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.
Sunday, 29 April 2007
Four years or one year?
Once upon a time local elections were held every year, when a third of the councillors stood down or sought re-election. It is surprisingly difficult to find out when this practice came to an end in Brighton & Hove. To judge from the composition of the separate councils of the two towns, it was in the late 1970s but it could have been later. Since the creation of the unitary authority on 1 April 1997 elections have been held every four years, a policy that was last decided by the council in October 2000, as confirmed in a memorandum by the city council to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions and published by the House of Commons with the Select Committee's report on 10 April 2002. The report's conclusion: 'A great deal of time, money and effort has gone into changing the political management arrangements of local authorities with apparently little change to the overall quality and credibility of local government.'
It is up to councils to decide how often elections are held, either once every four years or annually for three years of a four year cycle. There is no nationally imposed standard. In 1986 the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business (the Widdicombe Report, Cmnd 9797) recommended single-member wards with elections every four years, similar to the parliamentary model, but this was rejected by the government of the day. In fact, at this Thursday's elections, 20 out of the 45 contested unitary will be electing only a third of the council. (This appears to be an increase in the number holding partial elections compared with eight years ago.)
There are arguments for and against each system that are cogently presented in a consultation paper from the Electoral Commission in 2003. This noted among other things that is costs less to hold elections every four years rather than annually. Solution: never hold elections if cost is an issue. MORI research for the Commission found widespread ignorance and confusion about the timing and frequency of elections, especially among the young.
However, the Commission's report in January 2004 recommended that clarity was needed in the system and because of the problem of creating wards of approximately equal size, all councils should hold elections every four years. This is all getting a bit technical but it is probably largely forgotten today that (small) wards were introduced in the middle of the 19th century to ensure that local authorities represented a cross-section of the social classes: if the electoral areas were too large, the lower orders would have an unassailable advantage. As parliamentary elections have shown ever since, the argument doesn't hold much water.
If clarity is the issue, holding elections every May is clearer than remembering in which fourth year they will be held; the Electoral Commission argued against holding all local authority elections at the same time so as to preserve a differentiation between different tiers of authority. Which means there are local elections somewhere every year, a fact reflected in news and current afairs programmes to add to the confusion. How perverse can you be?
There is, for Grumpy Old Voter, one overwhelming argument in favour of annual elections: to allow the electorate to feel more powerful. Local government, more than national government, is about issues that affect the day-to-day lives of citizens. A system that is more responsive to the public mood about the conduct of affairs on their behalf would increase the power of electors and, marginally perhaps, diminish the power of politicians. And that is a fundamental principle of democracy. We, the voters, are already too marginalised, as the steady decline in the average turnout at elections shows. Danes are twice as likely to vote at local elections than the English, who are bottom of European turnout league. Grumpy Old Voter reckons hat makes the Danes twice as democratic.
Sources:
Memorandum by Brighton and Hove City Council (LGA 30).
Electoral Commission: The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England, Report and recommendations (January 2004).
'Local elections: The key battlegrounds' in The Guardian, 5 February 2007
It is up to councils to decide how often elections are held, either once every four years or annually for three years of a four year cycle. There is no nationally imposed standard. In 1986 the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of Local Authority Business (the Widdicombe Report, Cmnd 9797) recommended single-member wards with elections every four years, similar to the parliamentary model, but this was rejected by the government of the day. In fact, at this Thursday's elections, 20 out of the 45 contested unitary will be electing only a third of the council. (This appears to be an increase in the number holding partial elections compared with eight years ago.)
There are arguments for and against each system that are cogently presented in a consultation paper from the Electoral Commission in 2003. This noted among other things that is costs less to hold elections every four years rather than annually. Solution: never hold elections if cost is an issue. MORI research for the Commission found widespread ignorance and confusion about the timing and frequency of elections, especially among the young.
However, the Commission's report in January 2004 recommended that clarity was needed in the system and because of the problem of creating wards of approximately equal size, all councils should hold elections every four years. This is all getting a bit technical but it is probably largely forgotten today that (small) wards were introduced in the middle of the 19th century to ensure that local authorities represented a cross-section of the social classes: if the electoral areas were too large, the lower orders would have an unassailable advantage. As parliamentary elections have shown ever since, the argument doesn't hold much water.
If clarity is the issue, holding elections every May is clearer than remembering in which fourth year they will be held; the Electoral Commission argued against holding all local authority elections at the same time so as to preserve a differentiation between different tiers of authority. Which means there are local elections somewhere every year, a fact reflected in news and current afairs programmes to add to the confusion. How perverse can you be?
There is, for Grumpy Old Voter, one overwhelming argument in favour of annual elections: to allow the electorate to feel more powerful. Local government, more than national government, is about issues that affect the day-to-day lives of citizens. A system that is more responsive to the public mood about the conduct of affairs on their behalf would increase the power of electors and, marginally perhaps, diminish the power of politicians. And that is a fundamental principle of democracy. We, the voters, are already too marginalised, as the steady decline in the average turnout at elections shows. Danes are twice as likely to vote at local elections than the English, who are bottom of European turnout league. Grumpy Old Voter reckons hat makes the Danes twice as democratic.
Sources:
Memorandum by Brighton and Hove City Council (LGA 30).
Electoral Commission: The Cycle of Local Government Elections in England, Report and recommendations (January 2004).
'Local elections: The key battlegrounds' in The Guardian, 5 February 2007
What they tell us, 3: Brighton & Hove Independents
Days to election: 4
Another brochure, this one from Brighton & Hove Independents. Four-page A5, four colour. Mildly imperfect punctuation (one of the candidates is a deputy head) but it could have been much worse. Was it just a leaflet drop or did someone ring the bell for a chat? If the latter, a beautiful Saturday afternoon is not the best time to catch me, or anyone else, at home.
The pitch is that the party will bring a fresh approach, free of party lines and party whips, ensuring that decisions made are non-party political.
On specific policies the non-party party has party lines on the following:
Re-evaluation of A23 layout to 'protect pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and visitors'.
More visible local and community policing, with more neighbourhood watch schemes.
All children are 'entitled to a high quality education irrespective of political calculations and machinations'.
Support for new community football stadium.
Search for solutions to help people park outside their homes without damaging side effects.
More litter bins in public parks and open spaces.
Wider recycling schemes to include other waste.
Opposition to school admissions lotteries 'which the Conservatives helped to devise and only opposed when it was too late'.
Opposition to inefficiency and widespread use of expensive consultants. 'We will monitor the Council's use of tax payer's money to ensure there is no unjustified waste.' (Is there justified waste?)
Opposition to hospital and ward closures.
Opposition to council tax re-valuation.
A typical set of policies some or all of which (could) have come from any or all the parties. Brighton & Hove Independents has six candidates standing in three wards, one solid Labour, one solid Conservative and one mixed. Obviously not enough to gain control but potentially in a position of influence if the differences between seats held by the main parties are narrow. If they win seats. The big question: is the 'non-party' approach credible and sufficient when the policies are not much differentiated from the other party lines? The statement that 'each candidate has a proven record of service to the local community' has some substance, without provoking the cynical reaction of 'yes, but as a member of such-and-such a party'.
Leaflet count to date
Conservatives 2, B&H independents 1, others 0
Canvassing to date
None
There is truth in the statement, made without comment in the B&HI leaflet (except punctuationally), that 'the decision you make on 3rd May will affect us all for the next 4 years!!!' Grumpy Old Voter will be happy to provide the comment. Watch for the next exciting post in this blog.
Another brochure, this one from Brighton & Hove Independents. Four-page A5, four colour. Mildly imperfect punctuation (one of the candidates is a deputy head) but it could have been much worse. Was it just a leaflet drop or did someone ring the bell for a chat? If the latter, a beautiful Saturday afternoon is not the best time to catch me, or anyone else, at home.
The pitch is that the party will bring a fresh approach, free of party lines and party whips, ensuring that decisions made are non-party political.
On specific policies the non-party party has party lines on the following:
Re-evaluation of A23 layout to 'protect pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and visitors'.
More visible local and community policing, with more neighbourhood watch schemes.
All children are 'entitled to a high quality education irrespective of political calculations and machinations'.
Support for new community football stadium.
Search for solutions to help people park outside their homes without damaging side effects.
More litter bins in public parks and open spaces.
Wider recycling schemes to include other waste.
Opposition to school admissions lotteries 'which the Conservatives helped to devise and only opposed when it was too late'.
Opposition to inefficiency and widespread use of expensive consultants. 'We will monitor the Council's use of tax payer's money to ensure there is no unjustified waste.' (Is there justified waste?)
Opposition to hospital and ward closures.
Opposition to council tax re-valuation.
A typical set of policies some or all of which (could) have come from any or all the parties. Brighton & Hove Independents has six candidates standing in three wards, one solid Labour, one solid Conservative and one mixed. Obviously not enough to gain control but potentially in a position of influence if the differences between seats held by the main parties are narrow. If they win seats. The big question: is the 'non-party' approach credible and sufficient when the policies are not much differentiated from the other party lines? The statement that 'each candidate has a proven record of service to the local community' has some substance, without provoking the cynical reaction of 'yes, but as a member of such-and-such a party'.
Leaflet count to date
Conservatives 2, B&H independents 1, others 0
Canvassing to date
None
There is truth in the statement, made without comment in the B&HI leaflet (except punctuationally), that 'the decision you make on 3rd May will affect us all for the next 4 years!!!' Grumpy Old Voter will be happy to provide the comment. Watch for the next exciting post in this blog.
Friday, 27 April 2007
Democracy and responsiveness
Let's go back to that pledge the Conservatives made to have for 'a listening council'. The statement was as follows: 'We want true democracy and will run an open and accessible Council where everyone can contribute.'
The nearest the world has ever come to true democracy is probably the Icelandic Althing of the early Middle Ages (or even earlier, whatever that period is called), when all citizens could gather together on the plains of Thingvellir. It is clearly impractical for everyone to gather physically in the council chamber at the town hall but an electronic town meeting is eminently possible. It just needs to be set up. Easy peasy.
An 'open' council presumably means one that works transparently. An 'accessible' council is presumably one in which all the members are easily and readily contactable. But the final part, 'where everyone can contribute', is almost certainly at best a pious wish, at worst a blatant deceit. Anyone with experience of civic activity knows that things don't work like that. Even well organised lobbies and pressure groups—even people with official positions, such as school governors—often fail to make an impact or even to be heard.
Imagine the Conservatives win a majority at the election and start to implement a car-friendly policy. Thousands object, preferring to see money spent on cheaper and more efficient public transport for all. Which are the Conservative councillors more likely to say: 'We agree. We'll change our policy' or 'We are pursuing our declared policy and see no reason to change, however strong the opposition'? Remember Tony Blair, rebuked by the courts for failing to run a proper consultation about nuclear power, saying there would be a new consultation but it wouldn't change the policy?
In a way, it is not unreasonable for a political party to stick to the principles and plans declared before an election (assuming they are clear and precise). Once upon a time, especially in the days of two-party politics, the choice could be broadly characterised as, say, right or left, capitalist or socialist, elitist or plebeian. In these days of diversified interests we are moving towards a political structure in which the voters have more interest in individual policies than factions with comprehensive packages, take it or leave it. More and more we leave it, which consequently means leaving the elected-by-a-minority bunch to screw things up as often as they get things right.
Councils can make easy pledges about being open and accessible, but how often can they claim to be flexible and responsive? Which will be the first to give up (some) power to let citizens in? Don't hold your breath.
The nearest the world has ever come to true democracy is probably the Icelandic Althing of the early Middle Ages (or even earlier, whatever that period is called), when all citizens could gather together on the plains of Thingvellir. It is clearly impractical for everyone to gather physically in the council chamber at the town hall but an electronic town meeting is eminently possible. It just needs to be set up. Easy peasy.
An 'open' council presumably means one that works transparently. An 'accessible' council is presumably one in which all the members are easily and readily contactable. But the final part, 'where everyone can contribute', is almost certainly at best a pious wish, at worst a blatant deceit. Anyone with experience of civic activity knows that things don't work like that. Even well organised lobbies and pressure groups—even people with official positions, such as school governors—often fail to make an impact or even to be heard.
Imagine the Conservatives win a majority at the election and start to implement a car-friendly policy. Thousands object, preferring to see money spent on cheaper and more efficient public transport for all. Which are the Conservative councillors more likely to say: 'We agree. We'll change our policy' or 'We are pursuing our declared policy and see no reason to change, however strong the opposition'? Remember Tony Blair, rebuked by the courts for failing to run a proper consultation about nuclear power, saying there would be a new consultation but it wouldn't change the policy?
In a way, it is not unreasonable for a political party to stick to the principles and plans declared before an election (assuming they are clear and precise). Once upon a time, especially in the days of two-party politics, the choice could be broadly characterised as, say, right or left, capitalist or socialist, elitist or plebeian. In these days of diversified interests we are moving towards a political structure in which the voters have more interest in individual policies than factions with comprehensive packages, take it or leave it. More and more we leave it, which consequently means leaving the elected-by-a-minority bunch to screw things up as often as they get things right.
Councils can make easy pledges about being open and accessible, but how often can they claim to be flexible and responsive? Which will be the first to give up (some) power to let citizens in? Don't hold your breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)