Skip to main content

Letters from me on Norwich North in today's Guardian/Indy

We have had to combat this idea making the rounds in some of the press that
"the Greens were
disappointed" with our Norwich North result. Well, obviously we were
disappointed, in that we'd rather have won, etc; but it was nevertheless
easily our best by-election
result ever:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jul/28/green-party-norwich-north-byelection

Your leader (The message from Norwich North, 25 July) confuses the
city of Norwich with the constituency of Norwich North. The Greens are
very strong in Norwich. However, two-thirds of Norwich North was
outside of the city in the Broadlands suburbs, where we have
comparatively little presence. Norwich North was our best national
byelection result ever. It's clear that the byelection was another
boost for ourselves and Ukip, and another bad day for the "big three"
parties in Westminster. Even the Conservatives lost 2,000 votes,
compared to their result in 2005.

Cllr Rupert Read
Norwich Green party

==

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-democracy-in-iran-1763263.html

Your leading article "A by-election that obscures as much as it
reveals" (25 July) said that the Green Party doubled its vote in
Norwich North. In fact, we more than tripled our vote share from 2005,
and it was our best national by-election ever. This was despite
two-thirds of Norwich North being outside the city (where we are very
strong, and the opposition group on the council), in the Broadlands
suburbs. What is clear from Norwich North is that the by-election was
a boost for ourselves and UKIP, and another bad result for the "big
three" parties in Westminister.

Councillor Rupert Read
Norwich Green Party

Comments

Rupert said…
People who are not political insiders with good local knowledge are unlikely to understand the context of a contest like this one, in Norwich North. The thing that people keep missing is that we got just 2.7% in Norwich North at the last General Election. And that we still have no City Councillors at all in Norwich North. And that we have (or, had until July) no presence at all on the ground outside the City part of Norwich North. And that only a quarter of those who voted on July 23rd come from the City part of the constituency. Given factors such as these, our result was very creditable, and a great platform to build on.
To find out more about how nevertheless I think we should have done better in Norwich North, goto: http://rupertjason.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/norwich-north-some-reflections/
6 August 2009 at 09:33
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more