An Inconvenient Ruminant

The inconvenient ruminant in question is the North American Bison, colloquially known as an American Buffalo.

An American Bison [wikipedia: Jack Dykinga]

The American Buffalo is a potent symbol in the USA and Canada. They have been called Buffalos since the very first European settlers arrived in the mid 1600’s and generally that is what they are known as today.

In fact there are two different subspecies of American Buffalo. The Plains Bison and the Wood Bison. Both are large animals with the Woods Bison being among the biggest of bovine animals in the world and certainly the biggest land animal in the Americas

The American Bison is undoubtedly a magnificent wild beast. But as a species they presents a bit of a problem for Vegan and other Climate Change fanatics like Extinction Rebellion. These are the people who are seeking to reduce/ban/outlaw meat eating on some half-baked delusion that disavowing meat and substituting (say) Mung beans will save the planet.

Let me tell you (with help from the history of the American Bison) why they are wrong.

But first let us just review what exactly the argument against meat production is, and why it is actually deeply flawed even without bringing the American Bison into the argument.

The general attack on the livestock industry these days centres around Climate Change and a blinkered mindset that somehow has convinced itself that animal husbandry is a "bad thing"

The main thrust of the Vegan/Extinction Rebellion argument is that domestic ruminants (mainly cattle) emit large quantities of methane. Methane is a known greenhouse warming gas with an immediate impact. Initially this impact is many times the forcing impact of an equivalent amount of Carbon Dioxide.

So you would think that the more cattle you had then the worse it would be. Over a decadel time-scale (ten years or so) and to an limited extent, that is true.

But Methane is a volatile gas and quickly breaks down in the atmosphere. It decays away exponentially. Within 18 months of a release half is gone. Within 12 years the amount left is immeasurable.

So if your ruminant herd size is stable then the warming effect from the methane release from this herd is stable. If you increase the herd size then it is true the methane release increases. But the warming effect from this increase stabilises within ten years. The net result is that for all countries with more or less stable ruminant herd sizes the contribution to global warming is already factored in. Further warming from these stable herds will be nil. Zilch. Nada.

If you want some proof of this then try this post on the British Veterinary Associations website HERE. But better still refer to the actual paper from Oxford University (IPCC researchers none the less) HERE.

Remember though. We haven’t got to the inconvenient history of the American Bison yet.

American Bisons come from countries (the USA and Canada) that the average Vegan zealot would regard as the arch-criminals of meat eating Methane production.

The USA has between 60 and 80 million cattle, all farting and burping (mostly burping) out their Methane like there was no tomorrow. But, as shown by Oxford University, if the herd size is stable, all that warming from Methane is already factored in.

This is not a gaseous Armageddon in the making. But it gets even more interesting. In fact on an historical timescale there is a reasonable chance that total ruminant emissions, (including the millions of domestic cows) may well be lower now than it was 400 years ago.

How come?  It comes down to a (real) man-made ecological disaster that befel the American Bison in the 19th century.

American Bisons or Buffaloes (call them what you will) were nearly hunted to extinction from around 1830 through to 1880.

By 1880 there were less than 1000 American Buffalos left. Luckily, even in those dark days there were people who recognised the importance in preserving these magnificent beasts.

The American Plains Buffalo was rescued from the brink of extinction. The Woods Buffalo though was feared to be extinct for over 70 years.

Then by sheer luck a herd of 200 were found in a remote part Northern Alberta in Canada in 1957.

Today in total there are about 500,000 American Buffalos in existence. Their recovery from the brink of extinction is an epic tale and something we should all be proud of. Just as we should be truly appalled how they got to the point of extinction in the first place.

So what? You may ask. How does this relate to methane release?

One simple figure should tip you off.

Remember those 500,000 American Buffalos that exist today?

Well, that number is probably less than one per cent of the estimated herd size back in 1700.

Back in 1700 the American Buffalo herd size has been estimated at being between a low of 30 million and up to 75 million. There is even a possibility it topped 100 million. A total herd population of 60 million seems to be the consensus estimate. The herds of Buffalo once stretched from down in Miami right up to Alaska.

The net result of the hunting carnage in the 19th century is that today the methane emissions from the domestic American cattle herd is largely offset and maybe completely offset by that from the slaughtered (and now missing) 60 million American Bison.

So cattle ranching in the USA and Canada has in reality only brought ruminant methane release back up to around that in pre-settlement days.

Nobody suggests that the wanton slaughter of 60 million American Bison in the 19th century was a “good thing”. Far from it.

But it does mean that today the scare stories surrounding methane release from domestic cattle in the USA and Canada are at best over-blown.

At worst they are a myth.
------
Notes:

There is quite a good Wikipedia piece on the American Bison HERE

More information on methane release by Bison and other wild ruminants can be found in This Article

What looks like an interesting book (only skimmed it so far) from the 1890’s titled:

The Extermination of the American Bison 
by William T. Hornaday

Hornaday was the Superintendent of the U.S. National Zoological Park. It looks like he was one of the heroes who saved the day as far as the American Bison was concerned.

His book is available for free from the Gutenberg project on THIS LINK.

Domestic Electricity Prices & Wind Turbine Subsidies

Nearly nine years ago I wrote a blog post analysing the consumer electricity price differences between European countries. This was based on the table below which came from  THIS SITE.

The original post is HERE.

European Electricity Prices in 2011

The data was sobering. Especially with how the price appeared to track the level of installed wind power within the country.

I intended to update this on a regular basis but for some reason the website stopped making the data available. Eventually  I gave up trying and forgot about it.

By chance (as it is the year end) I was looking at the stats for this blog. I noticed that the old post on European electricity prices (now nearly nine years old) was still getting a fair amount of traffic.

So yesterday I went back onto the The European Energy Portal just in case they had any links to up-to-date data. The good news is that they have restarted providing the data. So now I can at least (after a delay of eight and a half years) update the original.

The readings today, after nearly nine years of rampant and virtually unconstrained development of industrial wind turbines and other RE make for even more sober analysis than before.

Here’s the new table of European electricity prices.

European Electricity Prices 2019

You will notice that the relative price between countries is virtually unchanged. Denmark still hosts the most expensive household electricity. Germany is again a close second. Sweden is today marginally cheaper than France but both have undergone significant price increases. Especially France which has politically disavowed its clean cheap and effective nuclear power in favour of yet more wind turbines.

Bulgaria still has the cheapest electricity in Europe with a virtually unchanged price. Interestingly Austria has also maintained its 2011 price.

Many European countries though have suffered large real-value increases in the price of their electricity. Often well above inflation.

The UK is a case in point. The is a period of eight years between the original post and the updated table. The price (in Euros) over this time went up from 15c to over 22c. That’s a rise of over 7c or a rise of about 50% unadjusted for inflation.

FROM HERE price inflation in the UK since 2011 to 2019 was 21%. So the rise in electricity prices in the UK over this eight year period has on average been at more than double the annual rate of inflation.

So why is this?

Maybe gas prices have gone up? (gas accounts for about one half of UK electricity generation)

No.

The gas spot price is actually cheaper today than it was in 2011, and by a considerable margin.

Is nuclear adding to the cost?

No.

In fact what nuclear there is left is now more efficient and cost effective than ever. Today nuclear power offers the cheapest electricity on the UK market.

Coal as a major UK electricity generating fuel is no more. It is a bit part player. Besides, the coal price (like the gas price) is considerably lower today than in 2011.

But there is a large new added cost since 2011 and that cost is associated with Renewable Energy.

There’s been lots of smoke and mirrors about how “cheap” wind power and solar have become but you only have to dig a little way into data to show the truth.

As the years have gone on the amount of subsidy to wind turbines you provide from your electricity bill has steadily gone up.

It is the old “boiling frog” approach to implementing a considerable price hike over time.

Disguised by the natural fluctuation of the market due to fuel price changes the price of electricity has been slowly and carefully ratcheted up over many years.

Today for every five pounds you spend on your consumer electricity bill, one pound is allocated to what is known as “Environmental and social costs”.

According to OfGem:
[quote]
These are the costs of government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and encourage take up of renewable energy. 
[unquote]

Of that 20%, the Lions share is used provide subsidy payments to Wind turbine operators and and solar PV owners. Mostly it goes on wind turbines.

The vast majority of these subsidy payments are made through what are known as ROC certificates. This is a subsidy scheme that is now obsolete but will still impact your bill for the next 20 or so years.

The RO scheme has been replaced by an even more duplicitous (and still lucrative) scheme called Contracts for Difference. But as of today ROC payments form the majority of wind turbine subsidy.

In other words the majority of the 20% added to your bill as “Environmental and Social Costs” is the amount you pay to subsidise wind turbines and to a lesser extent solar PV.

Paltry amounts out of this 20% go to improving home insulation or to providing remote locations with electricity.

So, you may be surprised to find that your annual electricity bill shows far less of an increase than  this boiling frog price hike suggests.

This is because people now use less electricity than in 2011.

Why?

Because today we have more efficient appliances, particularly electric light bulbs, but white goods are much better too.

So just think:

All that money you spent on LED bulbs and eco-friendly washing machines has been used not to reduce your electricity bill, but to line the pockets of the big companies running wind turbines. 

And it will continue to be used in the same way for the foreseeable future.

Today for every MWh of electricity produced the generating company must provide 0.484 ROC certificates. The value of a ROC certificate in 2020 has been set at £48.78 per ROC. This cost is passed directly through to the customer.

A typical consumer uses 3.7MWh electricity per year. Maybe you use more. Maybe less.

So work it out yourself how much you are subsidising wind turbines by.

I don’t think you will be amused.

2020 - The World just Gets Better! (So Suck it up Doomsters)

Tired of watching petulant children mouthing dogma to odious supine politicians?

Bored by ridiculous attention-seeking teenagers blubbering on about how somebody “stole their future”?

Do you get sickened by watching loathsome sociopaths as they lie and connive to trick naive youngsters into following their death cult?

Well, lighten up peeps! None of that crap is going on here!

This post is in fact a small antidote. It is in essence two fingers (one if your are American) waved at the fear-mongers and cult builders.

More to the point it is also built on the thing cultists and fear-mongers hate the most: Facts.

This post is about (you guessed it!) how things are getting better.

And Better.

AND BETTER!

And by better I don’t just mean the extra five cans of beer I found in the back of the cupboard yesterday.

I mean r-e-a-l-l-y better.

Better in how far fewer people are dying from extreme weather events.

Better in how far fewer people are living in dirt poverty.

Or even how people are simply not dying! (Well, OK. Everyone dies. Its just now they die age 70 not 35.)

So suck it up doomsters.

Whimper your way through the following examples. Wring your grubby little hands. Have a little tantrum like a two year in a supermarket. Bleat and moan like the sheep you are.

Your fetid, rancid scare-mongering will not hold. The only person who deserves to suffer from your self indulgent paranoia is yourself.

The world gets relentlessly better. The new year is unlikely to break the trend.

This is just a small selection of global improvements. Try reading Factfulness by the late great Hans Rosling if you fancy some more.

Extreme Weather Events

Do some people die from extreme weather events?
Sadly yes.

Are more people dying from extreme weather events?
No.

In fact the number of people losing their lives from extreme weather events is now lower than at any time in the last 100 years.

That somewhat ruins the hysterical rhetoric we get pummelled with on a daily basis doesn't it?

Poverty

Want to know how mass starvation and poverty is doing on a global scale?

Lets look at the number of people surviving on two dollars a day or less.

These poor souls sleep on dirt floors. They are illiterate. They die from ridiculous diseases like measles and flu. They are usually malnourished. Their lives are short, dull and brutal.

Because they are poor they have large families in the hope that one or two of their children might survive to their teens. By the way, don’t forget. This is how the sociopaths and their cults want it to stay.

If we carry on as we are then we are we can eliminate this desperate poverty in thirty years.

But only if we carry on as we are. 

We must lock out the psycho cult leaders and their gullible soldiers who seek to derail global progress.

Average Life Expectancy

Finally lets look at worldwide average life expectancy. Currently it stands at 72 . (Yes 72. That is not a misprint)

While the sociopaths witter on about how too many children are being born, the main growth in the worlds population is fuelled by people living longer. In other words people are having better lives.

Further population increase is NOT caused by an increase in births. The number of individuals between the ages of 0 to 15 has has remained roughly constant now for almost twenty years!

Yes. The worlds population is growing. It will peak at about 11 Billion in 60 years. So we know where we stand! We can plan ahead.

Stupid tearful teenagers mouthing the false dogma of their cult masters about population runaway and mass starvation should be treated like any other stupid and ill-informed teenager. They need correction. Even if they suffer cognitive dissonance on having their black nightmares thwarted.

Hopefully one day, they will escape the malign influence of their cult and gain a little more life experience. Then perhaps their world view will be more rational.

So, things are looking good.

Very good in fact.

But there are clouds on the horizon. Yet those clouds are only a threat if we decide to steer towards them.

We have to address the pathetic politically motivated nonsense being spewed out to service hidden agendas. Like all propaganda the nonsense is wrapped in morsels of truth. Usually to make it more scary.

Top of the list within these morsels of truth is Global Warming. Or Climate Change. Or the Climate Emergency. Or Climate Chaos. Or Climate Crisis. Or whatever else it gets morphed to to enhance its ability to scare gullible children.

Yes! The planet is warming. One of the aspects of this warming is sea level rise. Today the cultists and their sycophants are using future sea level rise as a primary weapon in their quest to spread fear and turn back global progress.

But sea level rise does NOT mean humanity is doomed anymore than a rising world population means humanity is doomed. Unless that is you are an avid follower of one of the nutcases running a cult scam like Extinction Rebellion.

So is this sea level rise because of human Carbon Dioxide emissions? Well, probably some of it is.

But so what?

Let’s make the unlikely assumption that ALL of the global warming from the last 150 years has been caused solely by human emissions.

Would you throw away the last 150 years of progress in order to prevent the global warming that has occurred in that period?

Would you rather leave billions living (and dying) in dirt poverty?

Would you throw away all the progress in medicine, science and engineering?

Would you rather have it that almost the whole of humanity was dirt poor rather than today where most of humanity is NOT dirt poor?

Take the average Bangladeshi. The population of Bangladesh has risen four-fold since 1950. Their life span is now about 70. In the 1950’s it was 35. The average Bangladeshi family have 2.4 children whereas forty years ago it was six.

Today Bangladesh feeds itself. Bangladesh does not suffer the crippling famines of the past. Neither does it succumb to dreadful and easily prevented epidemics.

Bangladesh is healthier, richer, and better educated than it has ever been before. It's population is stabilising. Child mortality is at an all time low.

All that because Bangladesh has embraced modern science, medicine and engineering and rejected Luddite paranoia, superstition and fear.

Meanwhile, since 1950 the world sea level has risen about 17cms. (7 inches)

Go and ask the average Bangladeshi what he/she would regard as more important aspect of the last 70 years in Bangladesh.

Was it sea level rise?
Or was it the improvement of the human condition?

We can continue to improve things and adapt to change. Or we can throw it away.

We can indulge in a panic laced pursuit of a dark self fulfilling prophesy. Or we can continue on a path that is driven by cheap plentiful energy and has been shown to improve humanity worldwide.

Sure. Let’s address Global Warming. As well as other problems like pollution. But let us do it rationally.

Let’s ensure its done to enhance humanity.

Not to diminish it.

Prostitution, Lynyrd Skynryd and Santa

So you thought you’d get away with parking your arse in front of the TV while drinking Baileys out of a pint mug over Christmas did you?

Well I have some news for you Sunshine. And that news involves reading and listening. Here’s a selection of stuff that needs your serious attention over the Christmas.

It includes a short list of books that’ll get your brain-cells rattling over the Christmas break. Most are available in some form of electronic format as well as standard regurgitated dead tree format. They range in price from nothing to about a tenner.

All of these these books had a dramatic affect on my perception of what was really going on in the world. So be warned you may (like me) experience Cognitive Dissonance. (Don’t know what Cognitive Dissonance is? There’s a book on that below too!)

For the ultra lazy (yes I know – that’s most of you) there’s also a couple of really fantastic YouTube Ted Talk videos too. And to cap it all 25 minutes of the live version of Rattlesnake Shake by Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac rounded off by another great Youtube video with Lynyrd Skynryd and  Free Bird from 1977.

Make sure you crank the volume up for Rattlesnake Shake and Free Bird. It is illegal to listen to them quietly.

Merry Xmas.
Love and Kisses.
Billothewisp.

Books that Need Reading

Factfulness

YOU MUST READ THIS BOOK. No ifs. No buts. No excuses. If you want to know exactly why the liars and cheats who keep telling us that we are all about to die are wrong - this is it.

A book that will not only enlighten you to what is really going on in the world but will provide you with suitable ammunition to shoot down the doom-sters when they witter on about how Armagedon is just round the corner.

Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air

The loss of Dr David MacKay was a body blow to the world. But his legacy of "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" lives on. Depending on what format you want the price ranges from absolutely nothing to about a fifteen quid. Even if you cant read it right now why not download a free copy for future reference? The free pdf version is HERE

Freakanomics

Oh My God! This book just blew me away. Its nearly fifteen years old now but it is guaranteed to challenge your pre-conceptions on a range of issues. You know - when did you ever consider the following:

"Why do Drug Dealers still live with their Mums?"
Or
"Where have all the Criminals gone?".

Super Freakanomics.

As for Freakanomics - just more-so.
Like:

“How is a Prostitute like a Dept Store Santa?
And:
"Why should suicide bombers buy life insurance?"

Separate Ways

I didn’t read this until twelve years ago. It changed the way I looked at the EU. Admittedly I was getting a little twitchy about the railroading of the Treaty of Lisbon through Parliament even then, but I was to all intents and purposes a EU-Phile, a Remainer (Ugh! - there I’ve said it).

This book, written by the late Peter Shore changed my opinion. It's now only available second hand and is currently eye-wateringly expensive. But cheap copies do come up for a couple of quid now and again..

How to have Impossible Conversations

I’m only half way through this but it is changing the way I address discussions with people with differing views. It come recommended by a star list of  ultra bright and argumentative bastards like Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Marc Andreessen

It is really enlightening. If you want to win people over rather than just win the argument this is the book to read. It a book about how to make converts not just beat your enemies.

When Prophesy Fails.

So what does Cognitive Dissonance mean and why is it important. Here is Lean Festingers masterpiece from the 1950’s where he followed a Flying Saucer cult to find out what would happen when their prophesy of Global Catastrophe failed to materialise.

Read this and you will understand why the UK Labour party is lurching further left after taking the recent election beating. You'll see why Al Gores failed prophesy that the North Pole would be ice free by 2012 simply made cults like Extinction Rebellion double down on their doomstering.

YouTube Videos that must be seen

Don't Panic!

This is so good! It is an entertaining ride through the basics of the book "Factfulness". It is funny informative and downright ideal for watching on Christmas afternoon after having a few noggins. Just Watch it!

The Mysterious Workings of the Adolescent Brain.

Reaching your wits end? Teenager children driving your mad? Here's why.

Music to Die For

RattleSnake Shake.

Recorded nearly 50 years ago this is the live version of "RattleSnake Shake" by Fleetwood Mac.

BE WARNED:
This is NOT the Fleetwood Mac of West Coast music post 1974. This is the Fleetwood Mac of Peter Green (known to Guitar affectionados as the "the Green God").

It's raw.
Bloody even.

If this does not make your hair stand on end then you are already dead.

Sadly it's music only - no video but it'll still wring you out like an old dishcloth.

Free Bird

Lynyrd Skynryd live in 1977. Savor the atmosphere and the sheer power of this rendition. Then marvel at the rows of pretty girls (who are all now in their late 50s early 60's).

Utterly and completely magnificent.



Merry Christmas.

Homage to the Mighty Redcar

If anywhere in the UK had just reason to grasp at Corbyn’s cynical fantasies in the 2019 General Election it is Redcar.

Redcar is a steel town in the North East of the UK. To say it has been treated shabbily for the last thirty years by successive governments would be the understatement of the century.

Even so, as the magic grandpa found out, the good people of the North East don’t do fairy tales. A set of bribes presented like a stream of cuddly toys on a Generation game conveyor belt did not impress them.

Redcar has had a lot to put up with. Taken for granted by the Labour party and ignored by the Tories it was in many ways politically abandoned and forgotten.

The most crushing abandonment came in 2015. The steel works bereft of any government support, and owned by a foreign steel maker was closed.

Why was there no government support?

The EU rules on state aid prevented it. Which was “convenient” as the government was less than keen anyway.

Even then, it is highly likely that the foreign owner (SSI Steel) had only bought the plant in 2011 to close it down.

Competitors rarely buy plant to run it in competition to themselves. They buy it to first asset strip it then close it. They eliminate a competitor and steal the competitors order book and intellectual property to boot.

For the buyer it is a win-win. Everybody else loses.

Just look at the Kraft takeover of Cadburys, or the BMW takeover of Rover Group if you don’t believe me.

Abandoned by the Tories, ignored by the EU and despised by Labour the good people of Redcar took their revenge in 2016 and voted 70/30 to leave the EU. The shock still resonates through the metropolitan elite to this day.

Then after three years of obfuscation, sabotage and down-right betrayal the anti-brexit parliamentarian elite were forced (against their will) to confront the electorate.

The Redcar electorate put their country first. They voted out the EU appeasing Labour MP and replaced her with a new face. An MP that has said he will put Brexit first and Redcar too.

Jacob Young the new Tory MP.
A man who needs to show he means business in supporting Redcar.

The people of Redcar have placed their trust in Jacob Young ….. and also in Boris Johnson.

They wait patiently for that trust to be honoured and repaid.

In my humble opinion they deserve to reap the rewards of putting democracy above petty personal interest.

So what should the Tories and Jacob Young do now?

Here’s an idea.

The steel plant was mothballed four years ago. Whether it's production capability is still viable I do not know, but lets assume it, or part of it, is still viable.

Imagine the symbolic significance to the people of Redcar (and the rest of the country too), if on the 1st February (after we have left the EU) Boris Johnson stated his intention to rebuild the steel making capabilities of Redcar.

The people of Redcar deserve more than just a few quid spent on random infrastructure. They deserve to have their industry restored.

A modest investment of a few hundred million quid would not only re-invigorate UK heavy engineering in the North East but would signal an intention that the UK would no longer allow foreign governments or foreign industries to dictate how our people are treated.

The people of Redcar deserve better. In fact they deserve more than better.

Because of them we have our country back.

Now they deserve their steelworks back too.

Why Vote in a Safe Seat?

Let’s say you are in a constituency where the sitting MP has a humongous majority. Maybe a majority that is far, far bigger than all the votes for all of the other candidates combined. Like (say) Tottenham.

You have to ask yourself: What is the point in voting?

If you vote for the sitting MP your extra vote when added to the mountain they already have will make no difference. If you vote for any of the other candidates, you stand no chance whatsoever of changing the MP.

Even in a marginal seat a General Election constituency contest has only once been decided by a majority of one and that was back in 1910. As for a draw that has also only ever happened once, back in 1886.

The net result is is that on a personal level the physical and financial gain from participating in a vote, especially in a safe seat, is nil.

On this we have to hang the question: On an individual basis, what IS the point of voting?

The inescapable answer is that on a purely individualistic and selfish  basis there is no point whatsoever.

But voting is not about the individual. Voting is above all else an altruistic act. It is selfless. It has no tangible reward. It results in a group decision where the wisdom of crowds prevails.

(which leads me into a book recommendation – a must read – "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki)

Even so, walking half a mile on a cold and rainy day to vote in an election where the outcome in your constituency is a forgone conclusion does test that altruism somewhat.

There is though a singular advantage in voting in a safe seat constituency. Especially if you are a little disillusioned with either the sitting MP or the main ( but distant) contenders.

You can safely experiment.

You can vote for someone else. You can vote for somebody or some party that takes your fancy. They don’t even have to have a fully formed policy base.

If it tickled you fancy you could vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party without consequence.

But rather than the Monster Raving Loony Party (who I am sure have a set of policies almost as good as any of the main partys anyway), why not use your vote to support a smaller party?

Why not vote for a  party that is possibly struggling to get some notice?

Or maybe you would like to lend your support to a party that will achieve considerable electoral support across the country, but will, thanks to the inequities of out voting system gain no seats.

In either of these cases your vote does have some tangible effect.

For a small party like (say) the SDP it can provide vital visibility. With enough votes, even though they stand no hope of winning the seat, they’ll gain vital exposure. It may well stop them being quite so ignored by the media. Maybe they’ll start cropping up on the MSM Radar more often. This could give them vital publicity to fight future more winnable elections either locally or nationally.

For a larger party like (say) the Brexit Party a vote for them in an unwinnable seat is a vote of support. A vote that will be tallied up nationally. It will show with the millions of others across the country the inequities and plain damn unfairness of our electoral system.

So, as long as you regard altruism as a virtuous ideal, a vote in a safe seat is not a wasted vote.

You can, if you like, add it to the mountain for the current MP. Or vote for one of the traditional partys.

Or you can be adventurous.

Even a vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party is better than no vote at all!

The SDP: 2019 Thirsk and Malton

Time for another amateur analysis of one of the seats being contested by the SDP in the forthcoming General Election. Here is a look at a Conservative safe seat that is being contested by a brave SDP candidate by the name of Michael Taylor.

Thirsk & Malton is a Tory stronghold in North Yorkshire. In the last election they took 60% of the vote. In the EU referendum the constituency voted 56% to leave the EU. This constituency will not change hands in December 2019.

Interestingly Mike Taylor (SDP) is the only candidate that has supported Brexit from the outset. The sitting MP (Kevin Hollinrake) was (in 2016) a supporter of Remain. Today it looks like Kevin Hollinrake is really a somewhat reluctant Brexiteer.

I would suggest Kevin Hollinrake supports Johnson out of party loyalty rather than due to any “road to Damascus” conversion. In fact he voiced opposition to Johnsons “do or die” ideal of leaving the EU on October 31st.

I would suggest that the sitting MP is in all intents and purposes still a Remainer at heart. I would suspect that although he may tow the party line after the election, he will potentially be a thorn in the side of those negotiating the future Trading relationship with the EU.

There is no UKIP or Brexit Party Candidate. The rump 2017 UKIP vote (1500 voters) has to be looking for a home. They did not go to the Conservatives or Labour in 2017 so where else is there for them to go in 2019 other than to a true Brexit supporting party like the SDP?

In 2015 the UKIP vote was almost as big as Labour's. In 2015 UKIP took just under 8000 votes. It looks like between 2015 and 2017 the UKIP vote shed 2000 voters to Labour and 4500 to the Conservatives.

So there should be a considerable number of discontented Leave voting Labour supporters who have given up on Corbyn’s debacle of a Brexit policy. They may well be looking for a new home, especially for one with strong traditional Labour roots.

It could well be that these leave voters just won’t vote Tory ever. Especially for one who was a Remainer. So this may well be fertile territory.

As for the disgruntled leavers in that mountain of Conservative voters, there is the opportunity to tweak the sitting MPs tail by voting for the SDP. There is no chance of letting in Labour (or anyone else) by the back door. A protest vote to support a real Brexiteer may well just make their day.

So lets say the whole of the ex-UKIP vote and perhaps another 2000 voters apiece from both the Conservative and Labour partys are volatile. They will consider voting for a true Brexiteer in the election. That is 12,000 volatile voters.

Resources are of course limited. But with a bit of luck and fortuitous canvassing then maybe 1000 can be pulled into the SDP camp which would be brilliant. But a vote in the few hundreds would still be a publicity victory.

So here are my crap ideas on what to promote to entice voters to vote SDP.

They are probably rubbish but maybe one or two will hit the spot.

1. It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure.
2. Your vote still matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
4. Attack Labour on their hideous record on bigotry and antisemitism. The MP cannot be changed by voting Labour. So wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this antisemitic ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?
5. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit and work against it.
6. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Remainer Tory? Or pro democracy?
7. We (quite rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party supports votes for 16 year olds! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your disapproval of hard-line "woke" Labour policy
8. You do know the sitting Tory MP supported remain in 2016 don’t you? He won’t be replaced in this election but you can keep him inline by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the outset. The SDP candidate.
9. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.

The SDP: 2019 Tottenham

You just have to admire people who are willing to put themselves through hell to stand  in no-hope seats. Of those seats Tottenham is potentially the most difficult. 

The SDP candidate in this case is Andrew Bence. So whatever party you support Andrew Bence deserves our most wholehearted respect.

If you wanted to define a safe seat, then Tottenham has to be a primary contender. The sitting MP (David Lammy) took 80% of the votes in 2017 on a 68% turnout. Or to put it another way David Lammy got well over 4 times the votes than of all the other candidates combined.

In the 2016 EU referendum 76% of the Tottenham vote in the referendum was for Remain.

So Tottenham is both a Labour and a Remainer Citadel.

Nobody is going to be elected here except for David Lammy. The only candidate in the election other than David Lammy who is even likely to save their deposit is the Conservative candidate. The Conservatives in 2017 came a distant second with 11% of the vote.

This is by definition going to be a difficult seat for anyone other than Labour to get votes in.

Even so, the Leave vote in the 2016 EU referendum was about 18,000. Due to the virtual non-existence of UKIP around 13,000 of those 18,000 voters must have voted for Lammy in the 2017 General Election.

The Brexit Party is also fielding a candidate. So unfortunately any of those 13000 Labour leave voters disgruntled enough to look for another party is going to have three to choose from.

Perhaps it would be best for the SDP candidate to emphasise the Social Democratic nature of the SDP and it’s Labour origins. Then distance themselves from both the Conservatives and the Brexit Party. Present the SDP as the socially responsible party for leavers to vote for.

Lammy is a senior politician and as such is perhaps (as most senior politicians are) somewhat of an occasional visitor to his patch. If there are any local issues that have been left to fester, then cultivating a protest vote about these ignored issues might get some mileage. Local social issues, especially those that might be also ignored by the Conservative candidate due to party policy would be well worth exploring.

I have looked at how other minor partys have fared in the past in this seat. I think a result in the low hundreds will be a good result. Anything over 400 will be a milestone. A 1000 would be groundbreaking.

So what would be the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s seven suggestions.

They may range from worthwhile to totally irrelevant in this seat. I don’t know. They are just suggestions.

1. Tottenham is an armour plated safe Labour seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than Labour. So if they feel disgruntled with current Labour policy or the MP they can safely register a protest vote.
2. Your SDP vote will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the current MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
4. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this ugliness by voting SDP? It might help to make them sit up and take notice.
5. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit.
6. The Torys can never hope to achieve anything here. The Brexit party is unlikely to survive another two years. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile building up a viable alternative voice to Labour in Tottenham? Even if its just to keep the Labour MP on his toes and reduce the endemic complacency that comes with a safe seat.
7. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.
8. Local issues. Bring up local issues. Especially those that have been allowed to run out of control without much/any input from the sitting MP.

The SDP: 2019 Havant

The SDP are standing a candidate in the Havant Constituency in Hampshire in the 2019 General Election.

Here's my take on what they might achieve, where the potential SDP voters will come from and how many of them there are. Of course, this is just my opinion but I think it adds up.

In my humble opinion this is one of the best prospects for a decent vote share for the SDP in all of the 20 seats being contested by them.

Havant is an impregnable Tory seat and always has been. In the last election the sitting Tory MP (Alan Mak) garnered almost 60% of the vote. His majority alone was bigger than the vote share achieved by the Labour Party. This seat will not change hands.

There is no UKIP and (more importantly) no Brexit party candidate. The SDP candidate is in fact the sole Brexiteer. Alan Mak campaigned in 2016 to remain. This should be a strong lever to prize off disgruntled Brexiteers from the mountainous Tory vote.

Alan Maks majority amounts to a full 34% of the votes cast. So all voters should realise that Alan Mak will not be replaced whatever they vote. Voters can safely express their displeasure at his remainerism.

Voters can diminish Mak's vote share by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the start - the SDP candidate. They can do this without fear of letting in the Labour Party by the back door.

The SDP candidate in this election is Alan Black.

Here is the candidate list and 2017 general Election result

In 2015 UKIP gained a considerable vote share with 9000 votes. When they collapsed in 2017 about about 4000 of their votes went to the Tories and about 3000 went to Labour. There remained a rump of about 2000 UKIP votes in 2017.

Interestingly there was an independent candidate in 2017. She gained nearly a 1000 votes. It appears her campaign centred around over-development in the area which could be another good lever to gain votes. (more research required)

Explaining to voters that this seat will not change hands is crucial.

There is a rump of 2000 UKIP votes with nowhere to go other than the SDP. 

There is the 3000 that migrated to the Labour party that must also be desperately looking for somewhere to go. 

The 4000 UKIP votes that went to the Tories will also feel queasy if they are enlightened to the fact that Alan Mak actually campaigned for Remain in 2016 even though he had previously described himself as a Euro-Sceptic. 

For these Tory voters, finding a real Brexiteer (SDP) candidate while being shown that Alan Maks majority is so huge that there is no possibility of inadvertantly letting in a Labour or LibDem will be an eye-opener.

Besides the ex-ukippers, the Labour vote is up for squeezing anyway. They have in essence abandoned their leave supporting Labour voters. Add to that the nastiness about anti-semitism and I reckon theres about 2-3000 Labour votes other than the 3000 ex-ukippers up for grabs.

Add in the 1000 votes that went to the lady independent and there is a lot to play for here.

I reckon that in total there is possibly up to 12000 volatile votes that are maybe looking for a new home. Most of those will be abandoned or mislead leave voters who would like to punish either the Tories or Labour.

The Tory voters will all will fear a Labour government. Reassuring them that voting SDP cannot let in the Labour candidate by the back door is paramount.

The reverse is true for the Labour voters.

Telling them the truth that whatever they vote they will not change the MP will mean they can register their disapproval with Corbyn and his (less than) merry men.

So what would be the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my ten arguments.

They may be rubbish but they may just get you to generate better ones!

1. It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. So by voting for party other than the Tories you will not be damaging Brexit. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure.
2. Your vote matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Does the MP pay enough attention to local issues (like over-development?) register your disapproval of local over-development by voting SDP, a party that puts local people first and greedy developers at the back.
4. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
5. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?
6. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit. Vote SDP!
7. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?
8. We (quite rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party supports votes for 16 year olds! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your disapproval of hard-line Labour policy
9. You do know the sitting Tory MP campaigned to remain in 2016 don’t you? He won’t be replaced in this election but you can keep him inline by voting for the only candidate that supported Brexit from the outset. The SDP candidate.
10. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.

The SDP: 2019 Epping Forest

In a strange nerdish way these vote analysis posts for SDP contested seats are good fun.

But be warned: My interpretation of what votes can be stolen from where by the small SDP party may be a load of baloney.

Trusting my analysis would be a bit like trusting another passenger to land a 747 because he read one of the manuals a couple of years ago.

But it at least keeps me out of the pub for a few hours.

Anyway here's the next one - for Epping Forest.

To call this a safe Tory seat would be the understatement of the century. 62% of the electorate voted for them in 2017.

Just remember 2017 was a badly run and poorly fought election by the Torys! They still got 62%.

Labour are a distant second and the Libdems garner a couple of thousand votes.

No UKIP candidate and more importantly no Brexit Party candidate are standing in this election. So the SDP candidate is the only other Brexit supporting candidate other than the sitting MP.

The SDP candidate is Jon Newham.

Here’s the candidate list and the last election result.

There are a couple of interesting things with this constituency.

First off if you look at the 2015 General Election result (below) you will find that the UKIP vote was considerable. It stood at 9000 votes. They made a large dent in both the Labour and Tory vote and pushed Labour into third place. Even so the Tory majority in 2015 was still much the same as in 2017.

In 2017 it looks like the Labour party robbed the LibDems and the Greens. They also possibly took around a third of the UKIP vote. I’d suggest that this third (or about 3000 voters) will be desperately looking for a new home. With all the shenanegins with anti-semitism and general Corbynista nastiness maybe there would be more.

It is worth noting that the Labour candidate is a keen supporter (actually a driver of Labour policy in this area) for votes at 16, which in my humble opinion is very unpopular with most people over the age of 30. I would think that this would be a strong lever in prying away older voters from the Labour Party.

The mountain of the Tory vote may get tweaked for those ex-UKIP voters. They may be keen leavers but are possibly reluctant Tories. They don't have Brexit Party to migrate to. But they will still need persuasion that moving their vote to the SDP they will not change the MP or damage Brexit. Possibly 4000 volatile voters here?

So in total about (maybe) 7000 votes up for grabs by the SDP. That is of course, IF those 7000 can be identified and persuaded. I reckon a 1000 votes at the end of the day would be a fantastic result.

So what would be the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my eight arguments.

They may be rubbish but they may just get you to generate better ones!

(And YES! they DO change slightly post to post. Honest!)

1. It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. So by voting for the SDP you will not be damaging Brexit. Whatever you vote and whether you like it or not, the MP is secure. 
2. Your vote matters. It will not change the MP but it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory. It will make the Tory MP just that little bit less complacent.
3. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
4. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party? As you won’t change the MP wouldn’t it be worthwhile registering your disapproval of this ugliness by voting SDP and depriving Labour of your vote?
5. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit. Vote SDP!
6. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?
7. We (quite rightly) have laws to protect 16 year olds from sexual and financial predators. Do you think giving votes to 16 year olds and opening them up to political predators is a good idea? The Labour party candidate does! He thinks giving votes to 16 year olds is a great idea! Will you vote for that? Or vote SDP so showing your dissaproval?
8. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored.
9. The SDP candidate supports Brexit. None of the other candidates other than the MP do. So if you want to register support for Brexit you have a straight choice Tory or SDP. Neither choice will change the final election result. But a vote for SDP will help focus the Tories on Brexit.

The SDP: 2019 Cambridge

For reasons unknown even to me, I decided to have a look at the 20 seats being contested by the SDP in this coming General Election. (Maybe I should get out more).

This is the second post in the series.

Caveat Emptor:

My experience in analysing voting trends can be summed up in two words. "Bugger all".

So what you see is what you get. It may right. It may be wrong. Or anywhere in the middle. You decide. But I hope it is at least somewhat entertaining.


Cambridge is Remainer Heaven. At least 80% of the last general election vote went to partys that now support Remain.

The only potential fly in the ointment for them is that there will (possibly) be a reluctance from a small proportion of the Labour voters to vote for a hard core Remain MP who is also in favour of scrapping Trident.

The SDP candidate is Jane Robins. 

This will be a very hard seat to do well in. So good luck to Jane.

The immediate pain here is that the Brexit Party is standing as well as the SDP. They will potentially hoover up most discontented ex-UKIP  voters who didn't even have a candidate in 2017.

This is an ultra strong remain seat. The turnout rose by almost 10% between 2015 and 2017 probably due to students voting. Almost all of that 10% appears to have gone to Labour. It is an unequal fight between Labour and LibDems who between them hold 80% of the turnout.

One light on the horizon is that the 2015 UKIP candidate was the redoubtable Patrick O’Flynn who may have some local street cred and would be well worth parading about on the streets. (;-)

In the 2016 EU Referendum 26% voted to leave. Yet only 16% voted Tory in 2017. Which suggests Labour and the Lib Dems are hiding about 5000 leave voters between them.

Nationally, thirty per cent of LibDem voters voted Leave in 2016. As we are dealing with voters not party apparachtiks maybe there’s some room there with maybe up to (say) 2000 potential voters?

However this may be wishful thinking. Leaver LibDems may have already migrated to the Labour Party in 2017.

Maybe targeting Labour would be the most fruitful. Labour leavers must be feeling very uncomfortable about how the party has done a volte face on Brexit and may consider abandoning them. But going to the Tories or Farage's Brexit Party would be a step too far.

Also maybe its worth trying  to woo UKIP voters though I suspect most of those will either stay Tory or go to Brexit Party.

I think it unlikely that many of the 9000 Conservative voters would migrate to the SDP. Though you never know. If John Haywood is not particularly well liked then that may be an avenue for persuasion.

Here’s my pennys worth of campaign statements which is probably useless. But it may trigger you to think up better ones..

Basically it comes down to targeting the 30% leavers (irrespective of party) in the seat and to exploit Labour vulnerabilities.

1. Cambridge is a armour plated safe Remain seat. There is no chance for anyone other than Labour. Even the LibDems are almost 13,000 votes behind Labour. So if your are a leaver, by voting for a party other than the Tories you will not be betraying Brexit. But choose your party well. You have a choice between the Torys, a one policy Brexit party or the SDP.
2. Your vote matters. It will not change the MP from being a Remainer but it will potentially set the trend for the future – and allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory.
3. The SDP has been around for 40 years. Do you think the Brexit Party will be around after next year?
4. The SDP respects democracy. If you voted to remain we respect your decision and we will not vilify it. But democracy is paramount.
5. Why not show support for an honest but small party? You vote will not change the MP whatever you vote! But it may have a big effect on the way partys view the issues you are concerned with.
6. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party?
7. Do you want you vote to support a party that said it will ignore the biggest referendum in our history like the LibDems?
8. The MP in this constituency will be a Remain supporter. You won’t change that. But you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite. Vote SDP.
9. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? So when they total up the votes at the end, which pile will your be in? Pro Corbyn? Or pro democracy?
10. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it would be ignored.
11. Do you support scrapping Trident? The Labour and LibDem candidates do! Do you think they are serious about defence? Are you?

Potentially (maybe) 5000 votes up for grabs? But very, very difficult due to Brexit Party and very large Remain vote base. A thousand votes on the day will be ultra impressive.

Jane Robins of the SDP has a mountain to climb. 

But she’s a good Gal. 

Lets hope she makes an impact.

The SDP: 2019 Basildon & Billericay

As there are people in the SDP who have the guts to stand in the coming General Election (and in no-hope seats at that) I thought the least I could do would be to have a quick review of some of these seats. Just to see what they are up against.

I don't have any magic insight or skill at this. Just a few hours to spare poking about on Google. This may be useful or it may be a waste of time. But whatever, here it is!

First on the list of seats being contested by the SDP is Basildon & Billericay. It is a stupendously safe Conservative seat. 

The SDP candidate is Simon Breedon. 

While he has the typical safe seat mountain to climb, the seat does have some interesting dynamics mainly brought about by the fact that unless you vote Conservative (and to be fair most do!) the only other choice for a Brexit honouring candidate is Simon.

Here is the candidate list and the General Election 2017 result.

So where’s the meat and potatoes in this lot?

UKIP (and the Brexit Party) are gone. The Greens are new and will probably only steal votes off the Lib Dems and the maybe a few from the Labour party. The Lib Dem vote probably reflects a group of hard core Remainers who are unlikely to swap to SDP.

But where did the UKIP vote go? It appears about two thirds went to the Torys and one third to Labour. The election turnout in 2017 was 2% up on 2015. In 2015 UKIP came third with 20% of the vote. It appears most of that from 2015 has gone to the Tories. But not all.

How soft is the Labour vote? It has actually grown over the last 3 elections and it would appear that the increased turnout in 2017 gave it a boost.

BUT that was before all the back-sliding on Brexit or the worries about anti-semitism and Corbynism.

Certainly the proportion of UKIP votes that went to Labour in 2017 (maybe 3000) will be looking for a home. Maybe another 2000 Labour supporters would be readily open to persuasion.

As for the Conservative vote, maybe some of the UKIP vote that migrated here will be available. A lot of these people will not be convinced Tories and never were. Say 1000.

So I reckon there are up to 3-4000 voters that are potentially up for grabs by the SDP. Realistically a result in the high hundreds will be a victory.

So what would be the best way of promoting the SDP in this seat? Here’s my seven arguments.

They may be rubbish but they may just get folk to generate better ones!

1. It is a armour plated safe Tory seat. Emphasise to the electorate that there is no chance for another party to win in this seat other than the Tories. So by voting for partys other than the Tories you will not be betraying Brexit or risk changing the MP for that matter.
2. Your vote still matters. It will not change the MP. But it will potentially set the trend for the future. It allows you to register support for leaving the EU without voting Tory.
3. Big up the democracy aspect. Why not show support for an honest but small party? Your vote whatever it is will not change the MP! Neither will it imperil Brexit. But it may have a big effect on the way others view the issues you are concerned with.
4. Do you want to use your vote to support a party now strongly associated with anti-Semitism like the Labour Party?
5. You won’t change the MP whatever you vote but you can register your displeasure with the Metropolitan elite. Especially the anti-democrats that want to cancel Brexit and you can do this without voting Tory. Vote SDP!
6. Do you think Corbyn is “safe”? When they total up the votes at the end, which pile will yours be in? Pro Corbyn? Pro Tory? Or pro democracy?
7. Do you think UK politics is broken? It cannot be fixed overnight by voting SDP. But it is a start. And it uses you vote for good effect when otherwise it will be ignored and lost.

Good luck to Simon Breedon, SDP candidate for the 2019 General Election: Basildon & Billericay

BillotheWisp’s SDP Attack Dog

Give him ten years and he will have your leg off.

You may be surprised to hear that the small Social Democratic Party (SDP) are standing candidates in no less than 20 seats this General Election.

In fact I was amazed and pleasantly so.

The SDP is a thoroughly decent party that deserves support. So I thought I’d spend a some time just looking at the potential for these 20 candidates.

So here are my thoughts. They may be right. They may be wrong. But I hope you find them interesting.

Lets deal with what will be presented as “the down side” first

Will these 20 SDP candidates potentially split the Leave vote? Could they allow the LibDems (or any other bunch of juveniles) in through the back door?

The answer to that is a resounding NO!

All of these seats are safe seats for the present incumbent. To anyone other than the existing MP they are no-hopers (that includes the SDP).

In other words (short of a miracle) there will be no change to the MP in any of these 20 seats.

You may well ask: What is the point in fighting in a constituency when you know you are going to lose?

For the larger partys that is a moot point. To them concentrating on no-hope safe seats would be crazy. In safe seats (when held by another party), the big party’s often just field a paper candidate. A token. Someone who in all likelihood will be here today and gone tomorrow.

But for a small party like the SDP seeking to expand its base, this is all about getting noticed and building a base. No SDP candidate will be gone tomorrow. Win or lose.

The most important aspect to this is that these seats are safe seats with majorities for the current MP in the many thousands.. So any individual voting for any of the partys standing, in essence knows their vote will not change the outcome.

Let’s say you are a traditional Labour supporter in a safe Conservative seat.

You won’t vote Tory. Especially as they will win the seat anyway.

But maybe you are committed to Leaving the EU. What can you do?

Do you vote for the spotty ex-student neo-Marxist paper candidate who is an ardent Remainer? Someone who abhors your EU preference and probably views you and your family with disdain?

Are you really going to register one more vote of support for Jeremy Corbyn? A man who in all likelihood is somebody you despise?

Look at it the other way. Say you are in a safe Labour seat.

Again whatever you vote will make no difference to who is the MP. But should you add support to the winner when you know they have been (in all likelihood) architects of the opposition to Brexit?

Are you going to vote Conservative when Conservative policies (other than Brexit) feel suspect?

Then what about the Brexit party?

To me it looks like the Brexit Party is imploding. It has little apparent policy other than that implied by its name. To me it looks like they are dying. A vote for them in these circumstances would truly be a wasted vote.

As for the Lib Dems – well, surprise, surpise!

Thirty per cent of Liberal Democrats voted to leave in 2016.

Where are they going to go?

Will they pile up votes for the local Corbynista? Vote Tory? Vote for the “new” LibDems that discarded democracy like a used tissue?

The alternative is a party that has actually sorted out policy and has a route plan. The SDP.

They won’t win. But none of the others will either. But a vote for the SDP will be another brick in building a truly fair, non elitist working class movement. A vote that would, if used otherwise, count for nothing.

This will be a hard month for those standing for the SDP. In reality getting a thousand votes will be impressive. Saving their deposit (5% of the turnout – say 2500 votes) will be a victory. Any more than that will be amazing.

I don’t think that any SDP MP’s will be elected. Though it would be nice. I suspect most candidates however hard they work, will just get a few hundred votes.

But with a bit of prompting the decent people of this country, whose vote will otherwise count for little, may be persuaded to start the ball rolling and register a vote for change.

Maybe not change today. But change for their children and the future.

What I intend to do in the next series of posts is promote a number of the constituencies in which the SDP are standing. If for no other reason than to give them a tiny bit more publicity and Google link love.

These will be my unprompted thoughts (no one else’s). I hope they help. If they don’t then discard them.