidate is acceptable to you, you only list one.

The beauty of the system is that it allows you to vote for the candidate you want, rather then backing the one you think most likely to beat the candidate you don't want. This is the precise opposite of what Mr Tunnah is suggesting.

In May we have an historic chance to scrap outdated first-past-the-post and bring in AV, which is fairer.

Chris Millman, Coombe Dingle.

Student grants not loans and tuition fees

Copy of National Union of Students press release:
GREEN CANDIDATE GLENN VOWLES MAKES PLEDGE TO VOTERS ON STUDENT FEES
Tuesday 10 March 2010 – for immediate release

Glenn Vowles, Green Candidate for Bristol East has signed a pledge to voters ahead of the forthcoming general election that he will vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament.

The National Union of Students (NUS) has launched the Vote for Students campaign to encourage candidates to pledge to protect student interests by opposing attempts to lift the cap on student top-up fees.

The Vote for Students funding pledge states:

"I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament, and will put pressure on the Government to introduce a fairer alternative."

Glenn Vowles said:

"I certainly oppose a rise in student fees, but Green Party policy goes much further. Our position on tuition fees and student loans means that under Green Party policy, students will not have to pay tuition fees. The Green Party supports grants not loans, providing a basic income sufficient for needs while in full time education. "

NUS President Wes Streeting said:

"The vast majority of the general public is against higher fees, and although this review has been set up to report after the general election, voters deserve to know where their MP stands on this highly emotive issue.

"I am delighted that the Green's Glenn Vowles is standing up for students and their families in Bristol East by signing up to this pledge. He has demonstrated his determination to give every young person in Bristol East a fair chance to go to university."

A recent YouGov poll commissioned by NUS revealed that 88% of the public does not think the review should even consider increasing fees, while a majority believes that it should look at alternatives. Last year, research by Opinionpanel (http://www.opinionpanel.co.uk/)
showed that a political party’s position on tuition fees would affect how 79% of students would vote in a general election.

ENDS

* Media enquiries for Glenn Vowles: Tel 0117 9717023
* NUS Press Office: 020 7380 6604 / 07866 695 010
* For more on the Vote for Students campaign: http://www.voteforstudents.co.uk/
* For more on NUS’ approach to student funding: http://www.nus.org.uk/Campaigns/Funding-Our-Future-/

Bristol Greens local election campaign launch boosted by the polls - 34% considering voting Green and 11% intending to vote Green across whole country

Things are moving - many voters are seeking a positive alternative to the current mainstream parties who have brought economic chaos, environmental decline and greedy MPs.

Bristol Greens held their local election campaign launch at lunchtime today, on Castle Park's threatened green space. They announced the 10 point policy plan (below), a full slate of candidates in every ward and the fact that a YouGov has found that 34% of people either will or are considering voting Green on June 4th, in addition to a poll in the Sunday Express which showed that currently 11% of voters have already decided to vote Green in the Euro elections!!


Get serious about transport: put Bristol’s councillors on the bus!

We want the council to start seriously pursuing the creation of a transport authority for Bristol. Parking privileges for councillors should be revoked to concentrate their minds on finding practical solutions to Bristol’s transport problems, such as better buses, trams and the expansion and improvement of the local rail network.

Think global, act local

Wherever we’re elected, Greens promote local shops, post offices, schools, parks, better high streets, keeping jobs within communities, local food and more allotments. People should be able to walk to their local library or swimming pool.

It’s time for a Green New Deal – starting here in Bristol

Bristol should be leading the way investing in green jobs and green businesses. Investing more in domestic energy efficiency, for example, would fight climate change, keep homes warmer, bring in significant extra funding from government and help everyone save money.

Twenty is plenty

Support for 20mph zones across all the city’s dangerous roads is growing. This is something we’ve fought for, for many years, and we’re finally being listened to. We will also carry on our campaign to make pavements for people not for parked cars.

Green space is not a waste

The council must be made to stick to its green space strategy, and stop selling off so much green space – be it inner city spaces like Castle Park or greenbelt land.

Do the “little” things right

We would take action to make streets cleaner and improve waste and recycling collections, increase the number of street trees, deal with dog mess and poor quality graffiti and all the other things that have such an effect on the quality of life in our city.

No to putting social services into exploiting private sector hands

The LibDems lost in 2007 because they refused to back down over their plans to privatise home care. Labour won but privatised most of it anyway. Both should be ashamed of themselves. We need a policy that values the vital work done by Bristol’s home carers.

Education policy should be for our children, not for accountants

We are appalled by the council’s policy of saving money by closing some schools while making big schools even bigger. The Green Party believes in education on a human scale: all children, including pre-school, should be able to be educated in their local community.

Get climate serious – no more greenwash

Bristol should adopt a target of cutting citywide carbon emissions by at least 40% by 2020. But to be genuinely serious about stopping runaway climate change, action needs to be taken more quickly, with at least 25% cut by 2015. Time is running short.

We need a progressive voice in Bristol politics

In today’s tough economic climate, it is more important than ever to stand up for what we believe in. Every Green vote reminds the LibDem/Lab/Con parties that there is an alternative to their clogged roads, defunct economy, and overcrowded schools. Our councillors will work hard to focus attention on the topics that really matter: a sustainable economy, public services, quality of life, and the future of the planet.

Unfair and unrepresentative electoral system, especially to Bristol's Greens

I've just had another look at Bristol's local election results from last week, which took place under our 'first past the post' voting system.

The Lib Dems obtained 27% of the vote but now have 44% of the councillors (31 of them).

Labour got 29% of the vote but have 36% of councillors (25 people).

The Conservatives gained 25% of the vote but have just 19% of councillors (13 individuals).

The Green Party gained 15% of the vote but have a mere 1.4% of councillors ( ie 1 Charlie Bolton).

The 'winner takes all' electoral system doesn't seem to be a fair one to me!! In Bristol this is especially true for the Greens, though other small parties and even the Conservatives lose out due to the system too.

With a strictly proportional voting system the council would look something like this (assuming an unlikely no change in voting habits and range of candidate choice of course): Labour 20 councillors; Lib Dems 19; Conservatives 18; Greens 11; others 2. Most alternative voting systems are not strictly proportional of course but this does give you some idea how different our local council could be but for our voting system.

Abandoning the mainstream parties? Vote for the positive, ethical Greens not the hateful BNP.

I’m urging people who intend to abandon the mainstream parties in June’s local and euro elections, and there are understandably many of them, to choose the positive, ethical alternative the Greens offer, not to avoid voting and not to vote for the BNP. I agree strongly with letter writer Liban Obsiye that we need better politicians, but not the BNP.

Plenty of talk about the BNP at the moment. They are getting a lot of frequent, fairly casual mentions in the media as an alternative to the mainstream parties. Their campaign launch received a lot of coverage time on the telly. I’ve seen their party broadcast and on Tues I received their euro election leaflet through my door despite the fact that some Bristol posties have refused to deliver them (and according to reports have forced a change in the attitude of their managers, who have now agreed to allow them to refuse!).

The BNP leaflet got an instant and angry response from my daughter, who has just finished studying IGCSE History including the rise of Fascism and Nazism in the 1920s/30s and the Second World War, who wrote about her feelings here. She is right that the BNP references to images of the Second World War on their leaflet are very odd indeed given that we fought that war to stop the Nazis and Fascists – a description that fits the BNP very well, see here. (Interestingly UKIP also link to the Second World War in their leaflet, using a large picture of Winston Churchill). She is right to draw parallels between BNP tactics and Hitler’s use of scapegoats, economic hard times and failures in the political system to appeal for voter support. Hitler combined violence and bullying with the appearance of moderation as and when it suited him.

Strange that the West Country is simultaneously hosting the Anne Frank exhibition in Bristol Cathedral whilst also giving a platform for the nazi BNP at the Bath Royal Literary & Scientific Institution in Queen Square this Friday (jointly organised by the BRLSI and, rather ironically given the BNP’s nature, pressure group Unlock Democracy). The Anne Frank exhibition wants to 'help us deal with intolerance and discrimination' – the BNP, a party full of hate, has a constitution that wont even allow black or Asian people to join them! The South West Greens lead Euro election candidate Cllr Ricky Knight has refused to share a platform with the BNP at the Bath meeting. He will be present outside the venue giving out leaflets explaining his Green position and answering any questions in an impromptu ‘people’s hustings’. He has written the following about the meeting:

Unlock Democracy, Bath, criticises the Greens, Labour and Lib-Dems for refusing to debate with the British National Party. On this occasion, it is the Greens and the other parties who should be doing the criticising.

The BNP continue to use tactics and espouse ideas that cannot be construed as being "democratic". A simple example is their use of leaflets identifying a trade unionist, printing his address, phone number and distributing leaflets designed to arouse hostility towards him.

In addition, the BNP constitutionally will not permit Black or Asian British people to become members. They even refuse to accept the fact that they are British.

I am sure that if the BNP membership exclusion extended to Jewish members, homosexuals and people with disabilities, it might become more obvious why the Greens have adopted, in informal agreement with regional Labour and Lib-Dem lead candidates, a policy not to share a platform with a political party whose views on many serious issues we find abhorrent, unethical and indefensible.

We can see from history how a ‘democratic’ party, once elected, was able to perpetrate the Holocaust. I am particularly disappointed that a respected organisation as Unlock Democracy, Bath, with such an honourable record of promoting the reform of our own electoral system, should then choose to ignore these warning signs and attempt to give the oxygen of publicity to a group whose cornerstone policies are the antithesis of the democratic process.

Green lead in Brighton...

From The Independent: The Green Party is on course to make a historic electoral breakthrough
by winning the Labour-held seat of Brighton Pavilion at the
forthcoming general election.

A poll of voting intentions carried out by ICM Research shows that the
Greens, who had their best-ever result in the constituency in 2005,
hold an eight-point lead over their nearest rivals, the Conservatives,
with the Greens on 35 per cent, the Tories on 27, Labour on 25 and the
Liberal Democrats on 11 per cent.

If repeated at the general election, the result would see the Greens
snatch the seat from Labour with a majority of 3,500 over the
Conservatives. The Green candidate, Caroline Lucas, the party leader
who is already an MEP, would take her seat at Westminster in a key
political advance for the British environmental movement. The UK
remains the only major European country which has never had Greens in
its national legislature.

Several developments boost the chance of Britain's first Green MP. The
first is that Brighton Pavilion's incumbent Labour member, David
Lepper, is standing down. Mr Lepper is a popular local figure. A key
factor in his holding on to the seat last time around was that he had
voted against the Iraq war.

The Greens' 2005 candidate there, Keith Taylor, scooped 22 per cent of
the vote, beating the Liberal Democrats for third place and coming
within 1,000 votes of pipping the Tories to second. That was the
party's best general election performance.

Another is that dissatisfaction with the Government of Gordon Brown
does not, in radical Brighton – perhaps Britain's most "alternative"
city – translate into automatic support for the Conservatives. If Ms
Lucas is seen as a credible "keep the Tories out" candidate, she will
likely attract considerable support.

But the most significant development is the candidature of Caroline
Lucas herself, Britain's most accomplished Green politician.
Articulate, passionate, radical without seeming threatening, the
former Oxfam adviser has been MEP for South-east England for 10 years,
and is a world away from the old image of the Green party activist as
someone who lived in a tepee eating brown rice.

She presides over a party which has shifted from its purely ecological
roots to an identity which might be described as radical social
democrat; although still with the most demanding agenda for fighting
climate change, and resolutely anti-nuclear, the Greens are now
equally concerned with job creation in the recession and defending the
NHS.

Besides a solid record of high-profile activism in the European
Parliament, Ms Lucas's achievement has been the modernising of her
party, by getting it to elect a single leader. For 20 years grassroots
Green activists rejected the "cult of leadership", condemning the
party to have several figures speaking for it at once, which meant
that the focus was hopelessly split and the Greens were consigned to
the political wilderness.

The Greens now have their best and highest-profile politician
standing, with no diversions of focus, for their most winnable
parliamentary seat.

The party has 126 councillors in 43 local authorities across Britain
as well as two MEPs, Caroline Lucas and Jean Lambert. It intends to
field a "half slate" of just under 300 candidates in the forthcoming
election, likely to be held in May.

But in what some may see as another sign of its political coming of
age, it is concentrating its efforts in just three target seats:
Brighton Pavilion, Lewisham Deptford and Norwich South.
In Norwich South, the party's deputy leader, Adrian Ramsay, is
standing against the former Labour cabinet minister (and leading
critic of Gordon Brown) Charles Clarke. The Greens have 13 councillors
in Norwich, making them the official opposition, and came first in the
city in last year's Euro elections.

In Lewisham Deptford they will field Darren Johnson, local councillor
and chair of the London Assembly, against Joan Ruddock, the minister
for Energy and Climate Change; they have six Green councillors in
Lewisham and in the most recent local elections polled 27 per cent.
But Brighton Pavilion represents their best chance of all, where Ms
Lucas may be part of the first all-woman slate in a British general
election.

Her Labour opponent is Nancy Platts, a former policy adviser and
campaigner in the trade union movement and the voluntary sector; their
Tory rival is Charlotte Vere, a businesswoman who is chief executive
of an online support network for the emotionally troubled, Big White
Wall. The Liberal Democrats have yet to adopt a candidate.

The Greens' hope is that in Brighton Pavilion, they, and not the
Tories, will benefit from Labour voters' disenchantment. The ICM poll
– at present – bears this out. For not only do the Greens have the
greatest support, with 35 per cent; what excites the party campaigners
is the large number of centre-left voters, Labour and Liberal
Democrats, likely to switch their vote to Green if the party is best
placed to stop a Tory win.

Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters
polled indicated they would switch, with 37 per cent saying they were
"very likely" and 26 per cent saying they were "quite likely" to
switch in that situation.

Although the headline on the website of the Labour candidate, Nancy
Platts, asserts that "Voting Green Will Mean A Tory MP For Brighton" –
by splitting the Labour vote – it is clear that some Brighton Pavilion
electors take the opposite view, and consider that voting Green may
keep the Conservatives out – with historic consequences.

By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor
Monday, 11 January 2010