GreenerWorld

As usual, it is the Greens who deliver the strongest vote for the least money spent. We don't target unnecessarily but we do give people the opportunity to vote Green each and every time because we are a serious political party.

If we had the resources of UKIP at our disposal in an election like this, we would do far, far better. Fundraising is perhaps the biggest obstacle to Green electoral progress but we'll be electing our first (Eurosceptic) leader Caroline Lucas in September. Expect to see big progress from us and a big increase in donations.

Our polling in the last month, in respect of a General Election, has included:

ComRes 5% Green
Populus 5% Green
Ipsos Mori 4% Green

BNP and UKIP are around 2% and 1% respectively.

gc

I think that the Greens are like the BNP in some respects, in that there is a core vote that will turn out whether there is a campaign mounted or not.

In my neck of the woods we always had that with the National Front: They could always rely on about 700 votes in Bermondsey, even if their campaign consisted solely of some stickers proclaiming "Stand by loyal Ulster"!

In 2005, however, we had a terrific candidate, and we beat the NF hands down. I was always particularly proud of that one, even more so than drubbing the BNP in the mayoral elections in 2004.

I don't campaign for FUKIP, however, but I do look forward to getting back into the fray when we have a new leader. Not until then.

Hunter

Point 1: A UKIP branch was disbanded because the chairman 'shared' a platform with the BNP?

I really am glad I didn't join the UKIP. This kind of narrow-mindedness is what has shown the mainsteam parties (plus the Green Party - if the GLA election was anything to go by) for the hypocrites they are. Is this an indication that UKIP will follow the lead of the other Parties in order to gain 'credibility'?

Point 2: Synonymous with the BNP and lost votes.

This would prove that the electorate have no idea who or what UKIP is, or what they stand for. Considering the votes received, how can you be sure that UKIP would have 'lost' votes just because of their chairman and the BNP? Or are UKIP claiming people didn't vote for them bacause they thought UKIP and BNP were the same?


As someone who has monitored foreign elections, don't you think the system in this country, and in particular the way in which the BNP is being treated, would be classed elsewhere as 'illegal' at worse, or 'irregular' at best?

Would you report the deliberate attempts by other parties to deny another Party freedom of speech or debate as against the spirit of Democracy? Or would you ignore it and let the rules be broken?

Ken

This is the delusion of moral superiority which often covers for lack of moral fibre. You really don't have brand like the bnp do and your atttempts to rur away from criticism show the party as weak and that will bring them down in the long run. The bnp look strong and capable in comparison.
People will sooner or later lose their fear of the bnp because the stories about them seem ridiculous and we all know or know of a member and they are nice people so they must all be alright.

Hunter

Very true Ken. I believe it show how much the other Parties 'fear' the BNP that they will not stand and debate any issue with us. Their own Policies are, at best, weak, which is why they have to adopt BNP ideas and Policies, twist them a little, and call them their own. An example being 'immigration'. When we initially put the idea out that there had to be a stop put on the 'open door' policy, everyone else said it was because we're 'racist'. Now look at them - they all have their own immigration ideas.

And that is just the tip of the 'iceberg'.

Shaun

UKIP spent £17,000 on the Henley campaign.
Henley on Thames - Lib-Dem's bid to win seat