Lies, damn lies and statistics is especially true when trying to find out who is England's fourth largest party.

While the main parties deciding who won is relatively easy and if you use apply this method to the smaller parties the biggest is Respect as they were the only ones who actually won anything.

However UKIP fielded 495 candidates compared to Respects 25 and polled a massive 611,423 votes, much much more then Respect.

The Greens however can argue this is an unfair comparison as UKIP has greater funding then them and had they been able to field more then the 202 candidates they did, they could have won as many votes. If you take the average vote therefore, Green beat UKIP securing an average vote of 1,378 compared to UKIP’s 1,235.

However if you make this concession to the Greens, surely you must do it to Respect as well whose 25 candidates meant they may have polled less nationally overall but achieved a much more impressive average vote.

All this in England, it gets even more muddled when you look at Wales, Ireland or Scotland.

Personally, much as I loathe them I’m inclined to say Respect did the best out of the smaller parties. Not only did they actually win something but they did so in a strong Labour seat and Salma Yaqoob came second by reducing a Labour majority from 16,000 to just 3,000.

I don’t think any other fringe party even managed to come second?

It seems the general rule is each party chooses the method that decides they are the fourth party and sticks with that.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
It seems the general rule is each party chooses the method that decides they are the fourth party and sticks with that however.

Translation required please. Didn't understand this sentence at all. What are you trying to say or imply?

I mean they use whichever statistic or method makes them out to be the most successful.

Respect say they are fourth biggest as they got an MP
UKIP say they are biggest as they got most votes.
Greens say they are bigger then UKIP as they got a higher average vote then UKIP
etc etc etc

Without Proportional representation it makes no difference at all if they aren't represented in parlaiament.

But Galloway shows smaller parties can win parliamentary seats even without PR.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
But Galloway shows smaller parties can win parliamentary seats even without PR.

In very particular circumstances. Every single other vote for greens, independents (apart from in 3 constituencies) etc does not count.

In England, after the main 3 parties, all the others are so far behind that I wouldn't call one of them a fourth party at all.
They are minority parties, and are unlikey to have much effect on the general election, or parliament, due to the unfair first past the post system.
Ok people like George Galloway, Martin whatsisname from the BBC, or heaven forbid even Kilroy-Puke may get a single seat from time to time, but they will never be any more than fringe parties.

Until there is proportional representation system, there will only ever be traditional parties with power or any more than a few different seats.

So I'm afraid there isn't a fourth party.

Galloway took such a large amount of the vote because he was a Labour MP. His was a labour seat and the people felt he had been badly treated. That with his views on the Iraq war, it was almost a sure thing.

It is my view, however that there should be proportional representation. I would like to see a few strange parties having a voice in parliament, even for parties I don't like eg, UKIP or BNP. If so they would have to play the sensible game anyway otherwise they will find their efforts futile.
There is no denying that the greens ought to have a voice, if only to challenge those in power from time to time about their lack of green policies, but just like UKIP and BNP their support is so dissipated that the are unlikely to get a seat under the present system, but would be represented in a PR system.

I think if we look at it in terms of parties who have been around the longest it is probably the Monster Raving Loony Party.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I mean they use whichever statistic or method makes them out to be the most successful.

Respect say they are fourth biggest as they got an MP
UKIP say they are biggest as they got most votes.
Greens say they are bigger then UKIP as they got a higher average vote then UKIP
etc etc etc

Thanks Disco-Cat for the explanation.

Whilst UKIP and the Green Party both have several MEPs, they don't have any MPs. So they can be discounted IMO. Votes don't count unless translated into seats. Final election results show the state of the parties -

Labour 356
Conservative 197
Lib-Dem 62
DUP 9
SNP 6
SF 5
PC 3
SDLP 3
UUP 1
KKHI 1
Respect 1
Independent 1
Vacant seat 1 (South Staffordshire - likely to won by the Conservatives)

Originally posted by redrobbo
Thanks Disco-Cat for the explanation.


No problem, I think it’s going to be very interesting to see if King stays on to fight for that seat in the next election against Galloway's apprentice or if she goes for a bye election between now and then. Various curious to hear Dianne Abbots take on all this come Thursday.

If you look on the BNP web site you will find Nick Griffin saying the BNP are the fourth biggest party having defeated the greens in the seats we contested togeather with the odd exception.
And we also beat UKIP in most of the seats we contested so you takes your choice?
But as has been said its no good being fourth you dont have ANY influence the big 2 wont let the system be changed.
Democracy is what we want,shame we dont have it?

Nick Griffin and the BNP website wrong as per usual Roy.

Nationally the Greens got 256,020 votes, the BNP 192,850.

Originally posted by royjames
in the seats we contested togeather with the odd exception.

Originally posted by royjames
If you look on the BNP web site you will find Nick Griffin saying the BNP are the fourth biggest party having defeated the greens in the seats we contested togeather with the odd exception.


Spinning like Alastair Campbell there, Roy.

I'd say that to be able to claim you're the fourth biggest party, you'd need to have a member of parliament at the very least.

Originally posted by royjames
If you look on the BNP web site you will find Nick Griffin saying the BNP are the fourth biggest party having defeated the greens in the seats we contested togeather with the odd exception.

Nick Griffins claims went further then that, he said the BNP were the fourth biggest in the entire United Kingdom not just England, despite the party polling abysmally in Scotland and Wales.

He also claimed that coming third in one seat in East London was the greatest achievement by a nationalist party in the entire history of the UK, someone needs to tell him how many MP’s the Scottish National Party got. Compared to them the BNP are an utter insignificance.

Guess all this does just show how if you choose your own way of interpreting the results you can pretty much prove any winner you want, personally I’ll base my opinions on evidence from someone a little more neutral then Nick Griffin.

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick


But then if you use this logic, Respect did much better then the BNP because in the seats were their was a direct competition Respect out polled the BNP.

It’s quite interesting to read the Labour Victory thread were I argue this point to Roy and he makes the assertion that you have to measure votes cast across the whole of Sheffield, "Over 7000 votes more than greens or respect"

Fair enough, but if you apply this methodwhich he insists is best in Sheffield to the entire UK both the Greens and UKIP beat the BNP significantly, not suprisingly then on this thread Roy has a change of heart and wants to compare individual key seats were their is a direct comparison thus making his party out to be the winner of the fringe parties.