Today is formally my last day as an MEP.

I have enjoyed (almost) every minute of it, including the discussions and debates with those whose views are radically different from mine, be they from other political parties or from the Eurosceptic brigade (who at least show some interest in European matters, unlike the apathetic multitude).

It has been a privelege to represent Yorkshire & Humber in the European Parliament and to do my best to ensure democratic scrutiny of those matters that we choose to decide jointly with our neighboring countries.

One advantage of a political death - as opposed to the real thing - is that one gets to read one's own obituaries and other comments. As one would expect of someone involved in political life, they are mixed.

I was surprised and delighted when the BBC website carried the following comment from their European editor, Mark Mardell:

"The saddest moment of the night: Labour MEP Richard Corbett lost his seat. Irrespective of party politics, there are some people who are good for politics as a whole. Mr Corbett, a decent, thoughtful politician, is also one of the few people who understand how the European Parliament actually works and explained it well. He'll be missed on all sides of the chamber.

Mark had previously referred to me as:

"an example of a conscientious and hard working politician if ever there was one"

which was very kind.

Meanwhile, The Economist's Charlemagne column/blog said:

"Mr Corbett and I hardly share identical views on the European Parliament, the EU, or the Lisbon treaty. But, like many journalists, I always enjoyed talking to him, because he was extremely knowlegable, decent and fair, and a shrewd observer of Britain's strange relationship with Europe"

The previous Chairman of the House of Lords European scrutiny committee (not from my party) said:

"I was physically sickened on learning of your defeat. The blows to you personally, to the EP and to the EU as a whole are hard to measure. You have been a rock of good sense, huge wisdom and unflagging dedication"

and I could go on, with quotes from across across the political spectrum and across Europe.

But not everyone had a positive view. The Eurosceptic "British Democracy Forum", for example, contained a few gems:

"Richard Corbett embodies all that is evil in this world. The man should be dispatched from this planet without delay. Simply voting him out of office is not enough .... he should be executed.."

and

"What a truly glorious moment that such a contemptible figure as Richard Corbett was voted out"

and

"This is the one result I wanted. Richard 'Lord Haw Haw' Corbett is the lowest of beasts"

Again, I could go on.

But it is in particular the thousands of individuals with no axe to grind who have written, phoned or emailed, whose views I particularly cherish and I would like to thank them all for their overwhelmingly generous comments.

Political balances in the new Parliament

As the dust begins to settle, what is the wider impact of the European election result on the European Parliament?

The most commented on aspect is the setback for the Socialists and the strengthening of the centre-right EPP - though the latter effect is negated by the loss of the British Conservatives, who hope to form their own, separate Group.

Yet the EPP cannot easily build a right-wing majority in the Parliament. The parties to its right are fragmented and are mostly people with whom they would not wish to be associated.

The fascist right, despite gaining the two BNP seats in Britain, lost seats in France and Belgium, gained some in Hungary and Romania, but overall cannot form a political group (a key to influence in the European Parliament), which requires at least 25 MEPs from a quarter (7) of the Member States, unless the Northern League of Italy joins them, which I hear is unlikely. Even if then, it is likely that their strongest common feature - hatred of foreigners - will make it difficult for them to work together for very long.

The eurosceptic right did not fare well in the elections. UKIP's "Independence & Democracy" Group failed to win enough seats to constitute a Group, having lost ALL its seats in Poland, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. Even in Britain, despite the gift of the Westminster expenses scandal, it gained only a single seat. As to Libertas, it failed dismally, with even Declan Ganley's millions failing to win him a seat.

The Conservatives are desparately trying to build their own group - but finding it difficult to do so without taking on board some frankly embarrassing partners. Their flight to the fringes is still viewed as madness by most Conservative MEPs - see for instance Caroline Jackson's comments to the BBC yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8096297.stm). It is unlikely that the EPP will see them as a partner, given that they have just walked out on their former colleagues, slamming the door.

Finally, the UEN (Union for a Europe of Nations) Group could well disappear. Its mainstays, Fianna Fail is set to join the Liberals and the former Italian AN has been absorbed into the EPP member in Italy. Their main leftover, the Polish PiS, is one of the Tories potential new partners - though their overt homophobia might yet prove too embarrassing for the latter.

All in all, those to the right of the EPP have enough numerically to constitute one or even two political Groups (given that the European Parliament has a lower threshold than most national parliaments for constituting Groups), but actually doing so requires the creation of alliances that are highly problematic - and even if they are successful, they will not be natural allies for the EPP.

Instead, the EPP will have to deal with parties of the centre and the centre-left. Even with the Liberals, they cannot obtain a majority. They will have to bargain with the Socialists and/or the Greens. The left cannot by itself get its way in this parliament, but nor can it be easily circumvented.

election result

Thanks to all those who have been calling or emailing with sympathy for my losing my seat in the European election count yesterday. Losing is one thing - ceding a seat to the BNP is another.


Local elections and European elections always see a proportion of the electorate voting on national issues. This time, there was next to no European content - just one issue in the press and on the doorstep, that of the Westminster MPs expenses scandal.

Of course we knew that all the main parties would be hurt by the scandal, and Labour perhaps more than others as it is in government. People are rightly indignant about it and the main parties must be vigourous in dealing with their rotten apples if we are to restore trust in the democratic system.

What we did not expect was the additional hit to Labour's vote caused by Hazel Blears, choosing the day before polling to have her tantrum and resign dramatically from the cabinet, ensuring blanket media coverage of a Labour split just as people were preparing to vote. At least others waited until the close of poll. Hazel's actions treated with contempt not just her colleague Labour MEPs, but also kicked in the teeth the thousands of volunteers out campaigning to get the best possible result for Labour in already difficult circumstances. Given the closeness of the result in Yorkshire, it certainly gifted the BNP one of their two seats.

Silver linings? There was no surge to the BNP, which got fewer votes than last time (it was Labour's fall that helped them get past their target of more than half Labour's score in Yorks & Humber). UKIP's vote rose by a mere 0.3 percent - they would have lost most of their seats had it not been for the Westminster MPs expenses scandal. The Tories, looking to the next general election, are far from the sort of figure they would be wanting (their 28 percent is well below the 44 percent Labour were getting in the last European elections befor the 1997 general election).

In any case, we must now fight back. It will need lots of hard work, at all levels, but it can be done.

Westminster scandal leaves fringe parties to spread Euromyths unanswered

As the campaign for the European elections draws to a close it is apparent that the three main parties have been embroiled in the appalling Westminster expenses scandal leaving the field open to the minor parties who see this as their great opportunity to make headway. Not only have they benefitted directly from the expenses scandal but they have also found that no major party is focused enough on the European campaign ro effectively rebut the myths and lies they continuously spread about Europe.

Thus we have heard in recent weeks, without any effective rebuttal, that:

*70 to 80 percent of our legislation comes from the European Union, when according to the House of Commons library it's only nine percent

*MEPs are on an even bigger gravy train than MPs in Westminster, when in fact they are well ahead of Westminster in cleaning up their act

*That Britain pays £41 million a day into the EU budget, when our net contribution is a third of that and this figure anyway takes no account of the wider economic benefits which dwarf any such figures.

*That EU rules are "dictated by bureaucrats", when in fact bureaucrats only propose rules and it is elected and accountable MEPs and ministers that make the decisions.

Yet few people in the media are informed enough to counter these wild claims and Labour, Liberal and pro-European Conservatives have their minds elsewhere. It is to be hoped that, despite this, the UKIP-BNP axis does not gain seats in the European elections.

Gloomy weather on the campaign trail

I usually enjoy being out campaigning, putting arguments to people, entering into discussions, countering euromyths and arguing my case. This time, however, the mood is somewhat dampened by the weather: soaked in Sheffield, drenched in Dewsbury and even hailstones in Hull!

Of course, there is also another matter that has put a dampener on the elections – the question of the expenses of our Westminster colleagues. Public opinion has been rightly outraged by some of the revelations.

Clearly, the House of Commons system of allowing members to meet the cost of running a second home by claiming seemingly any household expenditure – without a tight definition of what qualifies – needs radical reform. Clearly, the judgement of many MPs in making claims within this system has to be questioned. It is also clear that those – from all parties – who have broken the rules or made inappropriate claims must be dealt with visibly and severely - as the Labour party has by immediately suspending certain MPs.

The system must be corrected and higher standards applied if public confidence in our elected representatives is to be restored. No doubt there are also rotten apples in the European Parliament too – and let us not forget that Ashley Mote, elected as one of the 12 UKIP MEPs at the last elections, actually went to jail for fraud during his term of office while another, Tom Wise, is currently facing prosecution. Last year, the Tories lost both their leader and Chief Whip in the European Parliament following allegations of financial misconduct.

But when all is said and done, when all the parties have cleaned their stables – as they must – there are still stark differences between them in what they stand for, in what they would do in government, or what they would do with their seats in the European Parliament. It is to be hoped that people will not lose sight of what elections are about: choice between competing policy options for the future – and not focus exclusively on the rotten apples, as long as the latter are being dealt with and if the system is being reformed.

Above all, a rush towards minor parties without duly checking what they stand for could subsequently be a cause for regret among many voters. Voting for the BNP is not voting for a squeaky clean, moderate alternative – it is voting for a Nazi party, which is no better demonstrated by their top candidate in Yorkshire, whose history of involvement in the extreme right and with neo-Nazis is clear for all to see. Voting for UKIP is voting for a party that is almost as extreme and would seek to tear Britain apart from its neighbouring countries and main export market (not to mention the MEPs elected for UKIP who have actually been jailed for fraud and charged with fiddling expenses). The Greens offer an apparently serious alternative, but their constant attempts to outdo every other party in terms of alleged “greenness” has often led to espousing some pretty untenable positions and, anyway, in most regions they do not have a chance of winning a seat. Certainly in Yorkshire & Humber, voting for them is a wasted vote in the battle to exclude the BNP.

I am finding on the doorsteps that once you get beyond the rightful indignation about some of the shenanigans in Westminster and come back to policy choices, the response to Labour’s message in the European elections becomes more positive. Not enthusiastic in all cases, but nonetheless, a recognition that it is clearly better than the alternatives.

UKIP employees give up the ghost on their party

I was surprised to be sent an interesting paper by two former UKIP researchers looking, amongst other things, at the possible outcome of the European elections: John Petley, who worked for the UKIP delegation in Brussels before resigning in mysterious circumstances last years; and Gary Cartwright, who is Tom Wise's researcher in the European Parliament. 

If these UKIP researchers are right, then UKIPs chances are disappearing down the toilet. They accuse Farage of a "spectacular failure to seize the initiative in leading the opposition to Lisbon in the UK", and then add, with more than a little hyperbole, that this was "one of the most calamitous errors in recent political history."

Moreover, they claim that UKIPs credibility "is at rock bottom, except in their South-West stronghold, where many members try to avoid mentioning their leader by name if they can help it". They conclude by asserting that "this June is likely to be Farage's - and UKIP's - swansong".

This is explosive stuff. It seems that even professional UKIP workers think that their party is a busted flush.

Intriguingly, Cartwright and Petley are pretty kind to the fascist British National Party. In their words, (and totally wrong - just check out their Yorkshire top candidate Andrew Brons), the BNP has "shaken off its neo-Nazi trappings, and has struck a chord with its focus on the dangers of Islam and immigration". Although they predict that the number of europhobic MEPs will be few in number, they predict that the BNP will win more seats than UKIP.

All the more reason to get out on the campaign trail to stop both these vile parties.

Despite problems, a good response

Despite what has been going on in Westminster over the last week or so, out on the doorsteps and streets in Yorkshire we have been getting a remarkably good response from people.

After starting today door-knocking in Huddersfield, where I only encountered one Tory (who after a long chat, promised me to vote Labour for the first time in his life on June 4th) and a quick sandwich in the delightful Great White Beare pub in Norwood Green, I joined John Prescott and Alistair Campbell's "Go 4th" minibus tour for a rally in Keighley town centre.

Together with Ann Cryer MP, who is retiring at the next election, and her successor as Labour candidate, the popular and hard working Jane Thomas, and my fellow euro-candidates Linda McAvan, Emma Hoddinott and Mahroof Hussain, we attracted quite a crowd with soapbox style speeches and discussion.

Then on to Bradford, where I had the honour to speak at the opend day of the Ahmadiyya Mosque, whose youth wing is carrying out an explanation and outreach campaign with local communities to increase understanding and diminish prejudice and fear.

Finally to Leeds to re-join the Go4th team where Hilary Benn, myself, Alistair Campbell and John Prescott addressed an enthusiastic audience in Leeds Civic Centre.

There is no doubt that mistakes have been made at Westminster, whether the culprit is seen as the government (the Gurkha issue) or all parties (MPs' expenses). But the public is also aware that there are substantial policy differences between Labour and the Conservatives, who on Europe want to isolate Britain (and force their own MEPs to sit with extremist fringe parties) and on the domestic front want to let market forces run their course rather than intervene to make the recession shorter and shallower and help people through the recession. (Correction: they do want to help the richest 3,000 families in Britain through their proposed inheritance tax cut.) These differences do matter and people are becoming increasingly aware of them.

Isolation vs co-operation

The European elections are shaping up to a battle between those who believe that Britain's future lies with isolation and those who believe that it lies in co-operation with other countries, in particular with its neighbours in Europe.

With the increasingly isolationist and extremist Conservatives competing with UKIP, Libertas, the BNP and sundry others for the ultra eurosceptic vote - and fighting like dogs while they're at it - the way should be clear for Labour to make a clear principled case for engagement and participation in the European Union.

The world economic crisis has shown clearly how interdependent countries are in the economic field - particularly so within Europe where we share the world's largest single market. Climate change has similarly underlined how interdependent we are on environmental matters. International criminal gangs trafficking drugs and people can only be tackled through co-operation. On all these and other matters, the EU is the framework where we and our neighbouring countries come together to seek common solutions to common problems.

Yet, instead of addressing these problems, the Conservatives want to re-open last year's decision by our national parliament to ratify the Lisbon Treaty - a set of reforms designed to make the EU work better and to subject it to more parliamentary scrutiny. Revoking Britain's support for this treaty - now ratified by almost all our partners - is scarcely a way to help us co-operate on the economic and environmental challenges that we must focus on. It would plunge the EU into turmoil and take Britain to the exit door at a moment when we need co-operation in Europe more than ever. And quite how it would help us deal with the world economic crisis is unclear - most of our trade is with the rest of the EU, and most inward investment into Britain from abroad is from our fellow EU countries. 2 million British people live or work in other EU countries. Yet the Conservatives propose to stick two fingers up at the rest of Europe.

Declining turnout is not exclusive to the European Parliament

Much ado in the media these last few days about the likely level of turnout in the European elections, with the inevitible Eurosceptic claim that a low turnout lessens the legitimacy of the parliament.

I think it is important to distinguish two aspects: the level of turnout and the trend.

It is perfectly normal that European elections, like local elections, have a lower turnout than national elections. After all, less is at stake, as the EU's responsibilties are far smaller than those of national parliaments. That being said, European Parliament elections have a higher turnout than most mid-term Congress elections in the United States.

As regards the trend, the turnout has declined from 63% in 1979 to 46% in 2004 – a fall of about 17% in a quarter century (though accentuated by the accession of the eastern European countries, several of whom have an extraordinary low turnout in all elections). It is this decline that is siezed on by Eurosceptics.

However, this decline is not peculiar to the European Parliament. There has been a similar decline in national parliamentary elections in many countries over the corresponding period. For example, turnout declined by over 16% in Germany from 1972 to 2005, 27% in France between 1973 to 2007, 19% in Portugal from 1979 to 2005 and almost 20% in the UK between 1974 and 2005.

In other words it is a challenge for democracy at all levels, not a phenomenen particular to the European Parliament.

Election slogans

I see that the weekly newspaper "New Europe" (one of the many publications that cross my desk, but a remarkable one for the breadth of its coverage, with pages covering the week's events in every European country, from the 27 EU countries to Ukraine, Georgia, Iceland, Turkey, Belarus and others) is organising a competition for the most original slogan for the next European elections. They have four categories:

- Best European Slogan, most likely to get people to vote (example cited: There's 27 countries now - do your part and vote in the EU elections)

- Funniest slogan, most likely to make us laugh (example cited: Go vote - it's free and only happens every 5 years)

- Most caustic slogan, most likely to make us cringe (example cited: vote, vote, vote, or there's going to be no-one to spend your money)

- Dirtiest slogan (no example cited!)

Sounds fun. Entries via their website http://www.neurope.eu/slogan or emailed to slogan@neurope.eu

Libertas a pan-European political party? What a farce!

The handling of whether Declan Ganley's private company Libertas, already masquerading as a pressure group in Ireland, should be allowed to register as a European political party and gain public funding, has been completely farcical.

On Monday, the European Parliament’s Bureau, made up of the President and the 14 Vice-Presidents, examined their application. To qualify for funding as a European political party, an organisation must have elected representatives in he national parliaments or in the European parliament in at least one quarter of the member states. Libertas claimed to have that, producing signatures from just 7 countries - all elected originally for other parties.

The bureau decided to approve the application. Although it seems perverse to award public money and recognition as a pan-European party to an organisation that has no members and has never put up candidates in an election before, the bureau presumably felt that they Libertas met the formal criteria. The decision at least allowed the Parliament to avoid any charges of bias against eurosceptics.

Since then, the waters have been distinctly muddied. First, an Estonian Liberal MP, Igor Grazin, who was one of the signatories to establish Libertas, and whose party is already affiliated to the European Liberal Party, denied having signed any such papers. Yesterday, he was joined by Bulgarian MP Mintcho Hristov. So far only one of the alleged supporters (Finnish MP Timo Soini) has admitted to having joined Libertas, stressing that he had joined in a "personal capacity" and that his national political party were definitely not affiliates!

There are also questions about the other alleged signatories. One, Lord Alton of Liverpool is a (crossbench) peer in the House of Lords and is therefore not elected, while the three MEPs (Phillippe De Villiers, Jean Marie Couteaux and Georgios Geourgiou) are all currently members of the IND-DEM in the European Parliament and,will, presumably be campaigning under that banner in the European elections this June.

The leaders of the political groups (Conference of Presidents) today took the only sensible decision and requested the Bureau to suspend the decision, pending an investigation of the signatures. If they are indeed false, it would amount to an attempt to defraud the taxpayer.

But the controversy over the signatures is still only part of the problem. In my mind, there is clear conflict if members who are affiliated to one party can simultaneously affiliate to another to get extra funding. It would effectively mean that, if I wanted to, there is nothing to stop me and a six colleagues from other countries, maybe all from the Socialist Group, setting up our own "party", and instantly gaining access to some 200,000 euros of taxpayers’ money for campaigning purposes, even if we intended to stand for our original party and not the new one!

It would be astonishing if the Bureau had approved Libertas’s application without verifying that signatories were genuine and without taking legal advice on whether a member affiliated to one party is able to count as an affiliate for another. If this is the case, then they have let down parties with genuine members and potentially wasted public money on an organisation that is really nothing more than a phoney pressure group.Post date and time

Glenis Wilmott is the new leader of Labour in Europe

Congratulations go to my colleague Glenis Willmott, who has been elected the new leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party after a closely fought contest with Richard Howitt.

It is testament to the quality of the two candidates that only one vote separated Glenis from Richard with very little to chose between them.

I'm certain Glenis will make an excellent leader and has all the attributes to get the EPLP's views understood at home and in parliament. To learn more about Glenis there is a good BBC story here and you can also visit her website at www.gleniswillmott.eu

Glenis of course replaces Gary Titley, who has been leader since 2002, thereby just beating Barbara Castle as the longest serving leader of the Labour MEPs). He has stood down five months ahead of the next European elections, where he will also retire as an MEP. One example of the stability Gary provided is that during his seven year tenure, the Conservative delegation got through no fewer than five leaders!

Another swing to Labour in Yorkshire by-election

I popped over to Hull yesterday to help Labour’s Gary Wareing in his Drypool by-election campaign, which was caused after the Conservative councillor (who had previously been Lib Dem) resigned.

Just like in December’s by-election in Bingley, Labour’s share of the vote once again rose as the Conservatives (who finished last) and Liberal Democrat’s both fell.

In the end, Gary finished second behind the Lib Dem candidate but gained a swing of 9.8% from the Lib Dems to Labour since the local council elections last May.

Here are the figures (pinched from Luke Akehurst’s ever reliable blog) Drypool Ward, Hull City Council. LD regain after their cllr defected to Con. LD 1306 (52.3%, -11.6), Lab 891 (35.7%, +8), NF 184 (7.4%, +7.4), Con 117 (4.7%, -3.6). Swing of 9.8% from LD to Lab since 2008.

Strange silence over Bingley by-election

I'm not surprised that there was little press coverage of the Bingley by-election for Bradford Council that took place last week. It was, of course, a small matter in the greater scheme of things.

But I can't help feeling that the silence, even in much of the local and regional media, is because it was such a poor result for the Conservatives. Their majority in a "safe" Conservative seat was halved. The only party to increase its share of the vote was Labour, by several percent. An inconvenient truth, perhaps?

Why UKIP is just not credible in distancing itself from BNP

For all of UKIP's attempts to distance itself from the BNP, the latest being the high-profile announcement that it would not enter into an electoral pact with them, the fact remains that the two parties have overlapping membership, and similar philosophies.

It was telling that the electoral pact was proposed by UKIP activist Buster Mottram, whose links with the BNP are well known and long-standing. Indeed, Nigel Farage, when questioned about Mottram's past as a campaigner for the BNP's forerunner, the National Front, flippantly batted away the question, saying that these were no more than "youthful indiscretions". So much for Farage's claims to be watchful over BNP "infiltration" of UKIP if he can't even spot one in his ranks!

It seems that UKIPs indecision about their links with the BNP has reached the level of their National Executive. Although UKIP have claimed that the BNP pact offer was rejected 'unanimously' by their NEC, tucked away at the bottom of their press release was a note announcing that that two members of UKIPs NEC, Eric Edmond and David Abbott, were removed from their positions yesterday - presumably because they supported the pact. As UKIPwatch said yesterday, this is either a spectacular coincidence or yet another example of Nigel Farage's particular interpretation of the phrase 'party democracy'.

But this is no surprise to anyone who takes more than a superficial look at UKIP. After all, UKIP and the BNP have a habit of swapping members and candidates. For example, at the last European elections, four BNP candidates were former UKIP members or candidates: Dr Peter Lane - BNP candidate in the South East region, Dr Alan Patterson - BNP lead candidate in the North East region and a former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Hexham at the 2001 general election, Roger Robertson - BNP candidate in the South East region and Matt Single - BNP lead candidate in the Eastern region.

Two of UKIPs current MEPs, Jeffrey Titford and Mike Nattrass, are
former members of the far-Right, anti-immigration New Britain Party, which urged the repatriation of immigrants. It's also worth pointing out that a number of UKIP officials and candidates, for example, Andrew Moffatt (former UKIP parliamentary candidate in Beaconsfield at the 2001 general election) and Martyn Heale (Chairman, UKIP Thanet South), are, like Buster Mottram, former activists of the BNP's forerunner, the NF.

So closely intertwined are the two parties that, in 2004, John Brayshaw was found to be serving as the Chairman of UKIPs Vale of York branch (since October 2003) while simultaneously serving as BNP National Treasurer! Indeed, according to Andrew Edwards, a UKIP official who was expelled from the party for trying to publicise the links between the two parties, Brayshaw was also UKIP-BNP “pact liaison officer for the north”.

In some ways, UKIPs links with the BNP were neatly illustrated at last year's UKIP conference, when their fascist comrades paid a visit to hand out leaflets and literature to the several hundred delegates. According to a BNP spokesman at the time, "a substantial proportion of BNP activists are themselves former UKIP members". Meanwhile, Nigel Farage continues to parrot that UKIP are a 'non racist' party. Pull the other one Mr Farage, it has bells on it.

Labour4yorkshire.eu

We have now launched our campaign website for the 2009 European elections, which you can view at www.labour4yorkshire.eu.

You can see our full team of candidates as it results from the ballot of all Labour party members in Yorkshire & Humber. You can also learn more about the work Linda and I do for Yorkshire & Humber in the EU and the benefits membership brings to our region and country. There is also information about how the election works and why it's so importnat that you take part. You can also learn more about each candidate.

Happy surfing!

Jonathan Roberts in Thirsk & Malton

It’s always interesting to see how my former assistants progress and I was particularly pleased to see Jonathan Roberts selected as Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Thirsk and Malton.

Jonathan, who’s from Thirsk, worked in my constituency office for just over a year and is well versed in criss-crossing north Yorkshire, which is a good job because the Thirsk and Malton constituency goes right from Skipton-on-Swale to Filey on the east coast!

He has just launched his website which you can view at www.jonathanroberts.org.uk

On the subject of elections I suppose it would be remiss not to mention Crewe and Nantwich, though there is very little which hasn’t already been said. However, if Labour can go another 30 years without losing a by-election to the Conservatives we’ll be doing alright!

Local elections

Parts of Yorkshire bucked the national trend in last week's local elections. There were no Labour losses in Leeds, for instance. But there is no doubt that it was a bad result for Labour. Of course, local elections, like European elections, tend to be dominated by national issues, and in this case the abolition of the 10p tax band featured prominently.

Although there is some logic to abolishing this band (the lower rate applies to a proportion of the income of all income tax payers, meaning that 85% of its value accrues to taxpayers of higher bands - money which could be better used to allieviate poverty by targeting it directly at lower incomes through tax credits and benefits), the policy was not thought through enough in terms of how it would be perceived. Perception is political reality, and a highly visible reduction in take-home pay for lower band taxpayers does not match the sometimes less visible compensations - and not all losers were compensated anyway.

Of course, Labour can point to its record over eleven years which has boosted low incomes through steady economic growth, near full employment, the minimum wage, tax credits, fuel allowances and so on, which far outweigh the effect of the 10p rate. But the opposition were bound to make the most of the headline without looking at the wider context. This should have been spotted and rectified earlier, but at least the government has promised to do so now, refreshingly admitting that (like all governments) it made a mistake. Interestingly, none of the opposition parties are calling for a reintroduction of the 10p rate, but they have certainly managed to exploit the change to the full.

Labour's team for 2009

Delighted with the result of our ballot of all Labour party members in Yorkshire & Humber to choose Labour's team of candidates for the 2009 European elections. Linda McAvan and I are honoured to be the top two candidates again, as we were in 2004.

Several thousand members returned their ballots, which were counted yesterday, giving us, in a very close result, the following team, listed in ranking order:

1 Linda McAvan MEP
2 Richard Corbett MEP
3 Emma Hoddinott
4 David Bowe
5 Melanie Onn
6 Maroof Hussain MBE
Reserves: Chris Williams and Paul Blanchard

This gives us a good balance in terms of gender, different parts of the region, age, ethnicity, and experience. All are enthusiastic and raring to go.

Labour's team for Yorkshire & Humber

I spent the weekend at the Labour Party's Yorkshire & Humber regional conference, listening to a whole host of ministers, MPs, councillors and party members talk about a wide range of issues.

One of the debates was about the EU’s responsibilty to regulate the free market so it works for Europe’s citizens and protects the most vulnerable, in terms of consumer protection, social legislation, the environment, fair trade, health and safety rules, and so on. The discussion once again showed the importance of such European legislation and the need for Britain to take a central role in shaping it.

After our discussion, the four people who, following lengthy internal parocedures in the region, will join myself and my colleague MEP Linda McAvan to make up Yorkshire & Humber’s Labour team for the 2009 European elections were revealed. While the order has yet to be determined (it will be by a one-member-one-vote ballot, which should drop through Labour Party members’ letterboxes later this week), Emma Hoddinott, Mahroof Hussain, David Bowe and Melanie Onn will join me and Linda as part of Labour’s team of six candidates. It will be a good team.

The June 2009 European elections will be upon us soon (whether or not there is a General Election at or near that time). Yorkshire Labour party's European Regional Policy Forum focused on this on Saturday.

Linda McAvan and I reported back to around 100 Labour Party members on our work in the European Parliament over the past year.

In discussion many people were keen to build a positive campaign based on the benefits that joint action at European can provide and on Labour MEP successes in defining and adopting common rules for the common market that protect consumers, workers’ rights and the environment.

In the afternoon Julian Scuola and Alexandra Pardal, from the Party of the European Socialists, spoke of the early work - which all party members are invited to contribute to - in preparing the PES election manifesto, which will eventually provide a common platform for all the Labour parties across the EU in the 2009 election.

Surprising as it may seem I barely mentioned the new treaty in my introductory speech, leaving it to my old friend and former Secretary General of the European Parliament, Sir Julian Priestley, one of the most articulate advocates of the case for Europe. He produced a very thorough explanation of what it contains, and why we should not have a referendum, managing as well to squeeze in an attack on the Eurosceptic lies and distortions.

Former Europe Minister Denis MacShane also made a cameo appearance, making the point that Europe was a wedge issue between Labour and the Tories and one that should be exploited.

A paper published by the European Commission a couple of weeks ago set out ideas that could make it easier for European political parties to increase their profile.

Despite the fact that, in the European Parliament, Labour members sit in the Party of European Socialists, the Tories (for the moment at least) in the European People's Party and the Liberal Democrats in the Alliance of Liberal Democrat and Reform Parties, when it comes to European election campaigns, their respective parties do little more than co-ordinate national campaigns. European elections tend to be fought as 27 different national campaigns dominated by the state of domestic politics.

This is slightly anomalous. Broadly speaking, the European Parliament gives the EU ideological/political pluralism, while national interests represented by national governments in the Council of Ministers. Most European issues are in fact political rather than national choices, such as whether you want higher environmental standards, but at greater costs, or not. There are people on both sides of the argument in every country. They are represented in the Parliament, but not reflected in the Council where each country is represented only by the government party.

The new rules would allow and indeed help Europe-wide parties to campaign and also to establish political foundations to encourage debates and political research.

One of the provisions of the proposed Reform Treaty is the election of the Commission president by the European Parliament. This has given rise to calls from some quarters that the European parties should nominate their own candidates for President. This would add to the profile of the elections and the European parties, as well as provide a more visible link between the election results and the choice of Europe's chief executive.

Many feel that this could be used as a tool to increase political participation and voter turn-out as well as generate a better understanding of the working of the EU.

The BBC website carries a fascinating article on the Spanish municipal elections, which reveals the extent local politics is now being influenced by Brits and other EU immigrants.

The European Union grants foreign nationals living in another member state the right to vote and stand in local and European elections and with over 300,000 EU citizens already registered to vote in Spain, mostly in the south of the country, plenty of Brits are putting themselves forward as candidates.

Many are standing for small independent parties in the municipality of San Fulgencio, with some parties’ lists of candidates dominated by non-Spaniards, most of them British.

I was amused to read that one party, who are fielding 11 migrants in their list of 16 candidates, claims it has the answer to “massive, uncontrolled immigration”.

Other parties representing EU migrants are campaigning for bilingual schools (English and Spanish) and more accountability around planning issues, which appears to be one of the main catalysts behind this rise in participation.

The article begs some interesting questions.

What exactly would Britain make of parties created to specifically represent the interests of migrants? I can’t imagine the Mail or Express being sympathetic to a Polish Independent campaigning for bilingual schools!

We are also repeatedly told how more and more people in the UK are feeling disfranchised from politics but the reverse appears to be happening out in Spain. Why are people apparently less willing to campaign for change in their home country than when they move abroad? Is it perhaps because their interest are in fact represented and defended in Britain?

It’s also worth noting that the article only ever refers to expats and never migrants or immigrants. This implies there is some sort of difference, when clearly there isn’t.

How well the non-Spanish candidates will do remains to be seen but it will be interesting to see if the participation of EU-migrants in another country’s politics is replicated in Britain in the future.

As expected, Labour took a mid-term hit in the local elections. However, they were not as bad as many expected, with Labour gaining a percentage point compared to last year, and again doing particularly well in West Yorkshire, gaining seats in Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale and taking North Lincolnshire Council.

Little press comment on how badly UKIP did. With a record number of candidates, this was supposed to be their breakthrough to be a national party, but they performed dismally....

Their Eurosceptic friends from the BNP were also disapppointed.

Well done to Calderdale's newest councillor, Judith Gannon, and everybody who helped Labour hold the Illingworth and Mixenden ward in Thursday's by-election.

With the two other seats in the ward held by the BNP it was imperative Labour held on to the seat which was long held by Tom McElroy, who
sadly died in December.

Judith picked up 1104 votes with the BNP beating the Conservatives and Lib Dems into second, though thankfully the far-right party did concede a swing of fiver percent to Labour.

Hopefully we can keep this momentum going in Halifax and unseat the BNP Councillors come May.

I was greatly amused to see the results of last week's council by-election in Croydon.

The Conservatives' campaign slogan for the Bensham Manor ward was "Send a message to Mr Blair!", which the locals promptly did by voting in Labour candidate Alison Butler by over a thousand votes, a swing of 10% to Labour!

You can view all the results here which reveal a couple more interesting issues. The UKIP candidate stood as a UKIP candidate and not as an Independence Party candidate and registered 40 votes; that's just 25 more than the Monster Raving Loony Party. There was also no BNP candidate which will not help UKIP fight the allegations that the parties have a deal not to stand for the same seat.

On a lighter note, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the People's Choice candidate who was anything but after managing just nine votes.

In the aftermath of the May local elections, I wrote about the
interesting, if that is the correct word, relationship between UKIP and
the British National Party, and how it appeared that a deal had been
done between them to keep out of each other’s way.

Nationally, there were very few occasions of the two right wing parties
going against each other in a battle for council seats – in fact, UKIP
fielded very few candidates at all. This deal, it appears, was
reciprocated in the Bromley & Chislehurst, and Blaenau Gwent by-elections.

The facts are that UKIP stood, and the BNP did not – the BNP chose not
to field a candidate because it “did not want to split the anti-EU
vote”, choosing instead to actively encourage people to vote UKIP.

So watch out to see how explicit UKIP will be in encouraging people to
vote BNP in next year’s round of local elections.

I was interested to see that calling someone “pro-European” is seen as a spiteful act in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election. UKIP’s Nigel Farage has called Tory hopeful Bob Neill “pro-European” on a recent campaign flyer, something which Neill has announced as being “defamatory”.

Surely the crime wasn’t calling Neill “pro-European”, but rather giving him undue credit for having some sense.

Much has been made in the media of the Conservative A-list of wannabe MPs, and in particular, how the list was compiled. Conservative members, the media and the public have been scratching their heads as to why experienced Councillors have been overlooked for the sake of young soap stars.

Perhaps we should be concentrating on the more serious A-listers – in particular the inclusion of the rabidly Eurosceptic Dan Hannan, Chris Heaton-Harris and Syed Kamall. As the debate regarding the EPP-ED (see here and here) drags on, it’s fascinating to see Cameron attempting to fill his UK Parliamentary party with those against European integration. I wonder, if he allows all of his Eurosceptic MEPs to become MPs, and sacks all of his pro-european MEPs (as he has threatened to do), who will he have left in the European Parliament? More soap stars?

I suppose it’s all irrelevant to a degree, his grassroot Conservative associations seem to be ignoring the A-list anyway.

Sometime ago I published a pamphlet entitled “25 things you didn’t know when you voted UKIP“ highlighting the extensive links between UKIP and the BNP, especially their interchangable membership (and, for that matter, leadership).

At the time of publication, the UKIP were up-in-arms. I suspect they will be distinctly quiet when I refer to my suspicions regarding their activities in the recent local elections.

Looking at the candidates list for each ward in each council in the region, I can only find one example of the BNP standing in the same ward as UKIP. Indeed, when I look at elections in other English regions, examples of BNP and UKIP going head-to-head are rare.

Indeed, it was particularly fascinating to see just how few candidates UKIP fielded. This undoubtedly allowed the BNP to pick up the far right vote without competition.

Could it possibly be that UKIP and the BNP shook hands over a deal? No matter how they package their policies, they are both on the far-right and it would clearly be in each other's interest not to split the far-right vote.

It makes me wonder what UKIP were getting in return for their {suspected} generosity. Could it possibly be a clear run in the European elections in 2009? Only time will tell…

It’s been a fascinating 24 hours.

The Labour Party has suffered losses across the country but I am delighted that Labour support across Yorkshire has remained strong.

Given the national coverage of the local election results, allow me to contrast the quite different regional results in Yorkshire:

Seats (gains & losses)
•Lab net gain of 10 seats across region.
•Lib Dem net loss of seven (underline loss)
•Cons net loss of five (underline loss)
•BNP net gain of only one
•Greens net gain of one


Share of Vote
•Increase in Labour share of vote across region (2004 30% /2006 31.1%)
•Lib Dem share of vote has declined (2004 26.2% /2006 24.6%)
•Con share of vote up by 8% overall (mainly in Craven and Harrogate)
•Lab net gains in Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Doncaster, Barnsley
and Rotherham

BNP
•Stood 106 candidates in the region (82 in West Yorkshire)
•Gained 4, lost 3 (held 1)
•Won none in South, East or North Yorkshire, nor in Wakefield
•Their gains were from us (Dewsbury East), the Lib Dems (Heckmondwike),the Independents (Morley South) and the Tories (Queensbury in Bradford)
•Their losses were to us (Town in Calderdale and Wibsey in Bradford) and the Tories (Worth Valley in Bradford)
•They increased their overall share of vote from 6.6% to 7.3%

So at least in Yorkshire, the picture is quite good for Labour. I’d like to pay tribute to all the candidates and activists across the region who have worked so hard for their local communities. It is of real credit to Labour activists that, despite some turbulent times, we had a net gain of 10 seats as well as increasing our share of the vote across the region.

In this age of high media it is only to be expected that national issues should affect the local vote. I have no doubt that some extremely competent, hard-working Labour Councillors have lost their positions due to the national issues.

Concerning the cabinet re-shuffle, I’d like to specifically welcome Geoff Hoon’s appointment to the position of Minister of State for Europe. As a former MEP, Geoff is very well placed to work on developing the UK’s role in the European Union.

I believe that appointment is a step towards having a Europe Minister separate from the Foreign Office. EU matters are much more concerned with domestic policy than with foreign policy, and it is not always sensible for them to be co-ordinated by the foreign office.

What a result! I’d like to offer my warmest congratulations to Angela Sinfield of Bradford District Council for winning yesterdays by-election in Keighley West.
Angela not only overturned a BNP majority, but she now has her own majority of 603, gaining 1819 votes to their 1216.

This is a fantastic achievement. The BNP have concentrated their efforts in Keighley for some time, using aggressive, intimidatory tactics to frighten people into voting for them.

I visited Keighley twice during the campaign and was struck by how determined the community was to drive the BNP out. There was a sense of real anger from the electors that the BNP had damaged the reputation of Keighley. As Angela said last night, “The BNP need to get the message and realise that they are not welcome in Keighley”.

Lets hope those sentiments are shared across the country in May’s Local Government Elections.

You can find BBC coverage here -

The by-election phenomena is a curious thing (as some of you will know, the resignation of a BNP Councillor in Keighley West has triggered a by-election for Thursday 23rd March). When you’re out campaigning it can seem like nothing exists beyond the ward boundary. When it’s a BNP-held seat, however, it becomes a different story. Their beliefs are so extreme that the whole country should pay attention. If we don’t stamp out the far right’s presence in our region, then we become vulnerable to widespread preaching of hate.

I spent much of today talking to local residents in Keighley West (on one of the coldest days of the winter I might add!), and was delighted to see how many people were making a stand against the BNP. Undoubtedly there is a media backlash against the Labour Party at the moment, but it is imperative that those people who believe in equality, diversity and community all vote for Labour in this two-horse race and reject the far right, non-sensical policies of the BNP.

There have been many reports of the BNP using intimidatory tactics on the doorstep: you don’t have to put up with it, as one constituent quickly learnt. When I asked him if he had had such a visit, he pointed to his fully grown Doberman and laughed. I think he’ll be just fine.

The German election results are most interesting.

Far from being the predicted landslide for the Conservatives (CDU) and meltdown for Chancellor Schröder’s Social Democrats (SPD), the campaign allowed the latter to steadily regain ground and come to within about three seats of the former. It might yet be even tighter, as the poll in one seat (Dresden) was postponed due to the death of a candidate (just as in South Staffordshire in Britain!) and this seat is likely to be won by the Social Democrats, with a corresponding effect on the top-up proportional seats. In other words, it's a virtual dead-heat!

However, even with their preferred coalition partners (the Greens for the Social Democrats and the Liberals for the Conservatives), neither side has a majority. The balance is held by the Left party – largely the former East German Communists.

What seems to be happening at present is that everyone is ruling out the various alternative coalition options:

• No-one wants to make a deal with the Left Party.


• A “grand coalition” has been ruled out by Schröder (rightly so in my view: a coalition of opposites is bound to run into trouble, and if people later want to vote against the government, they have only extremist parties to vote for).


• A Socialist-Green-Liberal coalition has been ruled out by the Liberals.


• Neither the Liberals nor the Greens are very keen on a Conservative-Liberal-Green coalition (perhaps they have observed what has happened to Leeds City Council!).

So what will happen? The Chancellor (their equivalent of Prime Minister) is elected by the Bundestag (equivalent to our House of Commons) by a majority of all elected members (as opposed to a mere majority of those voting – a requirement that has in the past occasionally forced ill or pregnant members to attend when votes are likely to be close). This takes place in a secret ballot on a proposal of the Federal President. If the person proposed by the President is not elected, the Bundestag has 14 days to elect another candidate, also by a majority of its members. If no-one reaches this majority after 14 days, then a new ballot takes place in which the person obtaining the largest number of votes is elected. If the person elected obtained the votes of the majority of the members of the Bundestag, the President must appoint him as Chancellor, but if the person elected does not receive this majority, the President may either appoint him or her, or dissolve the Bundestag and call a new general election.

This means that it is possible to have a minority government, if the President appoints a Chancellor without the necessary majority. Not many people know this, however, as it's never happened since the restoration of democracy after the war. (Today, I even had to point it out to a German MEP spokesman on constitutional affairs!)

A minority Conservative-Liberal coalition could therefore elect their candidate (presumably Frau Merkel) for Chancellor 14 days after the Bundestag re-assembles. It could govern, but it would have to bargain with one or another opposition parties whenever it wanted to get legislation through the Bundestag - just as the previous government had to bargain to get its legislation through the upper house.

A Social Democrat-Green coalition, however, would require the support of some others to elect their candidate for Chancellor (presumably Herr Schröder). For instance, the Left Party could say that, while not joining the government, they would be willing to vote for Schröder rather than see Merkel form a government. He too would have to bargain to see its legislation get through, but perhaps with more options.

Schröder sees that his economic reforms, which were initially unpopular among traditional Social Democrat voters, are beginning to bear fruit. Germany has just become the world’s largest exporter and unemployment is beginning to fall. That's why voters returned to backing him in unexpectedly high numbers.

He sees that he occupies the middle ground between the consrevative-liberal alliance who wanted faster, harsher reforms and the Left Party who opposed any reforms. Neither the right nor the left alternative to Schröder gained a majority. Politically, he feels vindicated. Legally, the constitution allows him a way to get back. And if the President prefers to call a new election rather than have a minority government, he is equally well placed to build on the momentum of his comeback. We will watch the situation unfold with interest!

The Green party has a lot to answer for - including the backdoor Tory victory in my home constituency of Shipley. The previous Labour MP, Chris Leslie, was defeated by only 400 votes - while the Greens managed to garner 1800, almost entirely from Labour voters.

The result? We've ended up with an MP from a party that's far less environmentally minded than Labour, having consistently opposed environmental legislation in both Westminster and the European Parliament. Green voters in Shipley must be kicking themselves.

Ah, the joys of campaigning in nice weather. There were some 50 people out helping in my local key seat of Shipley today.

As ever, there's no shortage of stories from the doorstep. There was the householder with the worst garden in the street, full of rubbish and rusting metal, who protested that the government isn't doing enough about the environment. And there was the telesalesman complaining that the UK's near-full employment meant nobody was ever at home any more when he rang around.

It's also interesting to hear people's reaction to the various election slogans. One constituent turned "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?" into "Are you remembering what I'm remembering?".

So the election has been called! The European Parliament doesn't stop for elections in member states (with 25 countries to take into account, we'd never actually meet if we did!). So British MEPs don't get any time off for the general election, though of course I and many others will be devoting any spare time to helping with the campaign.

On another note, the Tories' policy on Europe is getting madder and madder. These days, even their own colleagues in Parliament's conservative and Christian Democrat group tell me they hope the Conservatives don't win!