This is a cross-post from the excellent Climate Sock. Thanks to Leo for giving permission to put it up here.
Now UK electoral reform for the Commons has been defeated, First Past the Post (FPTP) is with us for the foreseeable future. I was never convinced that Alternative Vote (AV) would be a game changer for smaller parties like the Greens, but FPTP is particularly bad for them.
There’s no doubt that FPTP exaggerates results. Below a certain share of the national vote, parties get fewer seats than they would under a PR system. Above that level, they get more.
Yet the UK Greens do have one MP, and they are in fact less hard done by under FPTP than the other UK-wide parties of similar size: the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the British National Party (BNP).
In the 2010 election, the Greens nationally won 286k votes (1.0%); UKIP won 920k (3.1%); and the BNP 564k (1.9%). Yet of the three, the Greens were the only party to win a seat, despite receiving the fewest votes (although this one seat was itself equivalent to only about one sixth of the seats they would have won under a fully proportionate system with that share of the vote).
So, why was this the case, and what does it say about the Greens’ prospects under FPTP?
To win a seat in a multi-way marginal, a party typically needs at least 30%. Caroline Lucas won Brighton Pavilion with 31% of the vote; the next target for the Greens, Norwich South, was won by the Lib Dems with 29%. Other Green targets were won with slightly higher proportions.
Yet, with a lower national share than UKIP and the BNP, explanation is needed for why the Greens were able to mobilise 31% in a particular constituency, while the others were not able to do so.
At least part of the answer is suggested by the huge poll conducted by Michael Ashcroft for the Tories.
A key source for this debate is the question on how likely respondents are to vote for particular parties. A response of 1 signifies that they will definitely not vote for that party, and 10 means that they will definitely vote for that party.
The proportions who say they are extremely likely (let’s say 9 or 10) to vote for each of the three parties is roughly what we’d expect: small, and similar to one another.
But the differences are very interesting when we look lower down the scale:
So both the BNP and UKIP have much more of the electorate fixed against them: 84% and 68% respectively, compared with 55% for the Greens.
If we return to a figure of around 30% needed to win a multi-way marginal constituency, it is clear why this is so hard for the BNP. On a national level, 84% have said they wouldn’t consider voting BNP, leaving very little to play for.
Even for UKIP, to reach 30% of the electorate, the party would need to go all the way down the scale to people who say they are just 3/10 likely to vote UKIP.
Yet for the Greens, winning 30% requires going down only as far as those who are 5/10 likely to vote Green: a much less daunting prospect and a result that suggests that future seats may well be winnable for the Greens.
Just a couple of caveats. Firstly, this makes an assumption of uniform national distributions. Clearly that isn’t the case: it’s an approximate model. Yet, the size of the differences between the parties suggests that it is useful.
Secondly, I’ve treated each party’s scores on these scales in isolation, when that isn’t quite right. A respondent could have said they were 10/10 likely to vote for several parties. What this shows is potential support, not guaranteed support.
For the Greens to win more Westminster seats they would need to take support from the major parties. Given their relatively wide level of latent support, this may be within reach, even under the current electoral rules.
#1 by NoOffenceAlan on May 31, 2011 - 8:54 pm
I’m definitely in the “openly critical” section.
In Germany, organically-grown cucumbers have killed more people in one week than nuclear power has in the last forty years.
Guess which the German Greens are banning?
#2 by Alwyn ap Huw on June 1, 2011 - 1:37 am
I do not doubt your statement, but I would be intrigued to find some reference that backs up your statement that “In Germany, organically-grown cucumbers have killed more people in one week than nuclear power has in the last forty years.”
How do you die from organically grown cucumbers?
Are organically grown cucumbers more dangerous than non organic ones?
What must we do to make organically grown cucumbers safer?
#3 by John Ruddy on June 1, 2011 - 7:53 am
Agreed. There are many in the wider Green movement who see nuclear power as vital to the fight against climate change (eg James Lovelock).
I think the anti-science attitude (eg Nuclear, Homeopathy etc) is probably putting off many left-leaning voters.
#4 by James on June 1, 2011 - 8:05 am
Being anti-nuclear isn’t about being anti-science.
We’re against specific technological implementations of scientific principles. For instance, scientific research developed chlorofluorocarbons, and Greens opposed releasing them into the environment because they are destructive to the ozone layer. See also poly-chlorinated biphenyls, or plenty of other similar examples.
And we’re against the implementation of nuclear power because it’s unaffordable, relies on a finite and diminishing resource, is much higher-carbon than renewables, expects generations to keep looking after growing stockpiles of waste, and because the consequences of any accident are so severe. That doesn’t make us anti-science – we fully accept the science from Rutherford onwards.
Homeopathy, on the other hand, is just bollocks.
#5 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 9:50 am
Exactly, opposing nuclear isn’t about some sort of anti-progress, namby-pamby, nimby-wimby agenda. A lot of those in the pro-nuclear camp seem to have no idea what nuclear energy generation actually entails. There is a fallacy that nuclear power is low-carbon, which needs to be debunked. The way people talk about nuclear, they seem to think it is a renewable energy source, despite nuclear energy being the product of a finite fuel source just like every other fossil fuel. Relying on nuclear energy is just delaying the inevitable – 100% reliance on renewable energy.
People think adopting renewable energy is just about climate change – it’s not. It’s also about making sure we are able to harness energy that doesn’t run out in the long term, so that we still have power once all the oil, gas, coal and uranium in the world has run out. That’s why I hate to see people using climate change as a reason to switch to nuclear energy – it’s extremely short-sighted. I find it quite extraordinary to see the recent surge in environmental campaigners like George Monbiot supporting nuclear energy, and I’m glad the Scottish Greens have not fallen into this trap.
#6 by Aidan Skinner on June 1, 2011 - 11:55 am
I think there’s a short to medium run argument for continuing with nuclear power as it is vastly lower carbon than gas or coal and only slightly higher carbon than current renewables (eg. Sovacool 2008 http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf) and causes far fewer deaths (eg. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html).
While the consequences of accidents are severe, they are also much rarer. Wind power has a death rate of approximately 3x nuclear, and solar power 10x (http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html).
While it’s clearly not a long term solution to power generation, I do think it’s an important part of the energy mix, and I’d much prefer to see coal and gas stations shut down.
#7 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 1:40 pm
The deaths statistics are misleading, though. Before I go on, I should perhaps point out that I’m currently on an oil rig in the North Sea, where one of my responsibilities is giving safety inductions to new arrivals. It’s all very well saying that more people die in the other industries, but these are likely to be limited to those working in the industry doing something stupid. A worst case scenario on an oil rig, for instance, is a repeat of Piper Alpha, where the working crew are virtually wiped out. Tragic, but at least the people involved knew there were risks involved in their work.
Nuclear accidents, on the other hand, affect far more than the workers. They affect ordinary members of the public, who have nothing to do with the nuclear plant, other than living within a 30+ mile radius of it. The same cannot be said of someone falling off a roof when trying to fix a solar panel. Try as I might, I just can’t conceive of a wind mill farm leading to a giant explosion killing hundreds of people.
Also, it’s a bit disingenuous to be directly comparing accident rates for things like solar power and nuclear. The nuclear industry has had much longer to get things right than the fledgling renewable industries. The more investment we get in renewable energy, the safer the systems will become and the more expeience and knowledge people will have. This is why we can’t delay things by reverting for the quick-fix of nuclear.
A final point: European safety rates for the energy industries are far, far lower than those in other parts of the world. This is why the traditional energy industries – gas, oil and coal – still have such high death rates, as they are the energy industries of choice in parts of the world where safety is not taken as seriously as it is in Europe.
All that is by the by, though. There is one simple fact that makes nuclear power less desirable than any other energy (in my mind, anyway): it’s the only one that produces nuclear waste.
#8 by John Ruddy on June 1, 2011 - 5:57 pm
“it’s the only one that produces nuclear waste.”
I’m more concerned about the ‘waste’ product that is CO2. There are perfectly sound ways of dealing with nuclear waste – it just lacks the political will, and part of that is down to the scaremongering.
#9 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 7:39 pm
I’d be interested to hear of these methods of dealing with nuclear waste, presuming they are more advanced than the current popular methods like “put it in a big containment unit” or “dig a big hole, seal it with lead and dump it in there for several millennia”.
#10 by John Ruddy on June 1, 2011 - 6:01 pm
I agree. More people die every year in China mining coal than have ever died as a result of nuclear power. I’m not saying its perfect, but it does need to be put into perspective, especially in light of the massive challenge we face in fighting climate change.
#11 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 7:46 pm
China does not have the safety standards of Europe (which doesn’t bode so well considering they’re planning on going from 13 nuclear plants to around 40 – that expansion is happening far too quickly). But coal power doesn’t come into it – Aidan was claiming that nuclear is safer even than renewable energy generation. No one is claiming that coal power is the key to fighting climate change – just that nuclear power isn’t either.
#12 by John Ruddy on June 1, 2011 - 5:59 pm
Its about being anti-science when the radiation from living in Sellafield is less than living in a Granite tenament building in Aberdeen.
The waste question is a non-sequetor as far as climate change is concerned. I’m sure our descendants will thank us for the lack of nuclear waste while cursing us for the climate we destroyed.
#13 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 7:37 pm
Likewise, I’m sure they would thank us for not heating up the planet while cursing us for dumping nuclear waste with half-lives of thousands (and in some cases millions) of years all over the place which will have to be managed for hundreds of thousands of generations to come. You do realise that nuclear waste needs to be isolated for anything between 10,000 to 1,000,000 years? That means that every year we continue using it, we’re just adding to a never-ending pile of waste. What’s the current best solution? Digging a big hole and sticking it in there. For some reason, ostriches putting their heads in the sand comes to mind…
You’re talking as if climate change is the only problem, which is the same stance that seems to be permeating throughout sections of the environmentalist movement. But it’s not the only problem, it’s just the one people are more concerned with because the negative effects seem more immediate. Using nuclear power to combat climate change is like using anthrax to get rid of a mice infestation: you’ve gotten rid of one problem, but you’re just introducing another – one with much longer term effects.
#14 by Indy on June 1, 2011 - 9:01 pm
This may be a trivial point – and maybe I am being overly influenced by Planet of the Apes and those sorts of films – but how do we know that people will even understand English in 1000 years time? We don’t know what might happen. Civilisations have been wiped out before and given the rate of technological change as well as the worst predictions for climate change it is surely possible that in 1000 years time people could come across nuclear waste but have no idea what it is. We are kind of relying on a skull and crossbones to put them off. I’m not sure that is all that reliable!
As I say I am maybe letting my imagination run away with me but it is something that I think should be consideredas a worst case scenario.
#15 by Doug Daniel on June 2, 2011 - 9:40 am
Well, I have to say I completely disagree with that. It seems very similar to the attitude of those who don’t care about the effects of climate change – a sort of “I won’t be here to see it so it doesn’t affect me” attitude. When you don’t know what will happen in the future, you have to err on the side of caution. Imagine if people in the industrial revolution knew the effects CO2 emissions would have on the world’s atmosphere and yet continued to pump it out regardless, because for all they knew the world might end anyway – how annoyed would we all be with them now for such wanton abandon?
As the world’s population continues to grow, the more land we need for housing and farming land. Since the world’s land area remains constant (at best; more likely we’ll see more land being subsumed by rising water levels), then we can’t afford to be wasting space storing increasing piles of nuclear waste, overground or underground.
Unless we start shooting it off into space…
#16 by Stephen Wood on May 31, 2011 - 8:59 pm
Fascinating post and I’m really interested in seeing the level of support (and opposition) to the smaller parties. It’s true that the BNP and UKIP are quite divisive, whilst the worst that is usually said about the Green Party is that we are hopelessly unrealistic.
I think you are right about the possibility of further Green gains, but we shouldn’t underestimate the need for constituencies to be warmed up over a period of 4-8 years by the election and public engagement of Green Councillors. Those area with a track record of good elected representatives find their support deepening and remaining solid. In many ways, I would argue that the Green Party should be putting more resources and energy in the medium term into electing to local authorities.
#17 by rlemkin on May 31, 2011 - 9:11 pm
While a good post I feel like it tells us something we already know.. Greens don’t cause much antagonism and are *generally* seen as quite amiable if a little hard to take seriously.
#18 by jim jepps on May 31, 2011 - 9:35 pm
I think the key thing is that winning a FPTP seat for the first time takes concentrated work no matter what party you are from.
For me while our levels of supports are important it’s also our organisational capapcity and our will to actually win more seats.
In Brighton it took a mere 13 years to go from deposit losing humiliation to winning the seat. Which seat in Scotland will the Scottish Greens actually serously try to win in 14 years time?
If it’s “none of them we concentrate on other elections” then the answer is that the Scottish Greens wont win any seats in Westminster ever.
I’m convinced it can be done and can fit very nicely with a strategy to win new councillors, our first Green MEP in Scotland and more Holyrood seats next time – but it can only be done if the party makes it happen (and sadly even then there are no guarentees).
#19 by rlemkin on May 31, 2011 - 9:46 pm
Perhaps a case for a targeted constituency strategy in Edinbugh at Holyrood to compliment Westminster?
#20 by jim jepps on May 31, 2011 - 9:50 pm
It may be a case of having a Glasgow and Edinburgh priority seat and a second tier of Parliamentary seats (one per region?) as back ups… but whatever the plan I think we just need to recognise it wont happen overnight but we’re working on a ten, fifteen year cycle to make it happen.
That’s my opinion anyway, I’m sure lots of SGPers would say that its pointless trying.
#21 by Stephen Wood on May 31, 2011 - 10:09 pm
I’d agree Jim. It all comes back to capacity-building – we need, more than ever, to be supporting small local parties in creating a robust organisational structure and concentrating their energies on winning single Council seats. I’d love to hear more about our current Local Party Support strategy to see if this is in hand.
#22 by Ross on May 31, 2011 - 10:59 pm
AS an SGPer I completely agree with Jim. The effective targetting Caroline displayed in Brighton and Adrian is displaying in Norwich is exacr=tly where our success lies. We need to target like this.
i strongly disagreed with the decision not to defend the 12.5% we achieved in Glasgow Kelvin. That is the kind of result we absolutely must defend and now it is lost.
The effective targetting of very specific areas is a must if we are to progress in Scotland.
We need a review of Target To Win at party conference where we decide on a more comprehensive direction for the party.
#23 by Geraint on May 31, 2011 - 11:55 pm
I’m with Rlemkin. Pretty graphs, but nothing we didn’t know. People who support other parties may be sympathetic to greens and willing to offer 2nd preference votes etc. if we didn’t have FPTP. Whereas non-BNP supporters detest the BNP with a passion. No surprise.
#24 by douglas clark on June 1, 2011 - 1:52 am
That is very interesting. I’d like to see the analysis you did for smaller (sorry!) parties applied to larger ones too. I assume it would be skewed in the other direction, but it would be fascinating to know.
#25 by douglas clark on June 1, 2011 - 1:54 am
I am ‘awaiting moderation’ again!
What have I done?
#26 by James on June 1, 2011 - 7:51 am
Not logged in?
#27 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 9:26 am
There’s still no log in link, James! Only those of us with the log in link in our internet history can log in.
#28 by douglas clark on June 1, 2011 - 11:02 am
Could be that James! Although I haven’t needed to log in for yonks. Could you tell me what to do? You don’t appear to have a contact e-mail address or I’d have used that rather than write here.
#29 by James on June 1, 2011 - 11:08 am
And now there’s a login link back on the front page!
#30 by douglas clark on June 1, 2011 - 11:47 am
James – thanks for that!
#31 by Doug Daniel on June 1, 2011 - 1:44 pm
Lovely stuff. The system works!
#32 by Chris on June 1, 2011 - 7:51 am
The writer seems to think that there’s a UK Green party…?
#33 by James on June 1, 2011 - 7:52 am
True, true, but let’s read it as “Greens in the UK” and not worry about it!
#34 by Gavin Hamilton on June 1, 2011 - 4:20 pm
For whom it may concern.
Great work on Holyrood 2011 section.
One piece of info which could be useful and is missing are turnout figures (unless I have been a fathead and didn’t spot it 🙂 )
#35 by James on June 1, 2011 - 6:10 pm
We’ve got them for the constituencies, but not the regions yet.
#36 by Gavin Hamilton on June 1, 2011 - 7:57 pm
Thanks.
Useful to slot that info in the constituency read-outs if you’ve got the data.
#37 by ioan on June 7, 2011 - 12:39 pm
And a Welsh perspective:
http://miserableoldfart.blogspot.com/2011/06/green-monster.html