A Step Change in Election Funding

I received an email reminder today after the pre-election national appeal. It advised that we were still short of the £45,000 fundraising target and that “The Green Party Executive is meeting in just two days to review the income from the appeal and what we can do”. Some people will donate nationally, while others prefer to do it regionally or locally, but funding is the lifeblood of our party at all levels. I’m therefore returning to one of the key ideas I raised during my leadership bid last summer and I’ll be emailing members of GPEx these thoughts.

Fundraising is absolutely crucial to the party. It is something we have got better at in the last few years, but we are still drawing heavily on the tried and tested “ask the members for more money” method to raise finance. A lot of effort ends up being expended to try and raise the money needed for us to campaign. As we approach the European Elections, we should be able to raise our game in terms of ethical sponsorship and public support, but once again we’ll be fighting two elections in 2014 and 2015 on the basis of the amount of money we can raise, rather than it being based on the amount of money that we need.

It is time for us to be more ambitious about our potential for electoral success, and to put our money where our mouth is. If we fall short of a £45,000 target and we make cuts in crucial spending, then we are taking an incredibly short term approach. It is the kind of view we criticise all the other parties for in relation to Climate Change, yet if we want to be part of the solution we must achieve electoral success.

The following bullet points are taken from the Green Party’s 2010 General Election Manifesto:

• Invest in the green economy now – and if, in certain vital sectors such as energy generation, the private sector is acting too slowly and on an insufficient scale, then the Government must take the lead.

• Our programme has to be paid for, and we accept that the Government borrowing of 12% of GDP is unsustainable. Like the Government, we would aim to more than halve the deficit by 2013, and the programme of taxation and spending in this manifesto is designed to achieve that.

• Raise taxation from its current very low level of only 36% of GDP – for example it exceeded 40% in all Mrs Thatcher’s years in office. The fiscal gap is not caused by too much public spending but by taxation dropping to unacceptably low levels.

• Ensure that those most able to pay bear their fair share, and introduce a much-needed increase in environmental taxation

The urgency of our political message and the need for Green success in elections is such that I think it is possible to argue the following:

• Invest in the Green Party’s European and General election campaigns now – in certain vital sectors such as media capacity nationally and regionally, and if regions don’t have sufficient resources for a needs led campaign, for the national party to step in to support them

• The campaigns have to be paid for, and we accept that there is such a thing as unsustainable borrowing but recognise that there are peaks and troughs of national electoral activity with 2014/15 our peak. During peak activity we should be prepared to borrow and during the intermediate periods we should run a surplus.

• Consider whether we need to raise membership fees, particularly for the higher paid members of the party. Our “fiscal spending” could be helped by a boost in membership fees.

• Ensure that those most able to pay bear their fair share, and definitely increase membership fees for the higher income groups within the party while holding the basic £10 fee at the same level

We don’t have to look very far for an example of this being a successful approach. UKIP had donations of £74,150 in Quarter 1 of 2013 (compared to the Greens £23,110) but were willing to spend £200,000 on a poster campaign in the local elections during April.

So what would be a realistic level of borrowing for 2014/15 and what could it help us achieve? If we look at our income (using the Electoral Commission website information), there are observable peaks in 2004/05 and 2009/10. Although income falls after each peak in the cycle, increased membership and momentum sees it climb back up again.

The Conservatives owe about 25% of their annual income, Labour about 20% and the Liberal Democrats about 15%. In Green Party terms that would be somewhere between £100,000 to £200,000 as an overdraft / borrowing to fund the Euros and the General Election campaign depending on our likely income this year.

So if you were to ask the four regional parties who were within 1.3% of winning a Euro seat last time if £25,000 over the next 12 months would help us make the breakthrough this time, what do you think the answer would be? If you spoke to Caroline Lucas and the campaign team in Brighton Pavilion and said that they would have an additional £50,000 per year to spend in 2013/14 and 2014/15 I’m sure they would be equally as enthusiastic.

As Greens we have been over cautious about budgets, and as a member of GPEx from 2004 to 2007 we struggled to claw back a £40,000 overspend from 2003/04 over a period of three years. However we managed it successfully at a time when the party was substantially smaller (around 5,000 members at the start of 2004). A larger membership and income means the borrowing I am proposing here is proportionally far smaller.

I’m also very aware that we are a party that prides itself on fairness and fair treatment. London and the South East may feel they also deserve that funding, and would be right to make that argument, but the fact is that both of these regions have already elected MEPs and have successfully re-elected them on two occasions already. It is a political decision for GPEx but I would argue strongly that we must break out of being a south east dominated party.

So do we continue with “business as usual”, where regions struggle to finance the campaign basics, like a freepost, and not really succeed in doing much else, or rely on the success of ongoing appeals before making snap spending decisions, or do we make a bold decision to get more Greens elected?

Will our children and grandchildren commend us for balancing the budget and prudence in the year we passed 400ppm in the atmosphere and summer Arctic Sea Ice again dropped to another all time low?

Or will they applaud a bold decision to invest for the future, where our actions matched our own bold manifesto promises, and we elected enough Greens to make a difference to their future?

GPEx have some tough decisions to make and in the coming meeting. In the GPEx Elections it is really important for people to decide whether they will support this key proposal. What side of history are we going to be on?

A Blogger Come Back

I've been away from blogger and blogging for some time, but it is with passion, anger and hope that I write again here.

When economic times are hard, it has historically been the case that right wing parties do better. UKIP's success in the local elections should be taken in that context. Their simple message of a crackdown on immigrants and the simple message that it would all be better if we left the EU has resonated far and wide in English politics. Despite being led by a man who was educated at Dulwich College (day fees £5,486) their rise has been fuelled by "none of the above" protest voters (who used to go for the Lib Dems, followed by working class ex-Tories and now working class ex-Labour voters.

Tonight's poll by ICM has vote shares as follows:

Labour 34%
Conservatives 28%
UKIP 18%
Lib Dems 11%
BNP 4%
Greens 2%

Yes, that's right. The BNP back at a registered level in the opinion polls. Despite their welcome defeat in all county council election seats 11 days ago, they are polling double the support of the Greens. It should come as no surprise to anyone. UKIP might put a veneer of respectability on their views, and have candidates that come from all ethnic backgrounds, but if you plant immigration as a central issue in English politics, as UKIP, the Conservatives, Labour and even the Lib Dems (watch Jo Swinson on Question Time last week if you have any doubt), then just watch the BNP reap the benefit too.

So why are the Greens not doing better? As a bottom up party, we've been successful in small pockets around the country. On the ground, door knocking team versus door knocking team, the Greens do very well. We pick up local issues, we really do care and we do what we think is right. People like that and we've seen gradual, steady progress in council seats. However in just one election, with only County Councils and a couple of unitary authorities up for election, we've seen UKIP leapfrog us in terms of the number of councillors they hold. For the record, I make it 198 UKIP councillors to 141 Greens. It is therefore no surprise that UKIP are going to get loads of media coverage and we are not.

Every one of those Green seats was hard fought for. We lost seats, including Lancaster East (Green share of the vote 44% in 2009 and 41% in 2013) back to Labour as they rebounded from the record low support they experienced in 2009. Every single Green councillor deserves our respect for the hard work they have put in. UKIP have on the other hand, elected a swathe of people who have had to do very little other than get their name on the ballot paper. Already there is fall out as the first UKIP councillor is exposed for racist comments.

We've failed to capture the popular mood. Despite have policies that nearly one quarter of the electorate think are the best, our narrow national polling is still largely based on the liberal, middle class and white voters that we have always attracted. So far we have not successfully broadened our appeal, and despite the tremendous record we have in Brighton and Hove opposing the bedroom tax, new cycling and walking routes, 20 mph speed limits and ending the second home discount on council tax, we've ended up getting ourselves into an industrial dispute that makes us look uncaring and the same as the parties we replaced.

We are not punching our weight and mistakes have been made, but the mission is urgent. People committing suicide because of bedroom tax, over a thousand people killed in a clothes factory to satisfy our desire for cheap clothes, 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and an imminent climate tipping point as Arctic sea ice collapses.

We can do better than this and here in the North West we are up for the challenges. We were close last time, very close. But we need fire in our belly, a burning desire for change and better politics, but most of all we must seize the opportunities that come our way to break out of our narrow ecological niche, because there is so much to do, and so little time left.

For regional Green members and other members, supporters and activists, I ask you to join us and support our charge to the seat. We must smash through the perception that we are not relevant to everyday life. We must dismantle the stereotypes that hold us back and we must succeed. Get involved here.

A Few Spare Minutes

Our youngest boy was ill last night, so I'm home from work looking after him. I find myself with a few minutes to spare, so why not blog on the elections? Firstly, we've achieved nearly everything we set out to do in Liverpool. Sarah Jennings held our 2nd St Michaels seat with 54% of the vote compared to Labour's 34% and we saved our deposit with a respectable 5.25% in the Mayoral Election. We just fell short of beating the Liberal Democrats in Liverpool in terms of vote share in the Mayoral election but credit is due to Liam Fogerty who captured a bit of of the media spotlight in the final week and overtook the opposition party candidates in the last week. Secondly, the Green Party held all our seats in Norwich, gained one and lost one in Oxford and broke through onto Dudley, Worcester and Nuneaton councils, with gains in Kirklees and Solihull. In our region, credit must go the excellent Patrick Cleary who despite gaining 41% of the vote, missed out winning our first seat on the Wirral. Elsewhere, we managed a number of 2nd places in Carlisle, Warrington, Manchester and of course Liverpool. I'll have missed out some places (apologies in advance). We did have an awful time in Cambridge. Margaret Wright, our first ever elected councillor in Cambridge, was stepping down due to ill health. Our other councillor Adam Pognowski decided to defect to Labour on the day of the election (only a few months after this letter), in what must be the most effective way to scupper William Birkin's chances of a hold. It is not often that I would say I'm glad to see someone go, but given the timing of the defection, there is a lot of anger and disappointment nationally at his actions. In 2007 as Elections Co-ordinator for England and Wales, I paid a visit to a then struggling Cambridge party, urging them to utilise Target to Win effectively. They went on to do so well in getting established and those who have worked hard, particularly Margaret, should be remembered for their contribution. I'm sure the Greens in Cambridge will be back. Finally, our London results were also very good. We finished 3rd in both the Mayoral and Assembly poll with small improvements in our vote share in both - a real difficult task for us versus Labour in the current climate. Everyone there deserves a huge amount of praise for an excellent campaign. If you want further electoral debriefs about Liverpool, David Bartlett's blog has a couple of interesting posts up already.

The Campaign Summary

I'm tired. It's not just the one year old child that likes to stay awake for three hours during the night, or the fact that I have to work one or two evenings a week in my paid employment. It's the election... We've put in an incredible effort for a smaller party during this campaign. Tomorrow we'll finish the delivery of 30,000 mayoral leaflets across 10 wards in the city. That is the biggest campaign effort we've ever managed, even greater than in 2009 when we gained 12% of the city vote in the Euro Elections. Right now we are trying to enjoy the last days of the campaign. We've put out some "tongue in cheek" online material poking some fun at the odds-on favourite Joe Anderson, but nothing more than a gentle prod in a campaign that has been fairly predictable. Labour deserve credit for executing their city wide gameplan. They did pretty well at avoiding banana skins, although the printing of the Labour leaflets in Manchester was a clear own goal, as was picturing Joe travelling first class on the train, rather than in standard like most of us travel. However, we do have one serious disappointment about this campaign, and that is the failure of the other leading candidates to match John Coyne's release of his tax return. As you'll remember, this followed on from the London Mayoral campaign, where the excellent Jenny Jones, Green candidate for Mayor down there, challenged Boris Johnston, Ken Livingstone and Brian Paddock (as his own Lib Dem leaflets have unfortunately described him!) to publish. They all did. It demonstrated transparency and respect for voters in London. Here in Liverpool, there wasn't exactly a warm response to our proposal. In the Guardian Northerner blog, the two other main contenders did make comments. Richard Kemp was quoted as saying: "This is tokenistic nonsense. The public have an absolute right to know what I earn from the public sector and what I do for it. That information is readily available and should be. I also have to declare any financial interests on a copy kept by the council and to declare pecuniary interests in debates. That is sufficient to ensure total probity." That would have been reasonable except for the fact that on Twitter the previous weekend, he had endorsed Nick Clegg's view that: "...Politicians, as servants of the public, should make our own arrangements transparent." Which meant that he was contradicting not only his leader, but his own previous support for his leader's position. However, what turns out to be really odd is that Richard actually provided information to the Express newspaper about last year's tax return, but didn't seem to think that Liverpool voters should get to see this year's. Richard's quote in the Express says: “I have in front of me our tax returns for last year. In total, I earned £61,400 before tax..." Really, would it have been that difficult to do the same for Liverpool voters? We were more bamboozled that Joe Anderson didn't publish a clear statement to match John Coyne either. Here is a Labour Party spokesperson in the Guardian Northerner blog: "Councillor Anderson does not make an individual tax return. Like the vast majority of Liverpool people, he pays tax through PAYE which is deducted at source. As Leader of the City Council his income is a matter of public record." So why not match John Coyne's gesture? Whoever is elected on Friday morning they will be the first person to hold the highest political office in Liverpool. That person becomes an ambassador for the city. His reputation will reflect on our city. His record will have an impact when people are making investment decisions about whether or not to do business here. That means we need someone who doesn't have hidden income, that is fully transparent about tax, including any savings and investments that provide an income. It is therefore vital that Joe Anderson is not just a good campaigner, or council leader, but that he is a political figure that reflects the good character of our city. By doing so he will be able to make the case for more (sustainable) business to come here. I therefore hope that Joe's campaign choice, not to match John's pledge, was done so after bad tactical advice, rather than because there is something, no matter how minor, that he was seeking to keep away from our eyes. Voters will be choosing their Mayor and leader directly. Political activists on all sides have worked themselves into the ground for their candidate(s) and deserve a full response. Both voters and those doing the campaigning deserve the best person for the job and this campaign should have served as scrutiny for the leading candidates' suitability - it has not. So Richard and Joe, with less than 24 hours left, how about it? Will you give Liverpool's voters the same respect as the London Mayor candidates have given to their voters? Or will we start life with a new Mayor, but the same old story of Liverpool failing to get the same accountability and credibility as London.

An Election Agent's Job

An election agent has a lot of technical stuff to do but there is another element to the job when you are doing it for a Mayoral contest. I'm currently running our press operation, fighting to make sure John Coyne is treated as the 3rd favourite in hustings, as his odds current suggest, and not excluded to allow the cosy red, yellow and blue consensus to continue.

I'm also trying to keep tabs on the activities of the other candidates in the campaign on all of the different media streams. For example, Richard Kemp, the Liberal Democrat candidate casually retweeted a Guido Fawkes posting that linked to this Nick Clegg quote:

"...Politicians, as servants of the public, should make our own arrangements transparent."

However, Richard's response to John Coyne's challenge earlier this week to publish their tax returns, so that Liverpool voters can have the same level of transparency as London voters about their candidates, has been incredibly underwhelming. After a brief fit of pique from his ward colleague, the Lib Dems have gone into full "let's not mention it mode".

For both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the Liverpool, non-publication of their tax circumstances isn't credible in the current climate, and I'll warn them now that this issue is just going to get bigger as the campaign goes on.

For Liverpool Labour readers, I'll remind you what Ed Miliband has said on the subject,

"I'm perfectly happy (to publish). I sort of think it is kind of inevitable it is going to come."

The difference is that Labour are saying not yet. Clegg has said it already and Richard Kemp endorsed Clegg's view by tweeting about it. For him not to publish would expose him to charges of hypocrisy.

John Coyne - how he could become the first Green Mayor of a British City (Part 3)

There have been two parts to this already, with a variety of points, written before the campaign began in earnest. Now we are underway, things are moving in our direction and the prospects are good. You'll note the slight change in the title also, because my good colleagues in Stroud have pointed out that they have had a Green Mayor already!

David Bartlett's blog is now essential reading for anyone following the political story of this election. Today he has covered our manifesto launch, summed up by this comment at the end of the Echo story:

"This is the most interesting and detailed manifesto I have read so far. New ideas, not just the same old promises that have been made over and over again. Looks to me like the most capable candidate to challenge Joe."

Significantly the Dale Street Associates blog has also picked up on the odds being offered on the various candidates. This confirms what we already knew, Labour's Joe Anderson is an incredibly strong favourite, the Lib Dems are currently seen as the nearest challengers and we are third favourites. If the election was tomorrow, that would probably be right, but things are moving in our direction.

We've picked up that many strong Labour supporters are not happy being bounced into a mayoralty without a referendum. They are looking around for a protest vote that is definitely not one of the coalition parties, but will still second preference Joe Anderson. We need to be attracting those votes and when we are speaking with people or they get to see the policies we advocate and the motions we've put to council over the years, they are happy to back us. Our main difficulty is that we are in a big city and we are a small party. We won't cover every ward, never mind every street, but we are going to do more than ever before in a Liverpool wide election.

A second factor we've noted is the perceived weakness of the Liberal Democrats. They have only managed 25 out of 30 candidates in the local elections. I've heard one theory, which is that they deliberately stayed out of Central, Riverside and Princes Park in the hope that we would be challenging for these seats and diverting Labour resources there. However it doesn't explain no shows in Everton and Belle Vale. My feeling is that it is precisely that - weakness. That, coupled with the realisation that there are no circumstances that a coalition party could win against Labour in Liverpool, means that even local Lib Dem voters, who will back Lib Dem councillors against Labour challengers in their remaining wards, are open to the best way to beat Joe Anderson in the Mayoral contest.

This is why the campaign and the media coverage for the Greens is going to be crucial in the coming three weeks. We have a very well designed slot in the Mayoral booklet and we'll be covering a great many postal voters with direct leaflets, but what will be crucial is how people see us and how they see John Coyne. He is a credible candidate, with 10 years experience as a city councillor. He was once a Liberal Democrat, but resigned on a point of principle to join a smaller party with no guarantee of holding his seat. People admire a politician with the courage of his convictions. My view is that more people can see of John versus Joe, the better things will go for us.

On the flip side Joe has always been a very pleasant guy in person to me, going back to the days when he was leader of the opposition, but he does seem to have a marmite quality that you either love him or hate him. What is clear is that everyone, the bookies included, currently look at the contest as a foregone conclusion. Even those who don't want Joe as Mayor are resigned to it. I said in a previous post that if a credible "No2Joe" candidate emerged, that would change this contest. John Coyne has the potential to be that person.

The campaign is not half way yet, but it is going to be interesting and I feel we are going to do well. Keep an eye on the odds put out by the bookies. On the day we launched our manifesto the Lib Dem candidate Richard Kemp started the day at 7-2 and has finished it at 11-2. We are at 10-1 at the moment, but as political punters will know, George Galloway started his Bradford campaign as a 33-1 outsider.

Syria, Despots and the Hypocrisy of Government

What is going on in Syria (and even across the border in Turkey) is absolutely appalling. The anger, yet impotence I feel watching some of the images that have been on our TV, leave me with a single inescapable conclusion. We, the people who live in Britain and other "western" countries, have some small culpability, because we tolerate this.

We tolerate and have tolerated dictatorships. We want our cheap consumer goods from China and we want to sell them luxury goods, so we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. We need oil from the Middle East, so whether it is the execution of someone for being gay, or torturing political opponents by boiling them alive, we tolerate it because we are "junkies" hooked on fossil fuels.

It doesn't have to be like this. We could have a government that took a clear ethical line and we could do it ourselves by doing everything we can to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a big ask but what value should we place on freedom and human lives? It should be the highest value for everyone and not just for those of us who were born on this island.