15:20 The final ward to declare has produced the biggest shock result of the election, possibly unmatched anwhere in the country. The three long-standing Labour councillors, including the current and previous council leaders, have been ousted by the Greens.
That makes the final outcome as follows:
Conservative 26
Labour 13
Green 12
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
Conservatives gained seven, Greens gained six, Lib Dems and independents each lost one and Labour lost a whopping 10 seats.
Friday, 4 May 2007
Ward loyalty
15:00 Good to see that Councillor Juliet McCaffery was re-elected with a marginally increased majority. She was the Labour councillor who was ousted from the committee that decided on the highly controversial schools admission policy because she put the interests of her ward first and intended to vote against the plan.
Her Labour colleagues said she should have thought of the interests of the whole city. What utter nonsense! The scheme was devised, at least in part, to suit the interests of another Labour ward.
If councillors are not elected to represent the interests of their wards, what do we need them for? If the interests of the city have overriding priority, we should have elections for the whole city.
Her Labour colleagues said she should have thought of the interests of the whole city. What utter nonsense! The scheme was devised, at least in part, to suit the interests of another Labour ward.
If councillors are not elected to represent the interests of their wards, what do we need them for? If the interests of the city have overriding priority, we should have elections for the whole city.
Almost the end
14:30 Early results, with the winners declared in 19 of the 21 wards, show that the Conservatives are likely to be the largest single party. They have so far won five seats from Labour and one from Brighton & Hove Independents. The Greens have won two from Labour and one from Lib Dem.
Current seats:
Conservative 26
Labour 11
Green 8
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
In the remaining six seats still to declare, five seats had been held by Labour and one by the Greens. If none of these change hands (a big if), Labour would have 16 and Greens nine. The Conservatives would be two short of an absolute majority. If they win one more, they would gain control through the mayor's casting vote; two more would give absolute power.
However, it is worth noting that although the Conservatives have been winning seats, they have done so with fewer votes. Data are not available to say whether this is the result of lower turnout. However, in the Grumpy Old Voter's ward, the three Conservatives, although re-elected, saw their vote fall by a massive 25 per cent.
Current seats:
Conservative 26
Labour 11
Green 8
Lib Dem 2
Independent 1
In the remaining six seats still to declare, five seats had been held by Labour and one by the Greens. If none of these change hands (a big if), Labour would have 16 and Greens nine. The Conservatives would be two short of an absolute majority. If they win one more, they would gain control through the mayor's casting vote; two more would give absolute power.
However, it is worth noting that although the Conservatives have been winning seats, they have done so with fewer votes. Data are not available to say whether this is the result of lower turnout. However, in the Grumpy Old Voter's ward, the three Conservatives, although re-elected, saw their vote fall by a massive 25 per cent.
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Polling tomorrow
Days to election: less than one
So what's the verdict? On the basis of attention paid to this voter, not an easy choice.
The Grumpy Old Vote has gone to Labour for some elections past, since at least before the Thatcher disaster. But if the stories of gerrymandering by Labour councillors to get dodgy policies accepted (school admissions, the Frank Gehry development) are even half true, that would not be an appropriate response this time. Besides, ALL governments run out of steam after six or seven years and as my idea for a sabbatical year are not even on the political agenda (remind me to tell you about that), a change has to be as good as a rest.
Above all, with the serious possibility (even probability) of losing control of the council, Labour has not sent me a single election leaflet. So if they don't try to win, they may as well lose. I went to the trouble of looking at the website, which was mostly self-congratulatory about achievements over the past decade. Some of the policies were ones a council of almost any persuasion would have implemented, some are nationally imposed (like free bus passes for 60+s). Mysteriously, a claim is made to have established an 'elected Older People's Council to represent 60+s'. Elected by whom, may I ask? I am 60+ (just, though you'd hardly believe it) and I have never heard of this council. Window-dressing? Cronyism? Pointlessness?
The Conservatives may oppose the Gehry project but they were in favour of the schools policy until the last minute, and their policy about cars is likely to lead to worse transport conditions, rather than better. They are also the imcumbents in this ward, so voting Conservative would not bring about a desirable change.
The Lib Dems haven't bothered with leaflets, probably because they came fourth in the last local elections and so don't stand much chance, despite the city being surrounded by Lib Dem parliamentary constituences. The website's homepage has a link to a City Council Manifesto—dated 12 March 2003.
Surprisingly, the Greens, hoping to double their representation on the council, haven't bothered with leaflets either. Once again, I have looked at their website and read through the 24-page manifesto for this election that is so carefully hidden away there. OK, printing it out for everyone would use up trees but an advertising campaign to draw attention to its presence would have helped. It's very detailed, and much of it makes sense to anyone of a broadly liberal, social-democratic inclination. One policy proposal regarded as long overdue by anyone who has ever looked at the educational map of Brighton is that new educational facilities should be (re-)established in the city centre. Nonetheless, the Greens supported the new schools admissions policy that is guaranteed to increase school-run traffic—a most un-green idea. And the statement that 'Any money that has to be spent on yet another ballot for change is wasted money' (Manifesto, page 3) sounds suspiciously anti-democratic, whatever the context.
And finally, the fifth party: Brighton & Hove Independents. As previously noted, their policies are shared with one or other of the parties, so they could work on an ad hoc basis with any party that can gain control. But with only six candidates for the city's 54 seats and the dead weight of unthinking voter inertia working against them, the chances of making an impact must be slim.
To judge by reports of political activity from friends in other wards, efforts have at best been patchy and sporadic, at worse non-existent. Perhaps politicians don't think the electorate is interested, or maybe that it's not worth making the effort to try to interest them. If so, writing 'none of the above' in big letters across the ballot paper would be an appropriate response. Unfortunately, a lot of people need to think that's worth doing just to shake the system up a little. Thousands of deliberately spoilt ballots would have an impact that abstention by absence doesn't. 'None of the above' is, in fact, the policy of the Protest Vote Party, but they have candidates in only two wards, not including mine. Good luck to them.
I predict that turnout may be marginally higher this time because there have been recent issues of strong and divisive local concern. And I shall be there tomorrow, with my polling card in hand, making my mark for . . . well, let's leave that until tomorrow.
So what's the verdict? On the basis of attention paid to this voter, not an easy choice.
The Grumpy Old Vote has gone to Labour for some elections past, since at least before the Thatcher disaster. But if the stories of gerrymandering by Labour councillors to get dodgy policies accepted (school admissions, the Frank Gehry development) are even half true, that would not be an appropriate response this time. Besides, ALL governments run out of steam after six or seven years and as my idea for a sabbatical year are not even on the political agenda (remind me to tell you about that), a change has to be as good as a rest.
Above all, with the serious possibility (even probability) of losing control of the council, Labour has not sent me a single election leaflet. So if they don't try to win, they may as well lose. I went to the trouble of looking at the website, which was mostly self-congratulatory about achievements over the past decade. Some of the policies were ones a council of almost any persuasion would have implemented, some are nationally imposed (like free bus passes for 60+s). Mysteriously, a claim is made to have established an 'elected Older People's Council to represent 60+s'. Elected by whom, may I ask? I am 60+ (just, though you'd hardly believe it) and I have never heard of this council. Window-dressing? Cronyism? Pointlessness?
The Conservatives may oppose the Gehry project but they were in favour of the schools policy until the last minute, and their policy about cars is likely to lead to worse transport conditions, rather than better. They are also the imcumbents in this ward, so voting Conservative would not bring about a desirable change.
The Lib Dems haven't bothered with leaflets, probably because they came fourth in the last local elections and so don't stand much chance, despite the city being surrounded by Lib Dem parliamentary constituences. The website's homepage has a link to a City Council Manifesto—dated 12 March 2003.
Surprisingly, the Greens, hoping to double their representation on the council, haven't bothered with leaflets either. Once again, I have looked at their website and read through the 24-page manifesto for this election that is so carefully hidden away there. OK, printing it out for everyone would use up trees but an advertising campaign to draw attention to its presence would have helped. It's very detailed, and much of it makes sense to anyone of a broadly liberal, social-democratic inclination. One policy proposal regarded as long overdue by anyone who has ever looked at the educational map of Brighton is that new educational facilities should be (re-)established in the city centre. Nonetheless, the Greens supported the new schools admissions policy that is guaranteed to increase school-run traffic—a most un-green idea. And the statement that 'Any money that has to be spent on yet another ballot for change is wasted money' (Manifesto, page 3) sounds suspiciously anti-democratic, whatever the context.
And finally, the fifth party: Brighton & Hove Independents. As previously noted, their policies are shared with one or other of the parties, so they could work on an ad hoc basis with any party that can gain control. But with only six candidates for the city's 54 seats and the dead weight of unthinking voter inertia working against them, the chances of making an impact must be slim.
To judge by reports of political activity from friends in other wards, efforts have at best been patchy and sporadic, at worse non-existent. Perhaps politicians don't think the electorate is interested, or maybe that it's not worth making the effort to try to interest them. If so, writing 'none of the above' in big letters across the ballot paper would be an appropriate response. Unfortunately, a lot of people need to think that's worth doing just to shake the system up a little. Thousands of deliberately spoilt ballots would have an impact that abstention by absence doesn't. 'None of the above' is, in fact, the policy of the Protest Vote Party, but they have candidates in only two wards, not including mine. Good luck to them.
I predict that turnout may be marginally higher this time because there have been recent issues of strong and divisive local concern. And I shall be there tomorrow, with my polling card in hand, making my mark for . . . well, let's leave that until tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)