I have always thought that the polls showing Boris in the lead would close as the election got closer. I never believed they were accurate to start with. So Boris's lead over Ken is now just 2 points. I expect further polls will once again show Boris's lead increasing but I doubt this has in reality actually happened despite the negative campaign of the Tories and their domination of London media. Ken has dismissed these personal attacks and tried to get back to the issues, but this is not easy. You can't just ignore these attacks and hope they will not dominate the agenda. The Tories with their media firepower have made sure this tax issue has dominated the agenda and Ken needs to counter that.
Ken should have more vigorously tackled the negative smear against him with his tax bill. In fact he should have anticipated that something like this might have happened and avoided it altogether by not following HMRC advice and paying income tax on all monies (even on money used to employ others). Nobody else in his position does this (in effect it means paying income tax twice), but Ken needs to be completely above criticism on this - the Tories would have found some other spurious attack but perhaps not so targeted on Ken's core support. The Tories know that attacking Ken's honesty and expecially his reputation as a man of the people is key to hitting his core support on the left. Ken's response should have quickly pointed out he lives in a terraced house in an unfashionable part of London and that money is never going to be Ken's motive in being Mayor of London. To emphasise this, Ken should offer to do the job for the average wage in London around 30k not the 120k it actually pays.
Also any party political broadcast that uses 'real supporters' is going to be problematic, which is why they are generally shied away from in the modern era. For a start you have to expect attacks on any individual. They all need to be squeaky clean and genuine but also they have to be keen backers who will not desert you when faced with bribes or harrassment from the other side. This is a difficult balancing act to pull off. And the Tories and their press friends were always likely to discredit them if they could. Eventually Ken's team did put out further videos showing their supporters in the video were not actors, but this has got little pubicity and the damage has already been done.
Saying all this, Ken's team have been much better campaigners on Twitter and other social media this time and this has helped them. They were hopelessly outgunned by Boris last time.
When you think of the negative attacks on Ken in 2008 and the state of Labour in the polls and he still managed nearly a million votes, I can't believe Ken won't get near to that ammount again this time. The question is whether Boris can get the amazing turn-out he managed in the suburbs that propelled him to 1.2 million votes. I doubt Boris supporters have the same motivation this time and the Tory government must hurt him a little. We shall see. I am more optimistic for Ken this time that he can cause an upset despite the polls and betting stakes. Spread betting showed the Tories with a majority of seats in 2010 right up to the week of the election. They were wrong and I think it certainly is not a foregone conclusion that Boris is going to win this. We shall see.
Showing posts with label Local. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local. Show all posts
25 April 2012
18 April 2012
Ken Needs To Beat Boris's Personality Politics If He Is Going To Win.
Boris has got nothing to offer Londoners in terms of policies. Ken will cut fares by 7%, compete with letting agencies and energy firms to bring down costs for consumers, and generally spend money much more prudently and effectively than Boris because 'Ken does detail'.
Ken has promised to resign by 7th October if he doesn't come good on his fares cut. I don't see how any London commuter can lose by voting for Ken, yet still he trails in the opinion polls. Maybe Ken should promise to run through Trafalgar Square naked if elected - that is the only thing that might get the media and public's attention in this sad excuse for democratic debate.
Ken has promised to resign by 7th October if he doesn't come good on his fares cut. I don't see how any London commuter can lose by voting for Ken, yet still he trails in the opinion polls. Maybe Ken should promise to run through Trafalgar Square naked if elected - that is the only thing that might get the media and public's attention in this sad excuse for democratic debate.
02 December 2011
The Green Budget
The Greens have produced a draft budget for Brighton and Hove. They consulted all the political parties, trade unions and voluntary organisations and over 2000 members of the public. They have done the best they can making very tough choices when faced with an unprecedented 33% grant cut from the Tory/Lib Dem government. The largest cut that any local authority has had to face. The greens have published this budget early and in detail and plan to consult even more before finalising in February. This is unprecedented transparency, see their budget calculator here and see if you could have done better than the Greens.
Because a lot of council expenditure is either ring-fenced, locked into long term contracts with the private sector and because council tax is capped to a maximum 3.5% increase. A lot of in-house front line services had to be cut, there was no getting away from that. As Jason Kitkat of the Greens put it, to refuse to comply with government cuts would have meant Whitehall writing the budget. This is what the Tories and Lib Dems call local democracy! Some Localism. Some freedom.
So the local Tories backed by the Tory Argus have attacked the Greens for cutting services and increasing council tax. Obviously the Tories could have frozen tax and maintained services. Will people really swallow that sort of lie? We will find out on 22 December in Westbourne. As for the Argus - lets have an Argus type survey - "The Argus is a lying Tory rag that has completely misrepresented the Green budget. Bearing this in mind do you a: Think they are lying Tory bastards. or b: Think they are paragons of virtue and I will happily give them my wage packet this week to spend as they wish." Not surprisingly the Argus gets the survey results it wants with this type of questioning. The Greens have produced a myth buster to combat Argus lies.
A lot has been made of the Greens refusing the 1 year grant to freeze council tax, supposedly worth 2.5%. But as the Greens rightly recognised, this 1 year grant coupled with the cap on council tax increases would mean depriving the council of even more revenue next year, as any 3.5% increase next year would be from the lower 2010 base losing the council 8% overall and meaning a massacre of services. Precisely what the Tories want.
The Greens have hit parking (hooray!) but as they point out, it is still cheaper here than Lewes or Eastbourne (boo).
The 3.5% rise is below inflation and is one of the lowest increases in council tax since the formation of the city. So not a big increase at all.
The gall of Labour and Tories claiming they could do better is so depressing it is beyond parody. It is appalling that lying is now the chief political tactic to combat the Greens. I hope this tactic is punished heavily by the people of Brighton and Hove. First up, Westbourne where another Tory can be thrown out and replaced with a Green - vote Green on December 22nd.
Because a lot of council expenditure is either ring-fenced, locked into long term contracts with the private sector and because council tax is capped to a maximum 3.5% increase. A lot of in-house front line services had to be cut, there was no getting away from that. As Jason Kitkat of the Greens put it, to refuse to comply with government cuts would have meant Whitehall writing the budget. This is what the Tories and Lib Dems call local democracy! Some Localism. Some freedom.
So the local Tories backed by the Tory Argus have attacked the Greens for cutting services and increasing council tax. Obviously the Tories could have frozen tax and maintained services. Will people really swallow that sort of lie? We will find out on 22 December in Westbourne. As for the Argus - lets have an Argus type survey - "The Argus is a lying Tory rag that has completely misrepresented the Green budget. Bearing this in mind do you a: Think they are lying Tory bastards. or b: Think they are paragons of virtue and I will happily give them my wage packet this week to spend as they wish." Not surprisingly the Argus gets the survey results it wants with this type of questioning. The Greens have produced a myth buster to combat Argus lies.
A lot has been made of the Greens refusing the 1 year grant to freeze council tax, supposedly worth 2.5%. But as the Greens rightly recognised, this 1 year grant coupled with the cap on council tax increases would mean depriving the council of even more revenue next year, as any 3.5% increase next year would be from the lower 2010 base losing the council 8% overall and meaning a massacre of services. Precisely what the Tories want.
The Greens have hit parking (hooray!) but as they point out, it is still cheaper here than Lewes or Eastbourne (boo).
The 3.5% rise is below inflation and is one of the lowest increases in council tax since the formation of the city. So not a big increase at all.
The gall of Labour and Tories claiming they could do better is so depressing it is beyond parody. It is appalling that lying is now the chief political tactic to combat the Greens. I hope this tactic is punished heavily by the people of Brighton and Hove. First up, Westbourne where another Tory can be thrown out and replaced with a Green - vote Green on December 22nd.
17 May 2011
An Analysis Of Local Elections Brighton & Hove 2011
The safest Green wards are St Peters & North Laine where they hoovered up an amazing 61% of the vote (a 39% majority over Labour on 22%) followed by the extraordinary performance of the Kitcats in Regency ward moving from 41% of the vote in a 2009 by-election to 56% of the vote now (33% lead over Labour on 23%). 690 votes elected Labour's Roy Pennington in 2007, it would be a poor third place now, the Kitcats managed over 1650 votes each!! Hanover and Elm Grove the Greens got 56% to Labour's 33% and Goldsmid is now also fairly safe for the Greens on 40% to Labour's 29%.
Adding up ward votes across the constituency the Greens managed to win Brighton Pavilion with 46% of the vote compared to Labour's 26% and Tory's 22%. Good omens for Caroline Lucas's re-election even with some boundary changes for 2015. Overall the Greens have 11 councillors in this constituency, the Tories 5, and Labour just one - Jeanne Lepper - what would ex Labour MP here, David Lepper, think of that?
In Brighton Kemptown the Greens also managed to top the poll there with 34% of the vote, compared to 29% for Labour and just 26% for the Tories. Could be a real nerve dangler in the Greens can convince people of this for 2015. Both Labour and Greens have 6 councillors each and the Tories have 5.
In Hove & Portslade the Tories topped the poll with 35%, closely followed by Labour on 33% and the Greens trailing in third with 22%. The Tories have 8 councillors here, both Greens and Labour have 6 each.
The few safe wards for Labour were again East Brighton where they polled 49% of the vote beating the Greens and Tories neck on neck on 22%. Moulsecoomb & Bevendean has again reasserted itself as a solid Labour seat with 46% Labour to the Tories 26% and Greens 25%. Labour also reasserted itself in Portslade with 53% in the North ward and 50% in the South ward. A majority of 22% and 18% respectively.
The dwindling number of safe wards for the Tories are super safe Hove Park with 67% of the vote to Labour's 16% and Woodingdean with 55% and Rottingdean Coastal with 53%.
Once safe Tory Patcham is now a battlefield between Tory and Green 46% to 29%. Withdean is now a split marginal 38% Tory to 36% Green. Only an even split of the votes saved the Tories in Westbourne as they won all seats with just 39% of the vote. The Greens are now on 25% there to Labour's 29%.
Other super marginal split wards are Hollingdean & Stanmer with Greens getting 40% of the vote to Labour's 37%. Central Hove 33% Tory to 32% Green. Wish which split 37% to both Tory and Labour and Hangleton and Knoll 44% Tory, 40% Labour.
Other seats where the Greens consolidated their lead were Queens Park 44% of the vote to Labour's 37% and Preston Park 46% to Labour's 37%.
Overall Labour gained 5 seats from the Tories and lost 5 seats to the Greens. The Greens gained 5 from Labour, 3 from the Tories and 2 from the Lib Dems (wiping them out by 38% to 23% in Brunswick & Adelaide). The Greens have never lost a seat in Brighton and Hove, ever!
Adding up ward votes across the constituency the Greens managed to win Brighton Pavilion with 46% of the vote compared to Labour's 26% and Tory's 22%. Good omens for Caroline Lucas's re-election even with some boundary changes for 2015. Overall the Greens have 11 councillors in this constituency, the Tories 5, and Labour just one - Jeanne Lepper - what would ex Labour MP here, David Lepper, think of that?
In Brighton Kemptown the Greens also managed to top the poll there with 34% of the vote, compared to 29% for Labour and just 26% for the Tories. Could be a real nerve dangler in the Greens can convince people of this for 2015. Both Labour and Greens have 6 councillors each and the Tories have 5.
In Hove & Portslade the Tories topped the poll with 35%, closely followed by Labour on 33% and the Greens trailing in third with 22%. The Tories have 8 councillors here, both Greens and Labour have 6 each.
The few safe wards for Labour were again East Brighton where they polled 49% of the vote beating the Greens and Tories neck on neck on 22%. Moulsecoomb & Bevendean has again reasserted itself as a solid Labour seat with 46% Labour to the Tories 26% and Greens 25%. Labour also reasserted itself in Portslade with 53% in the North ward and 50% in the South ward. A majority of 22% and 18% respectively.
The dwindling number of safe wards for the Tories are super safe Hove Park with 67% of the vote to Labour's 16% and Woodingdean with 55% and Rottingdean Coastal with 53%.
Once safe Tory Patcham is now a battlefield between Tory and Green 46% to 29%. Withdean is now a split marginal 38% Tory to 36% Green. Only an even split of the votes saved the Tories in Westbourne as they won all seats with just 39% of the vote. The Greens are now on 25% there to Labour's 29%.
Other super marginal split wards are Hollingdean & Stanmer with Greens getting 40% of the vote to Labour's 37%. Central Hove 33% Tory to 32% Green. Wish which split 37% to both Tory and Labour and Hangleton and Knoll 44% Tory, 40% Labour.
Other seats where the Greens consolidated their lead were Queens Park 44% of the vote to Labour's 37% and Preston Park 46% to Labour's 37%.
Overall Labour gained 5 seats from the Tories and lost 5 seats to the Greens. The Greens gained 5 from Labour, 3 from the Tories and 2 from the Lib Dems (wiping them out by 38% to 23% in Brunswick & Adelaide). The Greens have never lost a seat in Brighton and Hove, ever!
16 May 2011
Greens Should Organise A Boycott Of The Argus...
...unless the Argus stops its nasty rightwing campaign against them.
I concluded long ago that the Brighton Argus was a rightwing rag. If the Greens tolerate the sort of nasty rightwing headline they were given on Thursday, then there will be plenty more to come - the Argus is leading the Tory fightback with as nasty headlines as it can.
I doubt anyone thinks the headline 'Greens want more sites for travellers' was a helpful promotion of one of the Greens policies.
The truth is this was a small part of a raft of policies the Greens are putting forward. The only reason the Argus put it on their front page and across billposters across Brighton and Hove was to make people think this is the number one priority of the Greens when it is nothing of the sort. Of course most people who saw that are going to think it is the first act of the new Green administration. And whatever the merits of having more sites for travellers this is not going to go down well with a lot of voters and the Brighton Argus knows that.
The Greens need to counter this distortion as quickly as possible to limit any damage to their reputation. They need to do at least one of two things (and preferably both). 1. They need to argue why more official sites will ease the problem of travellers on unofficial sites. and 2. They need to make clear in no uncertain terms that if the Argus continues along this line (which is of course entirely up to the owners of the Argus) then the Greens will publicise exactly who owns and is pulling the strings of the Brighton Argus and why they might have a particular political bias. Also the Greens should tell people to boycott the paper because it is so distorted.
Now, a lot of people might think this an over-reaction, but if the Greens want to avoid the plight of Labour who were pilloried and bullied by the owners of the press into being completely pathetic on socialist principles, then they had better act and act quick.
Some Greens may think they can ignore the Argus as it only has less than 30,000 readers, but they must also remember that virtually everyone in Brighton and Hove reads their billposters. This is a powerful weapon as Ken Livingstone can attest to in London when 6 months of Evening Standard bilge helped remove him from being Mayor.
I concluded long ago that the Brighton Argus was a rightwing rag. If the Greens tolerate the sort of nasty rightwing headline they were given on Thursday, then there will be plenty more to come - the Argus is leading the Tory fightback with as nasty headlines as it can.
I doubt anyone thinks the headline 'Greens want more sites for travellers' was a helpful promotion of one of the Greens policies.
The truth is this was a small part of a raft of policies the Greens are putting forward. The only reason the Argus put it on their front page and across billposters across Brighton and Hove was to make people think this is the number one priority of the Greens when it is nothing of the sort. Of course most people who saw that are going to think it is the first act of the new Green administration. And whatever the merits of having more sites for travellers this is not going to go down well with a lot of voters and the Brighton Argus knows that.
The Greens need to counter this distortion as quickly as possible to limit any damage to their reputation. They need to do at least one of two things (and preferably both). 1. They need to argue why more official sites will ease the problem of travellers on unofficial sites. and 2. They need to make clear in no uncertain terms that if the Argus continues along this line (which is of course entirely up to the owners of the Argus) then the Greens will publicise exactly who owns and is pulling the strings of the Brighton Argus and why they might have a particular political bias. Also the Greens should tell people to boycott the paper because it is so distorted.
Now, a lot of people might think this an over-reaction, but if the Greens want to avoid the plight of Labour who were pilloried and bullied by the owners of the press into being completely pathetic on socialist principles, then they had better act and act quick.
Some Greens may think they can ignore the Argus as it only has less than 30,000 readers, but they must also remember that virtually everyone in Brighton and Hove reads their billposters. This is a powerful weapon as Ken Livingstone can attest to in London when 6 months of Evening Standard bilge helped remove him from being Mayor.
14 April 2011
Classic 'Spoiler Effect' In Moulsecoomb & Bevendean
The spoiler effect is where two or more candidates/parties split a majority of voters with a similar ideological outlook and let a candidate/party with opposing ideology get elected on a minority of the vote. This happens regularly under our present first-past-the-post system. The Alternative Vote (AV) eliminates the spoiler effect.
Here are the results of the 2007 election in the ward of Moulsecoomb & Bevendean in Brighton and Hove where Labour held onto 2 seats and the Tories gained 1.
Looking at these results, it may seem easy to conclude that this is a straight fight between Labour and the Tories and that anti-Tory voters should vote Labour to stop them, with Labour losing out because a minority of anti-Tory voters have backed the Greens, Lib Dems and Respect.
However since the election of Caroline Lucas last year and the growth in the Green vote generally since 2007, the anti-Tory vote could easily be evenly split between Labour and the Greens, so it is fairly impossible to judge how this is going to go. It is difficult for the anti-Tory voter to know what to do because although Labour are doing better in the national opinion polls (they were on 26% in 2007 and are on around 40% now), the Greens have seen massive increases in their vote right across Brighton and Hove. Their vote could easily double and put them in contention for winning seats. However it could just mean the Tories could lose votes and still win because of this split in the anti-Tory vote.
Also M&B is in the Brighton Pavilion constituency that Caroline Lucas won. Here the Green vote has increased from just 22% in 2005, to 31% in 2010 and has probably increased even more since then. A large part of the Labour campaign then and now has been leaflets using the FPtP classic line 'don't vote for the Greens, because it will let the Tories in'. This is the line the Labour party have shamelessly used right across Brighton and Hove, even in wards like mine - Goldsmid where it is clearly ridiculous because Labour came third and the Greens are first!
Of course, if we had a preferential system (in local elections where we have multi-seat wards, it makes sense to use the Single-Transferable-Vote, which is a more proportional progression from AV) we could stop this sort of campaigning dead and kill off the spoiler effect.
Here are the results of the 2007 election in the ward of Moulsecoomb & Bevendean in Brighton and Hove where Labour held onto 2 seats and the Tories gained 1.
However since the election of Caroline Lucas last year and the growth in the Green vote generally since 2007, the anti-Tory vote could easily be evenly split between Labour and the Greens, so it is fairly impossible to judge how this is going to go. It is difficult for the anti-Tory voter to know what to do because although Labour are doing better in the national opinion polls (they were on 26% in 2007 and are on around 40% now), the Greens have seen massive increases in their vote right across Brighton and Hove. Their vote could easily double and put them in contention for winning seats. However it could just mean the Tories could lose votes and still win because of this split in the anti-Tory vote.
Also M&B is in the Brighton Pavilion constituency that Caroline Lucas won. Here the Green vote has increased from just 22% in 2005, to 31% in 2010 and has probably increased even more since then. A large part of the Labour campaign then and now has been leaflets using the FPtP classic line 'don't vote for the Greens, because it will let the Tories in'. This is the line the Labour party have shamelessly used right across Brighton and Hove, even in wards like mine - Goldsmid where it is clearly ridiculous because Labour came third and the Greens are first!
Of course, if we had a preferential system (in local elections where we have multi-seat wards, it makes sense to use the Single-Transferable-Vote, which is a more proportional progression from AV) we could stop this sort of campaigning dead and kill off the spoiler effect.
01 March 2011
Tory/Lib Dem 'Localism' In Action.
Just working my way through the Green Alternative Budget for Brighton and Hove (the pdf can be downloaded here on the Jason KitKat website). This paragraph in particular exemplifies just how little local democracy is left after the diktats from Tory Central Office, it would make Stalin proud!!
When you consider that around 60-70% of local funding (more for councils covering poorer areas) comes directly from central government anyway and that this grant is being cut by 27% over the next few years, you can see what 'hobsons choice' councils really have (and by the way 'back office' sharing and cuts would make little difference - less than 5% at most of the £83bn cuts needed nationally). It makes you wonder what is the point of having local government at all when so little power resides there. It is hardly surprising turnout struggles to make 35%. Still I shouldn't put ideas into Tory heads, abolish democracy and we can save millions they might just do it, they have done it to local government before.
As ever, Ken Livingstone talks sense (via liberal conspiracy) on how little power and choice local councils have.
"Freezing council tax releases a central government grant worth the same as a 2.5% tax increase for at least this year and the next. A tax increase of over 2.5% would be needed to make it worthwhile, yet the national government has said no council may raise tax beyond 3.5%."So there you have it, the localism of the Tory Lib Dem government that gives such 'freedom' and 'democracy' to local government. Not only is local taxation severely restricted in this way, but little or no revenue can be raised from any other source either (unless you want to charge the elderly and vulnerable - car owners are protected - good to see where Tory priorities lie).
When you consider that around 60-70% of local funding (more for councils covering poorer areas) comes directly from central government anyway and that this grant is being cut by 27% over the next few years, you can see what 'hobsons choice' councils really have (and by the way 'back office' sharing and cuts would make little difference - less than 5% at most of the £83bn cuts needed nationally). It makes you wonder what is the point of having local government at all when so little power resides there. It is hardly surprising turnout struggles to make 35%. Still I shouldn't put ideas into Tory heads, abolish democracy and we can save millions they might just do it, they have done it to local government before.
As ever, Ken Livingstone talks sense (via liberal conspiracy) on how little power and choice local councils have.
"Are Councillors who make these cuts – Labour Councillors – complicit? Thirty years ago, Councillors who made cuts, as Thatcher pushed them down, arguably were complicit because there was an alternative – to increase the rates…the rating system itself was fairly re-distributive, with the richest homes paying very much more than the poorest.
It was crude, but the best strategy was to increase the rates to preserve services. Labour Councils had great debates about that, but largely that’s what they did. The worst of the cuts were blunted and that is why the Tories abolished the rates and took away the business rate and created first the poll tax and then the Council Tax, which is not redistributive, leaving Councillors with the choice [of saying] “do we cut services or do we bang up the Council Tax, which would actually hurt poor people more?”
There they [Labour Councillors] don’t have the choice that we had a generation ago for fighting those cuts. What is important is that those Councils have to carry their communities with them.
They have to engage the communities and their trade unions in how they manage the devastating cut in the grant that they’ve got and to do it in a way that preserves the most of our services and protects the most vulnerable. It will not be easy, it will not be pleasant, but you don’t have the option of walking away".
28 February 2011
Save The Drive/Grand Avenue Cycle Lane.
The Tories spent £600,000 installing a cycle lane on the Drive in 2008, now they are to spend £1.1m ripping it out again. This has got national media coverage, but come on, why do the Tories hate cycle lanes so much?
This administration is a disgrace. The Tories started off thinking this was going to be a vote winner for them with the car drivers of the city, as they are planning clogging the centre of town with even more cars by widening the road. The cycle lane has its faults that can be easily remedied according to local cycle group BRICYCLES. Whats the betting that accidents rise as more cars cruise down this road?
The Tories now claim it is all Labour's fault for wanting the cycle lanes in the first place and that the Tories never wanted them. This is very believable as they have form in spending millions ripping out cycle lanes elsewhere, lets hope these Tory gits are gone by May. Lets hope the voters tell them where to stick their annual £10 council tax rebate and £10 off car permits. These election giveaways don't fool the voters. The Tories are even more sure to cut services like crazy and put up all the charges once they have got through the election.
Sign the petition here
Save Hove Cycle Lane
This administration is a disgrace. The Tories started off thinking this was going to be a vote winner for them with the car drivers of the city, as they are planning clogging the centre of town with even more cars by widening the road. The cycle lane has its faults that can be easily remedied according to local cycle group BRICYCLES. Whats the betting that accidents rise as more cars cruise down this road?
The Tories now claim it is all Labour's fault for wanting the cycle lanes in the first place and that the Tories never wanted them. This is very believable as they have form in spending millions ripping out cycle lanes elsewhere, lets hope these Tory gits are gone by May. Lets hope the voters tell them where to stick their annual £10 council tax rebate and £10 off car permits. These election giveaways don't fool the voters. The Tories are even more sure to cut services like crazy and put up all the charges once they have got through the election.
Sign the petition here
Save Hove Cycle Lane
16 February 2011
Predicting Brighton & Hove From Past Results
Here are the results in Brighton and Hove for the 2005 General Election and the following local election in 2007 (I have used the top candidate from each party as a rough guide to their number of voters in the local elections). 
If we extrapolate these results onto the 2010 general election results we can make a prediction for this May as follows. I have added in a further adjustment for the current polling in the third bar chart. This suggests that the Tory vote may well hold up, the Labour vote will recover a little and the Greens will do very well indeed. The Greens being the only party to attract more voters in the locals than they do in general elections (mainly because their vote is squeezed in Hove and Kemptown due to Green voters switching to Labour in an attempt to stop the Tories...alas in 2010 this was invain.
Surprisingly these vote changes may make little difference to my predictions in terms of seats (once again welcome to our distorting first-past-the-post system where the biggest minority party can take all the seats with a 30 something vote share) - I still see the Greens gaining no more than 6 seats, the Tories losing 1-3 seats and Labour losing 1-3 with the Lib Dems wiped out. We shall see. CON-25(26), GRN-19(13), LAB-10(13), LD-0(2). Vote Green in Preston Park, Goldsmid and Brunswick+Adelaide. Vote Labour in N.Portslade, S.Portslade and Moulsecoomb+Bevendean to stop the Tories and I expect all the other 15 wards to be safish, with the Greens consolidating their lead in Queens Park and Labour holding on in Hollingdean+Stanmer from the Green challenge, being the only other two wards worth a look.
13 February 2011
Local Tories Offer 20 Pence Per Voter And Promise Of Job For One More Year Only.
Whoever wins the local elections in May will face four years of difficult and politically costly budget cuts and/or increases in service charges and council tax.
The Tories have cynically (and cleverly) avoided saying what they will do in the next four years, only what they will do for this election year - offering bribes of 30p per week if you own a car and 20p per week to other c. tax payers. They have also limited job cuts now by borrowing £11.5m from reserves - so jam today and go to hell tomorrow.
The Tories are offering voters a job for another year with the cost being even more job cuts next year after the election. Cynical yes, but clever because it might just help the Tories hold on to power. But even better for the Tories, it places the Green and Labour opposition in a dilemma. Do they oppose a tax cut, parking permit cut and a budget that saves people's jobs for one year?
If I was the Greens I would propose a council tax freeze next year and promise to cut even less jobs by using the reserves as the Tories are and this extra revenue. I would argue that cutting council tax and parking permit charges is irresponsible in the present climate.
If I was Labour I would argue along similar lines but keep the car permit cut (as they are more pro-car) and extend the free swimming scheme to more than just under 11s. Notice that the battleground ward of Moulsecoomb+Bevendean contains a leisure centre - this maintaining of free swimming for under 11s is a direct play for votes in that ward from the Tories, very clever. I hope people see through the cynical Tories who will just bludgeon services if they get re-elected. Only a Green/Labour administration will avoid targeting the cuts at the poorest, the Tories just look after their wealthy car driving vote in the suburbs.
The Tories have cynically (and cleverly) avoided saying what they will do in the next four years, only what they will do for this election year - offering bribes of 30p per week if you own a car and 20p per week to other c. tax payers. They have also limited job cuts now by borrowing £11.5m from reserves - so jam today and go to hell tomorrow.
The Tories are offering voters a job for another year with the cost being even more job cuts next year after the election. Cynical yes, but clever because it might just help the Tories hold on to power. But even better for the Tories, it places the Green and Labour opposition in a dilemma. Do they oppose a tax cut, parking permit cut and a budget that saves people's jobs for one year?
If I was the Greens I would propose a council tax freeze next year and promise to cut even less jobs by using the reserves as the Tories are and this extra revenue. I would argue that cutting council tax and parking permit charges is irresponsible in the present climate.
If I was Labour I would argue along similar lines but keep the car permit cut (as they are more pro-car) and extend the free swimming scheme to more than just under 11s. Notice that the battleground ward of Moulsecoomb+Bevendean contains a leisure centre - this maintaining of free swimming for under 11s is a direct play for votes in that ward from the Tories, very clever. I hope people see through the cynical Tories who will just bludgeon services if they get re-elected. Only a Green/Labour administration will avoid targeting the cuts at the poorest, the Tories just look after their wealthy car driving vote in the suburbs.
12 February 2011
Wards To Watch This May In Brighton & Hove
The most important 6 wards (where seats will probably change hands) are MOULSECOOMB+BEVENDEAN, BRUNSWICK+ADELAIDE, GOLDSMID, PRESTON PARK, NORTH PORTSLADE and SOUTH PORTSLADE. There are 21 wards in total but the other 15 are unlikely to see changes (see below). So much for competitive elections under our present electoral system!!
If Labour have got any sense they will concentrate their attacking efforts on 3 wards - North Portslade, South Portslade and Moulsecoomb & Bevendean. These are wards where they can regain 3 seats from the Tories (that they shouldn't have lost in the first place!!). With their current 10% boost in the opinion polls (from 30% to 40%) this should be a shoe-in as all these wards have only around 100 votes in it.
The Greens need to put their limited numbers and resources into attacking 3 wards - Brunswick+Adelaide, Preston Park and Goldsmid. They can gain 6 seats in these wards, 2 from the Lib Dems, 3 from Labour and 1 from the Tories. The Greens also claim they can win seats in Hollingdean+Stanmer, though I find that hard to believe considering Labour's lead there, though there has been boundary changes.
The Tories need to throw most of their efforts into just 1 ward - Moulsecoomb+Bevendean. This is where they can gain 2 seats from Labour in what might become a 3 way marginal as the Greens gain ground on Labour thereby heavily splitting the left vote. I don't expect the Tory vote to increase (it might even fall) but they could still win seats here because of our wonderful electoral system. A lot depends on how active Labour are here and any residual Labour support left over from Nancy Platts excellent campaign in the general election. Labour should not waste limited resources and effort against the Greens in other wards they have little chance of defending.
The Lib Dems will obviously throw everything into Brunswick+Adelaide to defend their only 2 seats. With the national polls showing their vote has halved they will have one hell of a task to stop the Greens from wiping them out and of course no chance of winning seats anywhere else.
There are 15 safe-ish 'clean sweep' wards (one party control) where seat changes are very unlikely*:-
Greens: St Peters+North Laine, Hanover+Elm Grove, Regency, Queens Park (11 seats)
Labour: East Brighton, Hollingdean+Stanmer (6)
Tory: Central Hove, Hangleton+Knoll, Patcham, Rottingdean Coastal, Stanford, Westbourne, Withdean, Wish, Woodingdean (22 incl. 1 Independent)
The Tories locally have laughably and rather cynically played their 'deficit denier' card by deferring service cuts until after the election and even proposed a populist 1% cut in council tax and cut in parking permit charges - an obvious election bribe. I wonder if voters will fall for it? It will mean of course that the 19% cuts required by 2014 will now have to be even more severe starting in 2012. The Tories know without this radical gamble they would have had no chance just following their party's national cuts imperative.
Likely Result Range: TORIES+IND 22-28 seats, GREENS 13-19, LABOUR 8-16, LDEMS 0-2
Prediction (Change): TORY+IND 25(-1), GREENS 19(+6), LABOUR 10(-3) LDEM 0(-2)
*Note - I think the Greens will increase their majorities in these wards because their vote has increased massively since the last local elections, so even the slim majorities in Queens Park are likely to become substantial.
14 of these 15 wards are either safe Tory, Labour or Green with big majorities.
If Labour have got any sense they will concentrate their attacking efforts on 3 wards - North Portslade, South Portslade and Moulsecoomb & Bevendean. These are wards where they can regain 3 seats from the Tories (that they shouldn't have lost in the first place!!). With their current 10% boost in the opinion polls (from 30% to 40%) this should be a shoe-in as all these wards have only around 100 votes in it.
The Greens need to put their limited numbers and resources into attacking 3 wards - Brunswick+Adelaide, Preston Park and Goldsmid. They can gain 6 seats in these wards, 2 from the Lib Dems, 3 from Labour and 1 from the Tories. The Greens also claim they can win seats in Hollingdean+Stanmer, though I find that hard to believe considering Labour's lead there, though there has been boundary changes.
The Tories need to throw most of their efforts into just 1 ward - Moulsecoomb+Bevendean. This is where they can gain 2 seats from Labour in what might become a 3 way marginal as the Greens gain ground on Labour thereby heavily splitting the left vote. I don't expect the Tory vote to increase (it might even fall) but they could still win seats here because of our wonderful electoral system. A lot depends on how active Labour are here and any residual Labour support left over from Nancy Platts excellent campaign in the general election. Labour should not waste limited resources and effort against the Greens in other wards they have little chance of defending.
The Lib Dems will obviously throw everything into Brunswick+Adelaide to defend their only 2 seats. With the national polls showing their vote has halved they will have one hell of a task to stop the Greens from wiping them out and of course no chance of winning seats anywhere else.
There are 15 safe-ish 'clean sweep' wards (one party control) where seat changes are very unlikely*:-
Greens: St Peters+North Laine, Hanover+Elm Grove, Regency, Queens Park (11 seats)
Labour: East Brighton, Hollingdean+Stanmer (6)
Tory: Central Hove, Hangleton+Knoll, Patcham, Rottingdean Coastal, Stanford, Westbourne, Withdean, Wish, Woodingdean (22 incl. 1 Independent)
The Tories locally have laughably and rather cynically played their 'deficit denier' card by deferring service cuts until after the election and even proposed a populist 1% cut in council tax and cut in parking permit charges - an obvious election bribe. I wonder if voters will fall for it? It will mean of course that the 19% cuts required by 2014 will now have to be even more severe starting in 2012. The Tories know without this radical gamble they would have had no chance just following their party's national cuts imperative.
Likely Result Range: TORIES+IND 22-28 seats, GREENS 13-19, LABOUR 8-16, LDEMS 0-2
Prediction (Change): TORY+IND 25(-1), GREENS 19(+6), LABOUR 10(-3) LDEM 0(-2)
*Note - I think the Greens will increase their majorities in these wards because their vote has increased massively since the last local elections, so even the slim majorities in Queens Park are likely to become substantial.
14 of these 15 wards are either safe Tory, Labour or Green with big majorities.
04 November 2010
Greens To Win Over 20 Seats in May Council Elections?
Brighton Politics Blogger has been making his predictions over the last month and there is a lot to agree with, but for what its worth, here is my prediction.
It is quite possible the Greens will become the largest party on Brighton & Hove Council in May 2011. Anything less than 19 seats should be a disappointment to them. The current standing is as follows;-
Tory/Ind 26
Greens 13
Labour 13
Lib Dem 2
It is possibly too early (without all the candidates being in place) to make predictions, but on current national trends and the inevitable unpopularity of the cuts, I cannot see the Tories or Lib Dems doing well.
The Tory vote is holding up remarkably well considering what they are proposing to do, i.e. massacre public services. Their control of the print media and national agenda and their hard right line on cuts has bolstered those who always vote for them, but they are bound to lose more moderate voters.
The Lib Dems have lost half their support according to the polls since the election with little prospect now they are in government to play for the 'protest' vote. They will be hit hard. Holding on to their 2 seats in Brunswick will be very difficult for them.
Labour will do better than last time and this may save some poor candidates from defeat and help them hopefully regain seats from the Tories they should never have lost in the first place. They could regain the 2 seats in North and South Portslade and maybe the 1 in Moulsecomb and Bevendean that they managed to lose to the Tories. It could all depend on how the vote splits with the Greens and of course the campaigning and record of incumbents. If they do really well, Tory seats in Hangleton and Knoll may come within reach, though this is very doubtful.
It would be a disaster if the Greens lost any of their current 13 seats and I can't see that happening. Really the sky is the limit for them, after their by-election win in Goldsmid, they could well pick up the other 2 seats there. Preston Park could be close between them and Labour - the 3 seats there could go either way, maybe the current split of 1 Green (the fantastic Amy Kennedy) and 2 Labour rebels (who voted against the locally unpopular schools lottery) will prevail. With the success and high profile of their first Green MP Caroline Lucas, their current Green clean sweep wards (Queens Park, Elm Grove & Hannover, St Peters North Laine, Regency) could strengthen their majorities (depending on strong candidates remaining in place). Top targets for them include, Brunswick and Adelaide, taking 2 seats from the Lib Dems. If the Greens are really on a roll they could even pick up seats off the Tories in Central Hove and seats off Labour in Hollingdean and Stanmer. You never know! Though this might be a dreamland scenario of the Greens on 23 seats and just 4 short of an outright majority on the council - one for 2015 perhaps?
Realistically I would guess the results in the following range;-
Tory/Ind: 20-26 :losing between 0 and 6 seats
Greens: 16-21 :gaining between 3 and 8 seats
Labour: 10-16 :ranging from losing 3 seats to gaining 3.
Lib Dem: 0-1 :losing 1 or 2 seats.
These sort of results suggest either the Tories clinging on as a minority administration (unlikely but Moulsecomb & Bevendean could be unpredictable) or a possible Green led Green/Labour coalition.
I suggest the Greens and Labour go easy on each other in the campaigning because they may have to work together after the election. Also I think concentrating their fire on the ConDems and avoiding nasty Green-Labour spats will work with the voters. Lets face it, a lot of voters switch between Labour and Green and they are the closest parties in ideological terms, especially now the Lib Dems have nailed themselves unequivocally as centre-right on the national scene.
This is going to be a crucial election. To defend against the cuts we need an effective local council opposition and the Tories have to lose and hopefully lose badly for that to be the case.
It is quite possible the Greens will become the largest party on Brighton & Hove Council in May 2011. Anything less than 19 seats should be a disappointment to them. The current standing is as follows;-
Tory/Ind 26
Greens 13
Labour 13
Lib Dem 2
It is possibly too early (without all the candidates being in place) to make predictions, but on current national trends and the inevitable unpopularity of the cuts, I cannot see the Tories or Lib Dems doing well.
The Tory vote is holding up remarkably well considering what they are proposing to do, i.e. massacre public services. Their control of the print media and national agenda and their hard right line on cuts has bolstered those who always vote for them, but they are bound to lose more moderate voters.
The Lib Dems have lost half their support according to the polls since the election with little prospect now they are in government to play for the 'protest' vote. They will be hit hard. Holding on to their 2 seats in Brunswick will be very difficult for them.
Labour will do better than last time and this may save some poor candidates from defeat and help them hopefully regain seats from the Tories they should never have lost in the first place. They could regain the 2 seats in North and South Portslade and maybe the 1 in Moulsecomb and Bevendean that they managed to lose to the Tories. It could all depend on how the vote splits with the Greens and of course the campaigning and record of incumbents. If they do really well, Tory seats in Hangleton and Knoll may come within reach, though this is very doubtful.
It would be a disaster if the Greens lost any of their current 13 seats and I can't see that happening. Really the sky is the limit for them, after their by-election win in Goldsmid, they could well pick up the other 2 seats there. Preston Park could be close between them and Labour - the 3 seats there could go either way, maybe the current split of 1 Green (the fantastic Amy Kennedy) and 2 Labour rebels (who voted against the locally unpopular schools lottery) will prevail. With the success and high profile of their first Green MP Caroline Lucas, their current Green clean sweep wards (Queens Park, Elm Grove & Hannover, St Peters North Laine, Regency) could strengthen their majorities (depending on strong candidates remaining in place). Top targets for them include, Brunswick and Adelaide, taking 2 seats from the Lib Dems. If the Greens are really on a roll they could even pick up seats off the Tories in Central Hove and seats off Labour in Hollingdean and Stanmer. You never know! Though this might be a dreamland scenario of the Greens on 23 seats and just 4 short of an outright majority on the council - one for 2015 perhaps?
Realistically I would guess the results in the following range;-
Tory/Ind: 20-26 :losing between 0 and 6 seats
Greens: 16-21 :gaining between 3 and 8 seats
Labour: 10-16 :ranging from losing 3 seats to gaining 3.
Lib Dem: 0-1 :losing 1 or 2 seats.
These sort of results suggest either the Tories clinging on as a minority administration (unlikely but Moulsecomb & Bevendean could be unpredictable) or a possible Green led Green/Labour coalition.
I suggest the Greens and Labour go easy on each other in the campaigning because they may have to work together after the election. Also I think concentrating their fire on the ConDems and avoiding nasty Green-Labour spats will work with the voters. Lets face it, a lot of voters switch between Labour and Green and they are the closest parties in ideological terms, especially now the Lib Dems have nailed themselves unequivocally as centre-right on the national scene.
This is going to be a crucial election. To defend against the cuts we need an effective local council opposition and the Tories have to lose and hopefully lose badly for that to be the case.
21 March 2010
Conflicted In Brighton Pavilion? John Harris Investigates.
If I still lived in Brighton Pavilion, I would find it a difficult decision to decide who to vote for. Nancy Platts is an excellent Labour candidate on the left of the party and personally very likeable. Caroline Lucas another great candidate in a offbeat party that nonetheless very much shares my views on equality and the environment.
John Harris investigates in this Guardian Film
Personally I still think Caroline will win by around 3,000 votes and that even if the Labour/Green vote (combined was 57% last time) splits right down the middle the Tories cannot win with just 27% support. Sorry Nancy, its close, but I would plump for the Greens better policies. The idea of propping up Bully Brown is only attractive to stop a Tory being elected, no matter how good the local Labour candidate is, a Green will bring a breath of fresh air to Westminster that is badly needed.
Here is my previous post outlining vote shares and with my prediction for the Brighton Pavilion result on May 6th.
John Harris investigates in this Guardian Film
Personally I still think Caroline will win by around 3,000 votes and that even if the Labour/Green vote (combined was 57% last time) splits right down the middle the Tories cannot win with just 27% support. Sorry Nancy, its close, but I would plump for the Greens better policies. The idea of propping up Bully Brown is only attractive to stop a Tory being elected, no matter how good the local Labour candidate is, a Green will bring a breath of fresh air to Westminster that is badly needed.
Here is my previous post outlining vote shares and with my prediction for the Brighton Pavilion result on May 6th.
22 August 2009
Prepare For The Tories
In a series of posts, Brighton Politics Blog is optimistically plying the anti-Tory tactical vote option to try and prevent the Tories taking power in 2010 - but he has one clear problem - he is asking people to vote Labour and the current awfulness of the Labour party makes that too much to ask for a lot of people.
The problem with tactical voting is that the party you are preferring over something worse (a inevitable situation with a system that allows no effective choice but Labour and Tory government) will never get the message about how unhappy you are with them until you vote elsewhere.
If it wasn't for those brave souls on the left risking a Tory MP by voting with their conscience we never would have anything other than Labour and Tory MPs and no chance of electing a Green in Brighton Pavilion.
I live in Hove - a 'super marginal' but no-one in the current anti-Labour climate could realistically expect Labour's Celia Barlow to hold on here with just a 500 vote majority. So which is the more wasted vote? Voting Labour in a forlorn attempt to stop the Tories or voting Green and building their base for a better chance of being in second place to challenge the Tory MP in 4 years?
BPB wants us to vote Labour in Hove and Brighton Kemptown, but both of these seats are already lost to the Tories. There is not a hope in hell that the awful Simon Burgess, who couldn't even hold his own council seat, can hold on with a 2,500 majority. A mass exodus of Labour voters to the Greens however could see them move into second place and be a real progressive challenger in 2014/15.
In Brighton Pavilion, a Green vote is the best way to stop the Tories, but this is only because a number of Labour voters switched to the Greens in 2005 despite risking a Tory MP.
The problem is the electoral system - we face another generation of Tory government - not because they are popular, but just because they are less unpopular than a despised Labour government.
People's memories are short - they cannot remember just how bad the Tory years were, or maybe they are not old enough to remember. But in 13 years the Tory brand is not as toxic as it once was, and Labour's has been destroyed by the stalinist leadership of the party denying ordinary members a say in the direction of policy.
The slow process of removing the duopoly of Labour and Tory from perpetual power is going to be very painful under this electoral system. It will involve maybe 60% of voters who want to see a left-of-centre government facing another decade or more of hard-right Tory rule.
If Labour is not going to offer electoral reform this time when it gave a categorical guarantee in its manifesto, then when will it ever?
Of course another left-of-centre party - be it the Greens or whoever will fall to the charlatans and sabateurs that have plenty of time to inviltrate any party that looks like achieving power and turning their policies into mush.
To win power under this system you need to appeal to the large section of the electorate that is politically ignorant, you need to have vague policies that 'all things to all people' and any party that has honest internal debate (like the Greens still do) will come a cropper under that system. Appointing a leader instead of dual speakers was a small step, but one which destroyed a key principle of being absolute in expressing equality over hierachy and was done in a search for the mass vote. Expect more key principles of the Greens to be dropped as their vote increases.
Only parties that suppress their internal democracy and present a vague superficial image and few real policies have a chance of winnning under this electoral farce of a system.
Look at the Tories, does anybody know what they are going to do after the election? They have not ruled out tax rises or public service cuts - but are totally vague about where, when and how these will be implemented. Ask any Tory voter for a clear policy of the Tories and most could not offer one.
And people have the wherewithall to say that PR does not let people vote for the government policies they want because two or more parties have to join a coalition.
At least under PR people can vote for the policies they want and their parties policies are more likely to be outlined in detail - the negotiation is open not decided amongst a few Tories or Labour leaders and their secret funders. Rather than a system where you have to vote for a party that won't tell you anything in detail until it is elected, PR gives you a real say over which detail of policy you would like to see argued for. Not perfect, but much better than the blind choice of two corrupt parties we have now.
The problem with tactical voting is that the party you are preferring over something worse (a inevitable situation with a system that allows no effective choice but Labour and Tory government) will never get the message about how unhappy you are with them until you vote elsewhere.
If it wasn't for those brave souls on the left risking a Tory MP by voting with their conscience we never would have anything other than Labour and Tory MPs and no chance of electing a Green in Brighton Pavilion.
I live in Hove - a 'super marginal' but no-one in the current anti-Labour climate could realistically expect Labour's Celia Barlow to hold on here with just a 500 vote majority. So which is the more wasted vote? Voting Labour in a forlorn attempt to stop the Tories or voting Green and building their base for a better chance of being in second place to challenge the Tory MP in 4 years?
BPB wants us to vote Labour in Hove and Brighton Kemptown, but both of these seats are already lost to the Tories. There is not a hope in hell that the awful Simon Burgess, who couldn't even hold his own council seat, can hold on with a 2,500 majority. A mass exodus of Labour voters to the Greens however could see them move into second place and be a real progressive challenger in 2014/15.
In Brighton Pavilion, a Green vote is the best way to stop the Tories, but this is only because a number of Labour voters switched to the Greens in 2005 despite risking a Tory MP.
The problem is the electoral system - we face another generation of Tory government - not because they are popular, but just because they are less unpopular than a despised Labour government.
People's memories are short - they cannot remember just how bad the Tory years were, or maybe they are not old enough to remember. But in 13 years the Tory brand is not as toxic as it once was, and Labour's has been destroyed by the stalinist leadership of the party denying ordinary members a say in the direction of policy.
The slow process of removing the duopoly of Labour and Tory from perpetual power is going to be very painful under this electoral system. It will involve maybe 60% of voters who want to see a left-of-centre government facing another decade or more of hard-right Tory rule.
If Labour is not going to offer electoral reform this time when it gave a categorical guarantee in its manifesto, then when will it ever?
Of course another left-of-centre party - be it the Greens or whoever will fall to the charlatans and sabateurs that have plenty of time to inviltrate any party that looks like achieving power and turning their policies into mush.
To win power under this system you need to appeal to the large section of the electorate that is politically ignorant, you need to have vague policies that 'all things to all people' and any party that has honest internal debate (like the Greens still do) will come a cropper under that system. Appointing a leader instead of dual speakers was a small step, but one which destroyed a key principle of being absolute in expressing equality over hierachy and was done in a search for the mass vote. Expect more key principles of the Greens to be dropped as their vote increases.
Only parties that suppress their internal democracy and present a vague superficial image and few real policies have a chance of winnning under this electoral farce of a system.
Look at the Tories, does anybody know what they are going to do after the election? They have not ruled out tax rises or public service cuts - but are totally vague about where, when and how these will be implemented. Ask any Tory voter for a clear policy of the Tories and most could not offer one.
And people have the wherewithall to say that PR does not let people vote for the government policies they want because two or more parties have to join a coalition.
At least under PR people can vote for the policies they want and their parties policies are more likely to be outlined in detail - the negotiation is open not decided amongst a few Tories or Labour leaders and their secret funders. Rather than a system where you have to vote for a party that won't tell you anything in detail until it is elected, PR gives you a real say over which detail of policy you would like to see argued for. Not perfect, but much better than the blind choice of two corrupt parties we have now.
21 August 2009
Corrected Swing For Greens Across B&H
It was kindly pointed out by Tom M in the comments of this post, that my maths was a bit astray in my previous predictions. I underestimated the Green swing massively, so here is what the results would actually be according to Tom's more accurate formula.
Central Hove: CON HOLD 2 seats
Con: 800
Con: 747
Grn: 605
Grn: 480
East Brighton: GRN GAIN 1 seat, LAB HOLD 2 seats
Lab: 1016
Lab: 925
Grn: 894
Lab: 833
Con: 830
Grn: 673
Goldsmid: GRN GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat, CON HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 1456
Grn: 1200
Con: 1104
Grn: 1095
Hollingbury & Stanmer: GRN GAIN 2 seats, LAB HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 987
Lab: 875
Grn: 808
Lab: 697
Con: 695
Moulsecoomb & Bevendean: CON GAIN 2 seats and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 816
Con: 814
Con: 800
Grn: 674
Lab: 672
North Portslade: CON GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 898
Con: 862
Lab: 753
Preston Park: GRN GAIN 2 seats and HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 2352
Grn: 1707
Grn: 1479
Lab: 1075
South Portslade: CON GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 880
Con: 864
Lab: 738
Grn: 454
Withdean: CON HOLD 3 seats
Con: 1738
Con: 1714
Con: 1663
Grn: 1036
Lab: 495
All the other wards are too safe to see any changes. Obviously applying this swing is a rough guide as some personal votes of councillors might make a difference in some wards. The Greens will do better in some places - e.g. Goldsmid and Central Hove and worse in others and by 2011 might do better than the Goldsmid swing on the back of Caroline Lucas's election as MP. The upshot though is that the council will look like the following in 2011 using the Goldsmid result as a guide:-
CON: 29 seats
GRN: 21
LAB: 3
IND: 1
So the Lib Dems are wiped out and Labour are nearly wiped out as well, just left with a couple of seats in East Brighton and 1 seat in Hollingbury and Stanmer.
The sad thing is the split vote and our electoral system sees the Tories grab 4 extra seats despite seeing a 17% FALL in their vote. This will comfortably give them total control of the council especially as the Independent is an ex-Tory who always votes with them.
The Greens took all their seats off Labour, I think the exception to this will be that the Tories will lose their Goldsmid seat to the Greens - so that would put the Greens on 22 and the Tories on 28 - which still means a Tory council as 27 is the magic number needed.
The Greens are close to the Tories in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean but outside of this their only hope of taking more seats off the Tories in surburban areas is in Withdean - most other surburban seats are far too safe for the Tories.
If the Greens could take Moulsecomb and Bevendean and the extra seat in Goldsmid then they would have 25 seats and with the support of the Labour 3 seats could take control of the council.
Long term the Greens could win in Withdean which would give them 28 seats and sole control. This is thinking well ahead and probably wishful thinking, but you never know.
However it does look like a Labour collapse in Brighton and Hove will saddle us with a Tory council for at least 4 years before the Greens could challenge them. Very sad when 2/3 of people would have voted against the Tories.
My advice to the Greens would be concentrate your efforts in East Brighton, Goldsmid, Hollingbury & Stanmer, Preston Park, Brunswick & Adelaide, Moulsecoomb & Bevendean and Central Hove and you could gain up to 17 seats! I expect them to gain at least 6 seats in these wards at a minimum.
…So, here’s how the vote for each party actually changed in Goldsmid:Carrying this formula on to other marginal wards gives the following results:-
The Con vote in 2009 was down 17% on 2007 (from 1330 to 1104)
The Lab vote was down 34% (from 1231 to 816)
The Lib Dem vote was down 54% (from 609 to 280)
The Green vote was up 44% (from 1010 to 1456)
So here’s what things would look like if applied to Brunswick and Adelaide:
Brunswick & Adelaide: GRN GAIN 2 seats
Grn: 694 (144% of 482)
Grn: 621 (144% of 431)
LD: 443 (46% of 942)
LD: 335 (46% of 729)
Central Hove: CON HOLD 2 seats
Con: 800
Con: 747
Grn: 605
Grn: 480
East Brighton: GRN GAIN 1 seat, LAB HOLD 2 seats
Lab: 1016
Lab: 925
Grn: 894
Lab: 833
Con: 830
Grn: 673
Goldsmid: GRN GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat, CON HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 1456
Grn: 1200
Con: 1104
Grn: 1095
Hollingbury & Stanmer: GRN GAIN 2 seats, LAB HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 987
Lab: 875
Grn: 808
Lab: 697
Con: 695
Moulsecoomb & Bevendean: CON GAIN 2 seats and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 816
Con: 814
Con: 800
Grn: 674
Lab: 672
North Portslade: CON GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 898
Con: 862
Lab: 753
Preston Park: GRN GAIN 2 seats and HOLD 1 seat
Grn: 2352
Grn: 1707
Grn: 1479
Lab: 1075
South Portslade: CON GAIN 1 seat and HOLD 1 seat
Con: 880
Con: 864
Lab: 738
Grn: 454
Withdean: CON HOLD 3 seats
Con: 1738
Con: 1714
Con: 1663
Grn: 1036
Lab: 495
All the other wards are too safe to see any changes. Obviously applying this swing is a rough guide as some personal votes of councillors might make a difference in some wards. The Greens will do better in some places - e.g. Goldsmid and Central Hove and worse in others and by 2011 might do better than the Goldsmid swing on the back of Caroline Lucas's election as MP. The upshot though is that the council will look like the following in 2011 using the Goldsmid result as a guide:-
CON: 29 seats
GRN: 21
LAB: 3
IND: 1
So the Lib Dems are wiped out and Labour are nearly wiped out as well, just left with a couple of seats in East Brighton and 1 seat in Hollingbury and Stanmer.
The sad thing is the split vote and our electoral system sees the Tories grab 4 extra seats despite seeing a 17% FALL in their vote. This will comfortably give them total control of the council especially as the Independent is an ex-Tory who always votes with them.
The Greens took all their seats off Labour, I think the exception to this will be that the Tories will lose their Goldsmid seat to the Greens - so that would put the Greens on 22 and the Tories on 28 - which still means a Tory council as 27 is the magic number needed.
The Greens are close to the Tories in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean but outside of this their only hope of taking more seats off the Tories in surburban areas is in Withdean - most other surburban seats are far too safe for the Tories.
If the Greens could take Moulsecomb and Bevendean and the extra seat in Goldsmid then they would have 25 seats and with the support of the Labour 3 seats could take control of the council.
Long term the Greens could win in Withdean which would give them 28 seats and sole control. This is thinking well ahead and probably wishful thinking, but you never know.
However it does look like a Labour collapse in Brighton and Hove will saddle us with a Tory council for at least 4 years before the Greens could challenge them. Very sad when 2/3 of people would have voted against the Tories.
My advice to the Greens would be concentrate your efforts in East Brighton, Goldsmid, Hollingbury & Stanmer, Preston Park, Brunswick & Adelaide, Moulsecoomb & Bevendean and Central Hove and you could gain up to 17 seats! I expect them to gain at least 6 seats in these wards at a minimum.
08 August 2009
Bit Of Fun: Lets Translate Goldsmid Result As Universal Swing Across B&H
Lets first assume that the Greens will hold all their current seats in Regency (2), Queens Park (3), St Peters and North Laine (3) and Hanover and Elm Grove (3) wards.
So that is 11 seats, plus the one they have in Preston Park and the one in Goldsmid making the 13 they currently have.
I think it is safe to also assume they will pick up the other 2 seats in Goldsmid and possibly the 2 other seats in Preston Park, which gives the Greens a total of 17 seats, so far..
In the recent Goldsmid by-election the parties achieved the following swings:-
Greens +17.5%
Tory -0.5%
Labour -6.8%
Lib Dem -7.3%
I thought I would translate this result across the city to see what would happen. I assumed in my naive way that this would help the Greens since they were the only party to gain votes, I had a nasty shock. I forgot we are talking about the first-past-the-post system here, that punishes heavily parties with similar ideologies that consequently split their supporters votes.
For simplicity I have left out very safe wards. The wards that are most marginal and the ones with actual changes are listed below.
So first off, lets look at how this affects the Brunswick and Adelaide ward result:-
surprisingly LIB DEM HOLD 2 seats, though only by 108 votes from Greens.
Lib Dem 873 (942)
Lib Dem 675 (729)
Green 567 (482)
Green 506 (431)
The following is a truly shocking result which happens as a result of the left vote being split three ways.
Moulsecomb & Bevendean - TORY GAIN 2 & HOLD 1 seat
Tory 979 (984)
Tory 978 (983)
Tory 959 (964)
Labour 948 (1010)
Labour 948 (1010)
Labour 790 (848)
Green 550 (468)
So, after looking at this I have revised down my Green seat prediction to no more than 19 seats in 2011 and possibly only 15 when before I optimistically had said they could get 21 seats.
I think the Greens will do better than Goldsmid swing in Brunswick/Adelaide ward, especially if Lucas becomes MP for Pavilion.
Also, maybe Preston Park might keep its 2 popular Labour members and the Labour vote is bound to bounce back a bit when the Tories are in Westminster - the other wards are far too safe for the Greens to take.
There is a risk the Tories might add a seat or two in North and South Portslade at Labour's expense bringing their total up to 26 which with the Tory independent, would be enough for them to again take control of the council. With the 2 seats gained in Moulsecomb & Bevendean the Tories would have 28 seats and total control with or without the independent.
Oh, the vagaries of our electoral system that gives power to one party that only need to achieve about 30% of the total vote to win absolute power. Sickening.
So that is 11 seats, plus the one they have in Preston Park and the one in Goldsmid making the 13 they currently have.
I think it is safe to also assume they will pick up the other 2 seats in Goldsmid and possibly the 2 other seats in Preston Park, which gives the Greens a total of 17 seats, so far..
In the recent Goldsmid by-election the parties achieved the following swings:-
Greens +17.5%
Tory -0.5%
Labour -6.8%
Lib Dem -7.3%
I thought I would translate this result across the city to see what would happen. I assumed in my naive way that this would help the Greens since they were the only party to gain votes, I had a nasty shock. I forgot we are talking about the first-past-the-post system here, that punishes heavily parties with similar ideologies that consequently split their supporters votes.
For simplicity I have left out very safe wards. The wards that are most marginal and the ones with actual changes are listed below.
So first off, lets look at how this affects the Brunswick and Adelaide ward result:-
surprisingly LIB DEM HOLD 2 seats, though only by 108 votes from Greens.
Lib Dem 873 (942)
Lib Dem 675 (729)
Green 567 (482)
Green 506 (431)
The following is a truly shocking result which happens as a result of the left vote being split three ways.
Moulsecomb & Bevendean - TORY GAIN 2 & HOLD 1 seat
Tory 979 (984)
Tory 978 (983)
Tory 959 (964)
Labour 948 (1010)
Labour 948 (1010)
Labour 790 (848)
Green 550 (468)
So, after looking at this I have revised down my Green seat prediction to no more than 19 seats in 2011 and possibly only 15 when before I optimistically had said they could get 21 seats.
I think the Greens will do better than Goldsmid swing in Brunswick/Adelaide ward, especially if Lucas becomes MP for Pavilion.
Also, maybe Preston Park might keep its 2 popular Labour members and the Labour vote is bound to bounce back a bit when the Tories are in Westminster - the other wards are far too safe for the Greens to take.
There is a risk the Tories might add a seat or two in North and South Portslade at Labour's expense bringing their total up to 26 which with the Tory independent, would be enough for them to again take control of the council. With the 2 seats gained in Moulsecomb & Bevendean the Tories would have 28 seats and total control with or without the independent.
Oh, the vagaries of our electoral system that gives power to one party that only need to achieve about 30% of the total vote to win absolute power. Sickening.
07 August 2009
My Prediction For Brighton Pavilion
The following was in response to this post at the Brighton Politics Blog.Amy Kennedy assures me that Alex Phillips knocked on 60% of the doors in Goldsmid - a fairly amazing claim.
If true, that means the Greens ran a hardworking campaign (apparently orchestrated by Jason Kitkat Regency councillor) but I too saw little evidence of them anywhere apart from one leaflet through my door and a teller at the poll station. (Though, to be fair, I was away on holiday for 7 days in the run up to electon day, so maybe I missed it all). However that low level campaign was enough to give them a big victory, so maybe they were campaigning in all the right places and I actually thought that the Labour and Tory campaigns were better and more hard hitting, so maybe their vote will fall even more by the next general election and local elections in 2011.
I am a big fan of Nancy Platts - the Labour candidate in Pavilion, who is working very hard. Ironically her appeal, especially to progressives like me could mean the Green/Labour vote splits evenly and the Tories sneak it.
However, pessimist that I am, I do believe the Greens have got enough support to give Caroline a comfortable 3,000 majority - Lucas has the advantage of being a national figure on Question Time and regularly in the Guardian - one of the most read papers in Brighton.
So I disagree with your analysis. I think even if the Green campaign is low key, their brand is strong enough to win. Nancy despite her personal appeal is trying to sell her product attached to an absolutely destroyed Labour brand.
The Tory brand has still (thankfully) not recovered from the wreckage of Thatcherism (well in Brighton and Hove anyway) and there is no sign the Tories can get much more than the 10,000 votes they got last time. So my prediction is the following (with 2005 figs in brackets);
Green 14,000 (9,600)
Tory 11,000 (10,400)
Labour 10,500 (15,400)
Lib Dems 3,000 (7,100)
The key for me is how much the Lib Dem vote collapses and how many of their voters switch to the Greens. This is where local Green campaigning will be important.
Dan Wilson Asks 'How Far Can The Greens Go?'
I think the answer (for Brighton and Hove at least) is actually quite far. Labour Party member Dan, says he can't see where the Greens are going to win any more seats. Well, all I can say is that he is not looking very hard.For a start the Greens have already shown they can win convincingly in Goldsmid, so they should take the other 2 seats in that ward come 2011 off the incumbent Tory and Labour councillors.
It is not a great stretch of the imagination to see the 2 Lib Dem seats in neighbouring Brunswick fall to the Greens. The Greens are already in 2nd place there and they came from a much further back third places to take Regency and Goldsmid.
The Greens also already have one councillor in Preston Park and despite the popularity of the Labour councillors there, could easily gain another 2 seats on the back of a Labour slump nationally.
So, we already have a fairly easy SIX gains for the Greens putting them on 19 seats in total, but there is more. Central Hove is the sort of town centre seat or 'muesli belt' seat, as Dan puts it where the Greens do well and they are hot on the Tory incumbents heels there. This could easily be another 2 seat gain for them.
On 21 seats in 2011, the Greens could be breathing down the Tories neck as the largest party on the council, with Labour reduced to a rump of 10 seats, the Tories on 22 seats and the Lib Dems wiped out.
Admittedly it will not be so easy for the Greens in the Tory suburbs nor the traditionalist working class Labour areas in Hollingbury and Moulscoumb and further out Portslade and East Brighton. But even in these places they are well placed to move into second place. Moulsecomb and Bevendean and East Brighton in particular are areas where the Greens could target disenchanted Labour voters. The Greens are not hated like Labour are in the Tory suburbs either.
The demographics of a sea-change in public opinion in Brighton and Hove are well indicated by these results, Goldsmid being the most astounding. Goldsmid is the largest ward in terms of number of voters and hardly a 'town centre' seat. This was a hard seat for the Greens to win. Winning here on this swing puts most seats in Brighton and Hove not far from their grasp. Both Labour and the Tories are waking up to the Greens.
Expect more attacks on them like this one from Dan. He makes some good points. The Greens have got holes in their policies (but at least they have some and outline them in detail) and they are worryingly anti-science. This last aspect being the main reason currently holding me back from ditching the Labour party and joining the Greens, that and the fact that the Greens will never be a force nationally (well not without PR anyway).
Yet the Greens do have some fantastic policies that appeal to lefties like me. 20mph limits in residential areas will hardly put off the near 40% of voters in Brighton and Hove who do not own a car, neither will paying everyone a living wage, spending more on public transport and delivering a citizen's income raise many eyebrows in a city as liberal as this, whatever the tax implications or Dan Wilsons personal thoughts.
But one thing is sure, the Greens barring any big mistake and on the back of the election of Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion are heading for a very strong showing in Brighton and Hove in 2011, whatever we disgruntled Labour supporters think of it.
08 July 2009
Do We Get The MPs We Deserve?
.jpg)
Philosophy in Pubs (PiPs) is asking this question at the Park View Pub, Preston Drove, Brighton this Sunday 12th July. All are welcome.PiPs gets around 50 to 100 people along to its discussions and the Park View is an excellent venue. Hope to see you there.
Actual question being discussed:-
"Does our parliamentary voting system produce the best people for the job? Do we have the leaders we deserve?"
For me, the answer is simple. It is like asking 'should everyone's vote be equal?'. If you don't agree and think that where you live should matter to how important your vote is, then you are probably happy with our present system - first-past-the-post. I don't see how any democrat can support a system where constituency boundaries are more important than votes - but that is first-past-the-post, a feudal system designed for feudal times when only 2 parties could exist and only posh people could stand or vote.
The more proportional the electoral system, the more democracy you have, the more equal the society and arguably the more successful.
PR generally means better public services, more prosperity, a better educated populace, better quality of life for most, better environmental protection, higher political engagement etc etc. It is a no-brainer.
I did a talk on PR for some Labour members in Regency ward a few weeks ago and I had little problem convincing them that fptp was an awful system, undemocratic and unrepresentative. But a few diehards still insisted 'better the devil you know'.
I didn't get to reply to this, but we DO KNOW what PR is like. Virtually every developed nation in Europe has it and it is a success. To talk like the world would end if we had PR is just perverse propaganda. It is time the British people had a choice.
28 June 2009
If Only They Cleared Up Their Mess.
A few weeks ago I noticed some caravans had moved onto a piece of ground by Falmer campus bordering on Stanmer Park. They have now gone - but kindly they have left their rubbish strewn everywhere. One wonders if they feel any guilt about this. They don't do themselves any favours. If you want sympathy from society, pay your taxes and clear up your mess when you leave. After all, if they can afford £30,000 caravans and 4x4s etc, they can afford to show some consideration for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)