Adopted Domain Feed

The Genius of Councillor Rose

Adopted Domain — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:08:38 +0000

Councillor Rose is one of only a handful of Edinburgh councillors who keeps a useful blog. It's part neighbourhood notice board, part his personal opinion and part reports (his take) on council business. If only more councillors kept blogs like this then people might have more of an idea what they're voting for come elections. That doesn't change the fact that he's a Tory though, and so I'm unlikely to agree with him on many things.

Recently he's been in the papers, opposing the installation of traffic lights at a junction with an awful safety record, and on a safer route to school. The upgrade will cost £200k but is clearly safer than 'improving road markings and signage' which is the cheaper option that he prefers. Here's what he's quoted as saying in the Evening News:

"At the moment, what is on the table is probably the most expensive option and it does not address other issues about the stop/start of traffic and the increased pollution it will cause. There are also other downsides, which taken together mean there are better alternatives.

"This is about local shops and businesses as well and it's more about cycling because it's cyclists who have taken the hit in terms of casualties."

The air pollution straw man is not a problem and given the junctions safety record, more lives will be saved by installing the traffic lights than lost due to the marginal local increase in air pollution.

So Cllr Rose seems to be left on the dubious ground that local business profits should come before cyclists safety at this junction. Oh dear. Not only does this sound callous in the extreme, but he is also wrong if he thinks that promoting free traffic flow will benefit local businesses. Research shows that business owners consistently over-estimate the importance of car access for their customers, and under-estimate the value of providing an appealing pedestrian environment to their customers.

To be fair, on his blog Cllr Rose does claim that he'd like to see the money saved by adopting his proposals invested in the proposed George Square to Kings Buildings cycle route, but that doesn't really solve the safety problem at this junction does it? And it belies an erroneous way of thinking about cycling and cyclists, one that tries to corral cyclists onto "approved" routes, rather promoting safety by design for all road users, throughout the city.

Besides. It hardly does justice to the 4 year long campaign that local parents from nearby Sciennes Primary School have run to see the junction improved. Fortunately, it would seem it's the parents that have won the day.

Breaking up the banks will cost £40 Billion anyway. Why not remutualise?

Adopted Domain — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:53:43 +0000

News this weekend that Labour plan to force Lloyds and RBS to sell off large tranches of their branches, especially in Scotland is presumably a good thing. Not many people would argue that the dominance of a tiny number of mega-banks is doing anyone any favours, especially in Scotland, where the demise of HBOS is sorely felt. Even in Leith, if you want a bank with a branch in the neighbourhood people only have a choice between banks owned by Lloyds, RBS and Santander. I can imagine that in many small Scottish towns choice barely exists, if it ever existed before the credit crunch anyway.

However, as the papers digest the mechanics of these break-ups it seems that the best Labour are hoping for is that either Tesco, or Virgin Money will take on these new branch networks, because they will at least appear to be British. Frankly, I can't see Tesco taking on a branch network. They've got their own ubiquitous bricks and mortar portfolio that already spans the country. Why buy up a whole network of shops, most of which won't be big enough to accomodate a Tesco Metro? I can't see it. And as for Virgin? Well it's just a brand that wraps around other people's money - money that the Guardian says would probably be foreign anyway.

So, it looks as though, after all the UK tax payers money, Labour are going to have to spend another £40 Billion of tax payer cash to sell the assets to one or more foreign owned banks. This sounds like an immensely expensive own-goal. At some points during the banking crisis it looked as if the treasury were considering returning some of the tax payer owned banks to mutual status, but these ideas seem to have been dismissed as too complicated, and not lucrative enough in the short term.

Even if remutualising one, or all, of these de-merged banks is more expensive in the short term, even if it is immensely complicated, surely the right decision is to remutualise? The only people who'll benefit from a quick fire sale of UK Banking plc to foreign capital are the Labour politicians who'll be able to make a few headlines about paying down the national debt - presumably they'll want those headlines in time for the election too.

But over time a sale to other foreign mega-banks will see more money, more power, and more business credibility sucked out of the UK and repatriated elsewhere. We've already seen how a Lloyds Banking group are seeking to cut their funding for charities and good causes. How committed will foreign owned banks be to investing in the communities where the operate?

And when it's gone, it's gone. Labour, and perhaps the Tories who may follow them, have an historic opportunity to reshape UK banking for the good of all UK citizens - and bring an end to the era of 'Casino Capitalism'.

Some people have proposed that Labour could bring back the Trust Savings Bank in Scotland as a mutual bank, true to it's orignal aims of providing affordable banking services to the poorest in society. What a great idea, and one that would help to bring trust and stability to retail banking. It would also help to maintain resources in Scotland for the benefit of Scottish people. But most importantly it would be a fantastic symbol to people that politicians aren't just the servants of big, private capital in the city. It would show that that there is value in mutual ownership and control that is, in fact, priceless.

Lloyds TSB Foundation Must Keep It's Independence

Adopted Domain — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:38:47 +0000

Another day and another tale of breath taking bankers arrogance and selfish pursuit of "profit at any cost" hitting the poorest and most marginalised of society. Details emerge in todays Sunday Times on the 'new covenant' that the Lloyds banking group is attempting to foist upon Lloyds TSB Foundation in Scotland.

The foundation, which is the largest independent grant giving foundation in Scotland, was set up as part of the deal to float the TSB in 1985. It is governed by an act of covenant that sees 1% of the Lloyds banking groups pre-tax profit distributed to good causes via the foundation, and it's sister foundations in Ireland, England and Wales.

This arrangement was set up by an Act of Parliament and since then the foundation has supported a huge range of causes - many of which would not get funding from other sources - and distributed many millions of pounds in the process.

Of course, the downside of this arrangement is that it means that when Lloyds makes no profits, the foundation gets no cash, and charities all over Scotland miss out on the grants. The credit crunch, and it's impact on Lloyds banking group, has forced the Lloyds TSB foundation to close the doors to new applications this year.

However, one would hope that the lack of profits at Lloyds is a temporary problem (certainly judging by the extortionate new overdraft charges they're bringing in at new acquisition Bank of Scotland). As we see banks returning to profit, and the business as usual bonus culture return among the 'supermen' of canary wharf, it is absolutely appalling to see the fat cats, bailed out by public cash, at the top of Lloyds refusing to make any kind of deal with the charity for this year - unless they agree to a change in that convenant. And what a change.

It will see the proportion of the profits of the Lloyds banking group that the foundation receives halved forever - and if that wasn't enough - Lloyds banking group also want to direct a proportion of the money donated to support corporate goals. That's right - half your money and you're losing your independence. To put that in perspective, it's estimated that the deal Lloyds banking group are offering would take £22million out the Scottish voluntary sector over the next 10 years. Relations are so bad that the foundation has had to go public, and on the very front page of their website there's a statement that gives some indication of their frustration:

"As you would expect, we have been engaged in ongoing discussions with Lloyds Banking Group in London to explore a range of options on how best to enable us to continue our work until the Group returns to profit. But, to date, these have failed due to the Group seeking to tie the offer of a funding package for the next four years to a reduction in the terms of the covenant through which we get our income and a loss of the Foundation’s independent status. A counter offer by the Foundation five weeks ago has not had a response to date."

What kind of arrogance is required in the Lloyds banking group board room to think that after the bank bail-out, after all the public subsidy - that they then have the right to blackmail the foundation, and alter a covenant set-up by an act of parliament in the interests of a large corporation?

Oh yes - and in the Herald it would appear that the bank might be illegally excluding the foundation from participating in rights issues. Could it be that the bank owes the foundation £2million? The whole sorry mess is immensely depressing, as yet again it is the poorest and most marginalisedand who will lose out.

For all the rhetoric about 'Corporate Social Responsibility' we hear from the large corporations that control so much of our lives, it's clear that Lloyds have strayed a very long way from the aims of the original founder of the Trustee Savings Bank Movement, the Reverend Henry Duncan, who originally set up the TSB in Dumfriesshire in 1810 with the aim of helping the poorest and most marginalised of his poorest paritioners.

But the really strange part is this. The government owns a majority stake in Lloyds Banking group. If ever there was an indication of the absymal lack of leadership from Labour, it's the fact that the Lloyds TSB Foundation chiefs have had to go public on this at all. Alistair Darling, make a phone call, for goodness sake.

Tactically Voting in Edinburgh East? Not Likely!

Adopted Domain — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:57:55 +0000

Because of the first past the post voting system in Westminster - elections throw everyone into the position of having to vote tactically and second guess how everyone else is going to vote. There is of course a general election looming, and so my thoughts have been turning recently - even as a green party member - to whom I should vote for.

Currently, I have Gavin Strang, a Labour MP, whom I've found singularly uninspiring as an MP, although he did at least vote against the Iraq War and replacing Trident. Most recently, I was disappointed to learn he voted against supporting the recent motion to support the 10:10 campaign, although I note that he's listed as being a 'moderate' supporter of climate change legislation on theyworkforyou.com

The trouble is of course, that whilst I want action from Westminster on environmental issues, climate change, and change on voting systems and transparency issues - all things a Green MP would be likely to major on - it's extremely unlikely that the Edinburgh East constituency will elect a Green MP. So, logically, what's to do?

Well, the SNP are alledgedly 'resurgent' in Scotland, and so let's check out their candidate. It's none other than George Kerevan, Scotsman columnist, with no website (OK, there's this blank joomla template). So the only way we can figure out anything he might beleive is through his columns: http://news.scotsman.com/georgekerevan

Oops! Most of those columns are premium content. I'm not so keen to read him that I'm going to pay. Fortunately, the grumpy spindoctor reveals a bit more info. It's not good reading. It turns out George quite likes Nuclear power, to put it mildly. So, I won't be voting for George. In fact, I'd consider voting tactically to stop him.

Sheila Gilmore is set to replace Gavin Strang for Labour, and in previous careers (both hers and mine), I had some dealings with her. And frankly I feel ambivalent about her. Neither inspired, nor offensive, I remember finding her hard to read. She was reasonably eloquent about explaining the case for Housing stock transfer, but we all know now that that wasn't enough to persuade Edinburgh tenants that she genuinely felt that stock transfer was the right way to go, and that she wasn't just pushing a new labour policy for the sake of it. I somehow have a gut feeling that she will simply tow the party line were she to be elected. Lobby fodder for the westminster party elite - at least on the issues that matter to me at any rate.

And the LibDems? Well they haven't confirmed their candidate yet. So not much to go on there. They did get the 2nd largest share of the vote at the last general election, although now that Kenny MacKaskill is the SNP MSP there, George is seen as the main challenger these days. Besides, I find the LibDems the slipperiest of all political parties - what exactly would I be voting for if I voted LibDem? Without a face, I don't know. And besides, if they are 3rd place contenders now, they're not worth considering for a tactical vote.

So, if I were to tactically vote, what should I do?

If I felt that Labour would consider a 'stop the Tories' coaltion with the Libdems, then I might be persuaded to vote Labour to tactically push that alliance - not that the Lib/Lab coalition did much for the environment when in power in Scotland. I'm assuming Gordon would be kicked out whatever happens. In Westminster there's a chance they might do a bit better - again a gut feeling, based on the LibDem front bench in London.

Or should I hold my nose and vote SNP, increasing Georges chances of getting elected in the hope that he'll tow the 'no nuclear in Scotland' party line and rein in his Tory loving tendencies? Will Alex Salmond pull off his 20 MP's and will the numbers stuck up so that Westminster does indeed have to start dancing to Scottish jig? Another gut feeling, but that seems unlikely too. It seems more likely that the SNP block will end up larger, but ultimately they'll keep bleating pointlessly in Westminster, as irrelevant as usual. And besides, Nuclear power pledges aside, they SNP have not impressed me in government in Scotland.

Given all that murk and uncertainty, it seems I only have once choice afterall. To Vote Green - and hope that more people vote green too. We might not get an MP elected, but it may be the best way to put pressure on whoever does get elected to vote the right way on green issues. Of course, it would be nice to see the voting system changed, so that I didn't have to go through the process I've just been through. But until then...

Tram Costs Up - Why won't the SNP pay?

Adopted Domain — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:37:48 +0000

Interesting reporting from Douglas Fraser on the costs of Edinburghs Tram project. Whichever way you look at it, the council doesn't have encough cash to pay for the tram - legal issues, delays and the recession mean that the current funding on the table looks short. However, being a tram supporter, I can't help but feel disappointed in the SNP continued sniping at the tram project.

The question is who should carry the extra costs? The SNP won't - they'd rather waste cash on a new Forth Road Bridge, that we might not even need. A bridge that could easily have been funded by tolls, except oops, the SNP axed the tolls, in a populist bid to woo the single occupant car driving commuters of Fife.

The SNP seem to enjoy using the 'who'll pay for the essential new bridge?' cry as a stick to beat all other transport policy questions down with. They get to blame Labour in Westminster for not letting them borrow more cash, either from London, or elsewhere.

They also like to pretend that the Tram is Labours follly - despite the fact that the whole Scottish parliament backed the project in the face of more SNP opportunitst opposition. Despite the fact that the tram, even before it is finished is helping to support investment in the city. There's currently at least 4 major hotel developments planned along the Leith section of the tram route. Would that investment be coming without the tram? I doubt it. Would investors be so keen to rebuild the hated St James centre at the east end of Princes Street without it? I doubt it.

Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that the Edinburgh Council will be left to cover the rising cost of the project. Either that, or Lothian Buses will be saddled with the extra debt when the firm is merged with the TIE. Whatever happens, it looks as though it will be Edinburgh residents who suffer with poorer services.

Can that be avoided? Yes, if the SNP are prepared to work constructively. Some predict as a worse case scenario that the Tram project could cost upwards of £700million. Thats a big increase on the £545million that the proposed project was planned to cost. But that cost increase is nothing compared to the £455million pound cost increase that has beset the M74 motorway extension. Despite the fact that those 5 miles of road are now costing the tax payer £80K a metre, the SNP keeps paying up. Despite the fact that we could raise the cash to pay for a new Forth bridge with tolls.

So, the message from the SNP is massive cost overruns on road building projects = fine (in fact we'd like to waste more cash on them). Cost overruns on public transport projects = disaster (and we're going to scrap them first).

Presumably the SNP daren't whisper a peep about the M74, now that they've pulled the glasgow airport rail link - lest they give more ammunition to Labours 'Anti-Glasgow SNP' rhetoric. Even though the M74 project was instigated, like the tram, by Labour. Even though the M74 project has been described as the worst planning decision ever made by the devolved administration in Scotland.

Meanwhile the Edinburgh SNP establishment seems to get more anti-Edinburgh by the day - I suppose this recent post from Calum Cashley is supposed to be funny? As a one off, maybe it is. But the corrosive talking down of Edinburgh from the SNP is depressing. They're supposed to be in government, in holyrood and further up the Royal Mile. I wish they'd act like it.

At The Bank of Scotland Fireworks Last Night...

Adopted Domain — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:02:53 +0000

Last night, I was lucky to be amongst 10 Greener Leith volunteers who managed to get to the Bank of Scotland Fireworks Concert last night. The annual celebration is allegedly the biggest fireworks display in Europe, or the Universe of something, and whilst we tried not to ponder what the CO2 emissions of the event must be, we were amused by the introduction. I paraphrase...

"The Bank of Scotland Fireworks is sponsored by Bank Of Scotland. For the first time this year Bank Of Scotland donated 7 million tickets to good causes throughout the city, as a way to celebrate the work that volunteer groups undertake. Bank of Scotland would like to say thank you and have a fantastic night at the Bank of Scotland fireworks. Bank of Scotland also donated a further 20 million tickets to our charity of the year, charity x, and this enabled them to raise £100billion billion pounds. Bank of Scotland would also like to thank everyone who bought a ticket from charity x and we hope you too have a marvelous night."

Of course it's marvelous too that Bank of Scotland does this. However, I'm sure we overheard from the group sitting next to us...

"And Bank of Scotland would like to thank everyone here for their kind donation to the Bank of Scotland, without which the Bank of Scotland Fireworks could not go ahead. In particular the Bank of Scotland would like to thank Alasdair Darling whose constituency is very nearby, for his continuing support... "

Ethical Investment Clearly Does Work

Adopted Domain — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:52:36 +0000

Interesting to read that an Aberdeen based company called Ramco is to get out of Oil and Gas to focus purely on developing offshore wind power. Clearly the main driver in all this is to try and make pots of cash from the billions that is apparently directed toward developing offshore wind.

However, I found it interesting that one of the factors the company cites for rebranding itself to become 'SeaEnergy' and for getting out of oil and gas was the fact that ethical investment cash won't flow their way whilst they're so tightly linked to the oil and gas industry.

Clearly, it's starting to pay to be Green if companies like this sea an economic advantage in acting ethically. I used to wonder whether ethical investment funds really made any difference. Here's a clear example that they do.

Here's the original BBC article.

Greens Zero Growth Call Is Dumb

Adopted Domain — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:02:11 +0000

You may not see explicit calls for 'zero growth' in any green party manifesto these days, but I still hear environmental activists celebrating the recession. This post was inspired by my frustration at the quality of the debate at the recent Festival of Politics Debate - 'From Economic Crash to Eco Recovery'.

I'm a member of the Green party. I want them to get elected more often. But, in my opinion, one of the key issues that prevents the Greens from getting more votes is that apparent 'zero growth,' policy stance.

To many people, calling for Zero Growth sounds immoral. And in many senses it is. After all it is growth in our economy that pays for improvements to our health service, our education system and provides our pensions. Therefore when rich greens call for zero growth, and complain about our sick society that suffers so much from "affluenza," it is no wonder that it looks to poorer folk, who rely on what public services we have, as astonishing hypocrisy.

And then when poorer greens themselves argue for 'zero growth,' at best it can sound to many like a yearning for some romantic agricultural past when we were "poorer but happier". At worst it sounds naively anti-establishment. But the script is the same..

We are apparently more unhappy than ever before, or at least no happier because we have flat panel TVs....And so the standard pitch goes...The neo-malthusian mega crunch is impending any day now - and we're about to be hit by peak oil, peak wood, peak fish, peak water, peak food, and a climate change catastrophe in all places at once, and judgement day on the evil free market capitalists shall surely come. But those with solar panels on the roof shall be saved...to live in a steady state financial system that's a peaceful and ecologically harmonious utopia.

Whoops that last bit is never actually said, but often implied. Surely we need to change the record? Too many greens sound like crazed southern preachers to me. We all know Environmental Armageddon is a tough message to sell at the ballot box, so let's look for solutions, not add to the problem.

Greens have used the battering ram of science and rationality to win the early arguments on climate change. To a lesser extent, at least in Scotland, rational argument has won the day on the nuclear power debate too. Is there much rationality in the call for zero growth - or 'steady state' economics - if you prefer?

I don't see it. Economic growth is not the same as an increase in the use of physical resources - although historically they are closely correlated. To many greens the planet is a 'closed system', and therefore it is self evident there are limits to growth. There are undoubtedly limits to the growth of our use of finite resources, notably oil. But there are many resources in the world - and what we understand as global resource today, could be superseded, or augmented by other unimagined resources tomorrow. Even that closed system of 'renewable resources' is not as fixed as many people imagine.

For example, in many parts of our oceans we've long passed 'peak fish' - as local fisheries have been exploited beyond their 'maximum sustainable yield' (MSY). A short term boom, is followed by a long economic decline, as more and more fishermen scramble about for less and less fish. But in places where research and regulation work well together, fish stocks are showing some signs of recovery. And so, with improved knowledge and regulation the MSY from fisheries could grow. What green could argue against growth in a sustainably managed fishing industry?

The reality is, that for many of our renewable resources, from fish to fresh water, our local knowledge and the quality of our regulation is so poor, that we are miles from 'sustainable management.' Around the world, in many places, we know when we've over exploited our resources, our yields are starting to go down, but we haven't yet got the capability of stopping the decline in yields, let alone figuring out the best way to grow yields sustainably. Surely that is what Greens should be arguing for globally? A simplistic 'zero growth' stance, offers nothing to anyone.

And of course, the prices we pay for our resources are affected by more than just supply and demand. The global 'free' market is heavily regulated, and set up to benefit some and not others. That affects prices. Political instability affects prices. It's unlikely there will ever be a biblical style global environmental judgement day. Instead we'll probably see an increasing number of shocks to our system - these too will affect prices. So perhaps we should be looking again at nature for inspiration.

If Gaia really is self-regulating - how can we make our economic system more self-regulating? What can we learn from the most resilient ecosystems? How can we redesign our economy to make it more resilient, and better able to withstand external shocks? Nothing in nature is in stasis - so why should that be a green party policy aim for our economy?

Instead of zero growth - lets demand resilient growth, genuine sustainable growth, equitable growth and so forth. Significant changes to the way we regulate our economies to make them more sustainable are needed, and these will cause economic, and yes social, pain. We must do this if we are to prevent the greater catastrophe - runaway climate change. But, why then within this, do some Greens pour salt on the wound by demanding zero growth, or worse celebrating global recession, too?

As we've learnt, recessions mean a decline in the amount of cash to pay for pensions, health care, and all the other public services we rely on - and these things make us happy, even if we don't admit it when we're asked in surveys. These things are progress. As our population grows, it is growth in our economy that pays for these things and improves them.

'More' is not always 'better' - that is obvious. But 'less', or even 'the same' is not always 'better' either. Given that we're going to struggle to support ourselves as it is, we're going to need as much "good growth" as we can get. Let's stop the 'zero growth' chat - and focus on working out what "good" growth actually is, and how we, as greens, might deliver it.

Yes Mr Strang, We'll Have To Agree To Disagree

Adopted Domain — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:11:06 +0000

I just got a reply to my Letter that I sent to Gavin Strang MP, where I asked him to support the Vote For A Change Campaign. After saying that he supported PR for Scottish Parliament as he was woried that people would have perceived that it would be dominated by the Central belt and West of Scotland because of Labours strength, bizzarely he goes on to say that a PR system for Westminster would not be appropriate. So PR is good enough for provincial parliaments, but not Westminster.

Firstly, he says that it's important to preserve a constituency link between the MP and the people that they're supposed to represent. He reckons it's stronger under First Past The Post (FPTP), than other systems. I don't agree. Afterall, I don't seem to be in agreement with Mr Strang on this issue, and I didn't vote for him in the first place. Perhaps if there were two or three people elected to represent my constituency, one of whom I'd voted for, maybe I'd find someone amongst them to take up my cause more seriously in parliament?

Secondly, he claims that FPTP makes it easy for people to vote a government out, as opposed to a coalition administration that might be likley under some for of PR. Being a Labour MP, getting voted out may be at the forefront of Mr Strangs mind at the moment, however, I really don't understand this point. Labour is currently in power, but on what proportion of the votes cast? In 2005, Labour only received 35% of the vote, on a low turnout. Why then should they have such a huge majority in Westminster? This indicates to me that unpopular governments are as hard to get rid of under the current system as any other.

Thirdly, Mr Strang thinks that PR systems give a disproportionate amount of long-term influence to 'a third party'. It's true that PR systems have the potential to give power to a minority interest in parliament, but then FPTP systems exclude small parties entirely. I think most people would agree that the Additional Member System that has elected Greens, Socialists and other independents to the Scottish Parliament has helped to improve the breadth of debate in Holyrood. Similar things could be said of the Welsh assembly and the London Assembly.

To me it sounds as though Mr Strang would prefer to keep the cosy two party system running in Westminster for as long as possible. Which is pretty surprising really, as you would have thought they'd be trying to work out a coalition deal with the LibDems in time for the next general election. Now that it looks like Brown has seen off the plotters, it's the only way I can imagine that Labour might stay in power in Westminster in the next parliament.

Democracy Seems So Unfair Sometimes

Adopted Domain — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:19:03 +0000

If you're in the Greens that is.The Greens haven't had a reversal of fortune in the euro elections, far from it - although the Greens story is almost absent from the mainstream reporting. In fact they've grown their vote more than any other party nationally, and they seem to be well set-up for more electoral success in their stronghold areas down south, like Brighton.

The sad part is, this hasn't been enough to get the Greens more MEPs, and the gains aren't as big as I was hoping. Of course, I'm particularly disappointed that we didn't get a Green MSP in Scotland, although it looks as though the Greens took the biggest share of the vote in Scotland that they've ever taken.

Nationally, the turn-out was dismal, and the disillusionment with 'business as usual' parties palpable. Politics seems to have splintered into all sorts of unpredictable and strange directions - the most inexplicable is the dirft to the right represented by the fact that the Tories vote held up, and a surprisingly strong UKIP vote. It is astonishing to see the Tories do so well in Wales, for example, whilst the SNP have also made history - coming top in a national poll for the first time.

The fact that the BNP gained two MEP's is really depressing, especially considering that less people voted for them in this election than in the last Euro election. So even though there has in reality been a downturn in support for the BNP, they have gained because so few people on the left bothered to vote.

In times of economic strife you'd perhaps expect Left leaning parties to do better. It's hardly a surprise that Labour are down. But I was surprised to see the LibDems down too. This seems to leave the Greens as the only 'progressive' left leaning party to have gained something out of these Euro elections. The trouble is that gain was not enough.