The Green Party expects to end 2004 with at least six UK
MEPs (currently two), at least one more London Assembly Member (currently three) and 20% more
local councillors (currently 53).
Euro-election prospects
Comparing the Green vote with previous Euro-elections
The record Green vote, the dramatic slump, and the steady comeback
In 1989, 2.2 million Britons voted Green in the Euro-elections. That was the
highest Green vote in a national election in any country, ever. The UK Green
vote then rapidly and heavily slumped. Looking at the parallels with 1989,
and at the reasons for the subsequent slump, we would not rule out a similar
vote in the 2004 Euro-elections, which would mean Green MEPs elected in most
English Euro-election regions and in Scotland.
The chief dissimilarity with 1989 is that then the LibDems were in disarray,
which undoubtedly assisted the Greens to become third party in that
election. The similarities are, however, stronger (see below).
The main factor behind the dramatic slump in the Green vote after 1989 was
that the other parties claimed they had taken on board our message. The
government and the other parties adopted much of our language but didn't in
fact adopt our policies - Thatcher's flagship Environmental Protection Act
was mainly about litter and supermarket trolley deposits, while Blair's
promise to "put the environment at the heart of government" has been
repeatedly broken. But the message repeated time and again by those parties
(and by the media) was that the Greens had made their point and were no
longer necessary. We have now had 15 years' experience of the other parties
failing to adopt serious Green policies. They all still pursue roadbuilding,
airport expansions, economic globalisation and a militarised foreign policy.
They are all undeniably neoliberal parties. The more time passes, the more
the public sees there is only one Green Party.
The second major factor was that 15% had voted Green - but no Green MEPs
were elected. The view became firmly established that a Green vote was a
wasted vote. Had the UK had the same system of proportional elections as
Germany, a 15% vote would have returned 12 UK Greens to the European
Parliament. This would have been the largest national Green Party group, and
it would have made up a large proportion of the Green Group in the European
Parliament. It's reasonable to speculate that it would have transformed the
Green Party's fortunes in the UK for the better, through the resulting much
higher media profile and resource-input that having MEPs brings.
By 1999 a PR system had been introduced for Euro-elections. The Green Party
had passed through its mid-1990s lowpoint and had begun its comeback. But
the PR system was new and was little understood, and the Green vote was only
about half of the 1989 vote (though double the 1994 vote). It is reasonable
to expect that now the public is more accustomed to PR elections and to
seeing that Greens can win, this factor in itself will boost the Green vote.
As 1989 is the year journalists often refer to as the heyday of the Green
Party, it's worth comparing the 2004 situation with the 1989 situation. The
comparison is generally a very favourable one.
Favourable comparisons with 1989
Environmental issues
Environmental issues were high-profile in the late 1980s. The same is true
now. E.g. there is a far wider public understanding of climate change and its
effects; GMOs have been a very high-profile issue; food safety crises have
often dominated the headlines during recent years; household pollution has
been in the news very recently; water fluoridation is creeping up the
political agenda. The environmental factor can be expected to help boost the
Green vote because the Green Party is recognised as having strong policies
in those areas.
Escape from the "single issue environmental" ghetto
On the other hand, in 1989, and even in 1999, the Greens were seen by many
or most people as a "single-issue environmentalist" party. This was a
damaging perception, because many people are reluctant to vote for parties
that aren't seen to have good policies across the board. Now, especially
where Greens have been elected and have been seen locally and regionally
dealing with the full range of issues, the damaging perception of
"single-issue Greens" is considerably weaker. The launch of the Real
Progress theme this year, which was generally well received by the media, is
likely to reinforce the view of Greens as offering policy solutions across
the board. This factor may be expected to help increase the Green vote.
The Iraq factor
The government's policy on Iraq has been highly unpopular. This benefited
both the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in the 2003 elections. However,
the LibDems, having managed to portray their maybe-war policy as an anti-war
policy, showed their true colours by supporting the war once it began in
earnest. Of the two parties, the anti-war vote is now more likely to be seen
to be deserved by the Greens.
The political landscape
The political positioning landscape is currently favourable to the Greens. A
strong perception has grown - which the Green Party shares - that New
Labour's move to the right has effectively converted it into another
conservative party in terms of most of the policies it pursues. Certainly it
shares with the Conservatives and the LibDems the core neoliberal ideology
of privatisation, globalisation, a militarised foreign policy and (from a
Green perspective) an approach to the ecological crisis which is patently
inadequate because it's tacked-on to neoliberal economics.
A recent evaluation showed that some 30% of new Green Party are ex-Labour
(with negligible percentages from Conservative, LibDem and others). The
Green Party is increasingly seen as occupying the left-of-centre space
evacuated by Labour.
On the other hand, over 60% of new Green Party members come from "no
previous party." It is significant that the Green Party, while still very
small, has continued to grow since 1999 while the membership of the big
three parties has fallen significantly. This is an indication that at least
some people who see little difference between the big three turn to the
Greens instead of to apathy.
The Liberal Democrats have often been seen as a moderate left-of-centre
alternative. Recently however they publicly stressed the priority they
attach to market economics. This move has been seen as a bid for soft Tory
votes in the run-up to this year's elections. But it's extremely convenient
for the Green Party, as it weakens any LibDem claim to the left-of-centre
appeal, eg on policies like opposing privatisations, promoting
renationalisation of railways and utilities etc, which are Green Party policies.
The George Galloway/Respect party looked as though it might appeal to the
anti-war vote. However, the potential threat from Respect, challenging the
Greens for the left-of-centre vote, looks as though it hasn't got off the
ground and will be no more of a threat than Arthur Scargill's SLP. The
initial "broad-based" look has disintegrated, not least since George Monbiot
resigned from Respect and announced he would be endorsing the Greens. It has
become increasingly obvious that Respect is largely the hard-left
revolutionary Socialist Worker Party fronted by a George Galloway desperate
to preserve a political career. SWP publications have recently located
Respect within the Trotskyist "broad front" tradition, which is unlikely to
be a recipe for sweeping success.
Growing popularity of Green Party policies
Our research into opinion polls on policy issues has shown that Green Party
policies are, overall, far more popular than Labour and Tory policies (see
Green Party The Strongest Link, April 2001, currently being updated).
Because the Greens have a lower media profile than the other parties, there
are still many people who don't realise the extent to which they agree with
the Greens. But as our media profile rises, the Green vote is likely to rise
simply because more people will see the extent to which they agree with us.
Our news monitoring showed we achieved approximately twice the media
exposure in 2003 as in 2002, a directly comparable electoral year - a result
we attributed partly to the growing success of elected Greens, and partly to
improvements in our media strategy and operations. In the same period our
vote share in local elections increased (according to the BBC) from about 5%
to about 7%, and 29% more Green councillors were elected in 2003. Although
their numbers are small, the steady progress of breakthroughs and
consolidations even in a highly disadvantageous first-past-the-post system
is significant.
The fact that the Green Party has sitting MEPs puts us in a more favourable
position in terms of media coverage than it would in a general election.
Given the demonstrable overall popularity of our policies, more media
coverage can be expected to translate into more votes.
Published and promoted by and on behalf of Brian Fewster at 89a Winchester Avenue, Leicester LE3 1AY.
This prediction is based on:
1. Best ever English local election results in 2003 (29% increase in councillors).
2. Sevenfold increase in Green MSPs in Scotland in 2003.
3. Steady rise in Green vote in local elections since 1999.
4. Growth in membership throughout of the period since 1999 (including a 25% increase in members during general election year 2001, and 10% increases in 2002 and 2003).
5. Council breakthroughs in important cities in best-prospect Euro-regions.
6. Much higher media profile than in 1999.
7. Evidence of growing popularity of Green Party policies.
Return to Euro 2004 intro
Return to home page