Thursday, August 17, 2006
Israel and Gaza
If you want to know what it is like to live in Gaza now that Israel has supposedly given it back to the Palestinians, you need to read this.
Monday, August 14, 2006
The latest UK `terror' plot
This week the British media have been full of the terror plot that `Dr' John Reid, UK Home Secretary, claims to have just foiled. The facts that we know for sure are very limited. The Independent set them out today:
1) 23 Muslims, aged between 17 and 35, are being questioned by police about an alleged plot to blow up airliners flying between the UK and USA. They come from Birmingham, High Wycombe and Walthamstow.
2) Pakistani police have arrested several men accused of being linked to the alleged plot.
3) Britain's official `threat level' was raised to critical early on Thursday morning.
4) John Reid is in control of the Government response via his chairing of the Cobra civil contingencies committee.
5) Stringent new security checks have proved extremely disruptive in UK airports.
I would add another fact that The Independent did not state.
6) The Government and police have form in hyping the terrorist threat for their own political ends.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has given us his conclusions as to what is happening -
I highly recommend reading the whole piece, which is very instructive. For now though, I will leave you with his concluding remarks -
1) 23 Muslims, aged between 17 and 35, are being questioned by police about an alleged plot to blow up airliners flying between the UK and USA. They come from Birmingham, High Wycombe and Walthamstow.
2) Pakistani police have arrested several men accused of being linked to the alleged plot.
3) Britain's official `threat level' was raised to critical early on Thursday morning.
4) John Reid is in control of the Government response via his chairing of the Cobra civil contingencies committee.
5) Stringent new security checks have proved extremely disruptive in UK airports.
I would add another fact that The Independent did not state.
6) The Government and police have form in hyping the terrorist threat for their own political ends.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has given us his conclusions as to what is happening -
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is
deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand
British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent
are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an
appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few -
just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of
anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon
while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
I highly recommend reading the whole piece, which is very instructive. For now though, I will leave you with his concluding remarks -
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
How Israel treats the Palestinians
`Today, August 11, the Israeli army and Border Police brutally prevented Bil’in’s weekly non-violent demonstration, by firing rubber bullets and sound grenades on protestors as they marched through the village on their way to the Apartheid wall. Fourteen people from Bil’in, Israelis and internationals, have been injured, including an Israeli in critical condition who was shot on neck and just above his right ear with 3 rubber bullets at close range. He has had surgery at Tel Hashomer hospital to remove a rubber bullet that was lodged in his skull. Currently he is in a medical induced coma in moderate but stable condition, but has sustained brain damaged of unknown severity.
Another demonstrator from Denmark, Rina, has suffered a fracture in her skull and brain contusion after a soldier beat her with the butt of his gun. She is currently hospitalized in Hebron, West Bank and is conscious but unable to walk. She was also beaten on her legs and sustained minor injuries.'
More here.
Another demonstrator from Denmark, Rina, has suffered a fracture in her skull and brain contusion after a soldier beat her with the butt of his gun. She is currently hospitalized in Hebron, West Bank and is conscious but unable to walk. She was also beaten on her legs and sustained minor injuries.'
More here.
International Tribunal on Israeli War Crimes
`We, the undersigned, demand that The United Nations General Assembly immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a ‘subsidiary organ’ under U.N. Charter Article 22 to prosecute the Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, Chief of Staff Halutz and Israel’s other top generals and war criminals for their infliction of international war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the Peoples of Lebanon and Palestine.'
You can sign it here.
UPDATE: There is a a partial list of Israeli war crimes in Lebanon here.
You can sign it here.
UPDATE: There is a a partial list of Israeli war crimes in Lebanon here.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Israel's war crimes in Lebanon - who started it anyway?
Many Western commentators have criticised or condemned Israel's current war crimes in Lebanon. Even Foreign Minister Kim `weasel words' Howells attacked Israel for targetting Lebanese people and infrastructure in its campaign against Hezbollah (until he got to Israel the next day, when he changed his emphasis. What a coward).
However, these same Western commentators are even more unified in their condemnation of Hezbollah for starting the trouble by `kidnapping' two Israeli soldiers. It should come as no surprise that the truth is somewhat different. Joshua Frank at antiwar.com has researched the original reports from Western news sources such as MSNBC, as well as independent reports. What has he discovered?
Surprise, surprise. The Israeli soldiers were not `kidnapped' in Israel. They were captured in Lebanon. Israel bears 100% responsibility - not only for its war crimes in Lebanon, but also for how it began. Once again Western journalists have proved to be spineless accomplices in the dissemination of Israeli propaganda.
UPDATE 26.7.06.: Further to Hezbollah allegedly `starting' the current crisis. It seems they have violated the Blue Line on the Israeli-Lebanese border 100 times. How many times has Israel violated it - 11,782. (Info from UN Observers, quoted by Lebanese Speaker of Parliament in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV).
However, these same Western commentators are even more unified in their condemnation of Hezbollah for starting the trouble by `kidnapping' two Israeli soldiers. It should come as no surprise that the truth is somewhat different. Joshua Frank at antiwar.com has researched the original reports from Western news sources such as MSNBC, as well as independent reports. What has he discovered?
`These sources contend that Israel sent a commando force into southern
Lebanon and was subsequently attacked by Hezbollah near the village of Aitaa
al-Chaab, well inside Lebanon's southern territory. It was at this point that an
Israel tank was struck by Hezbollah fighters, which resulted in the capture of
two Israeli soldiers and the death of six.
As the AFP
reported, "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were
captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the
border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning."
And the French news site www.VoltaireNet.org
reiterated the same account on June 18, "In a deliberated way, [Israel] sent a
commando in the Lebanese back-country to Aitaa al-Chaab. It was attacked by
Hezbollah, taking two prisoners."
The Associated
Press departed from the official version as well. "The militant
group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across
the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which
sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph
Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers'
captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said
on condition of anonymity."'
Surprise, surprise. The Israeli soldiers were not `kidnapped' in Israel. They were captured in Lebanon. Israel bears 100% responsibility - not only for its war crimes in Lebanon, but also for how it began. Once again Western journalists have proved to be spineless accomplices in the dissemination of Israeli propaganda.
UPDATE 26.7.06.: Further to Hezbollah allegedly `starting' the current crisis. It seems they have violated the Blue Line on the Israeli-Lebanese border 100 times. How many times has Israel violated it - 11,782. (Info from UN Observers, quoted by Lebanese Speaker of Parliament in an interview with Al-Arabiya TV).
Monday, July 24, 2006
MEPs and Palestine
I still haven't had any reply from Baroness Ludford (Lib Dem) to my letter of June 13th about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. The Baroness is one of nine London MEPs. However, I see from her newsletter that she has raised the issue of Israeli jets deliberately provoking anxiety through low-level sonic booms over Gaza. She reports thus:
It is interesting to note that the Baroness's letter to the Israeli ambassador has been totally ignored. And this despite the fact that she is a member of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel! It just shows the contempt the Israeli authorities have for any criticism at all, however mild, and whoever it is from. Israel demands the right to `self-defence'. However, this self-defence is the right to commit war crimes against anyone, anywhere as they so choose; and to totally ignore any criticism from any source.
Baroness Ludford needs to take a long hard look at her attitude to Israel. Yes, it is good that she has raised this matter. No, it is not good that she appears to be turning a blind eye to all the other war crimes the Israelis are committing against the Palestinians.
You can write to your MEPs here.
London's Liberal Democrat Euro-MP and peer Baroness Sarah Ludford, a
member of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, this week asked the government during exchanges in the House of Lords to urge Israel to stop creating sonic booms over the Palestinian territories. Since the withdrawal of Israeli
settlers from Gaza in September 2005, the Israeli air force has reportedly been
using jets to break the sound barrier at low altitude over Gaza, thereby causing
sonic booms.
Sarah Ludford, who afterwards expressed disappointment that her
December 2005 letter to the Israeli ambassador on this topic had remained
unanswered, commented:
"My protest lies in the indiscriminate nature of this practice. I do
strongly support Israel's right to take legitimate action to protect its
security, but the damage caused by the sonic booms appears to be designed to
intimidate, in other words collective punishment which cannot be morally
justified."
"The UN's demand for an end to this practice points out that amongst
children sonic booms can cause anxiety, bedwetting, muscle spasms, temporary
loss of hearing and breathing difficulties. It is wrong for Israel to inflict
this suffering if the military justification present in other Israeli Defence
Force actions is here absent."
It is interesting to note that the Baroness's letter to the Israeli ambassador has been totally ignored. And this despite the fact that she is a member of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel! It just shows the contempt the Israeli authorities have for any criticism at all, however mild, and whoever it is from. Israel demands the right to `self-defence'. However, this self-defence is the right to commit war crimes against anyone, anywhere as they so choose; and to totally ignore any criticism from any source.
Baroness Ludford needs to take a long hard look at her attitude to Israel. Yes, it is good that she has raised this matter. No, it is not good that she appears to be turning a blind eye to all the other war crimes the Israelis are committing against the Palestinians.
You can write to your MEPs here.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Walthamstow MP Watch: Middle East crisis 2
On the 18th July I wrote to Neil Gerrard, Labour MP for Walthamstow, to ask him if he could in any way bring pressure to bear to stop the Israeli government's current war crimes in Lebanon. I am pleased to say that I have already received a letter in reply. In it he sets out his opposition to Israeli actions, and details a House of Commons motion on the issue. Here is the letter:
You can write to your political representatives via writetothem.com .
You can write to your political representatives via writetothem.com .
MEPs reply on Israel and Lebanon
On the 14th July I wrote to 8 of the 9 London MEPs (excluding the UKIP MEP because he won't do anything). I have now had two replies. This is the letter from John Bowis (Con):
I was pleasantly surprised that he agreed that Israel must be restrained, and that aid should not be cut to the Palestinians. I expected a harder line response from a Conservative MEP. That was to come from Dr Charles Tannock, another Conservative MEP. He e-mailed me as follows:
Opinions are, of course, divided on this controversial issue and I
support the G8 position as well as the EU Council declaration. The
responsibility for the tragic killing on the Gaza beach remains disputed, as
according to admittedly Israeli sources the ordnance used was not theirs.Furthermore, it is clear that Israel having withdrawn from Gaza and south
Lebanon in what was supposed to be a land for peace deal has instead found this
territory to be rapidly filled by terrorists committed to the total destruction
of the state of Israel and not the two-state solution agreed in Oslo in
1993.Therefore, I believe Israel was provoked deliberately and although I call
for restraint and dialogue within international law, I accept Israel's right to
self-defence and retaliation against terrorist strongholds. I have
nevertheless questioned the Israeli Ambassador to the EU as to why in Gaza
civilian infrastructure was targeted such as water supplies for which there was
no justification and therefore I condemn this particular act as
disproportionate.Nevertheless, until Israel can live peaceably within its borders there is
no hope for the 2003 roadmap for peace under the Quartet and I hope that the
recent escalation of Israeli military action will secure the release of Israeli
soldiers and stop rockets being fired on Israeli territory at civilian targets,
as otherwise there are no prospects for a durable peace in the region. I
also believe that Iran and Syria have been connected directly with this
provocation as a distraction from their own disputes with the international
community. I also call upon Lebanon to implement UNSCR 1559 and disarm
Hezbollah as previously directed.
Yours
sincerely
Dr. Charles Tannock MEP
I felt there was a great deal to disagree with here, so I responded as follows:
Dear Dr Tannock,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful
reply to my e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to reply to an
individual constituent such as myself. I am heartened to hear that have tackled
the Israeli Ambassador to the EU on the question of the targeting of civilian
infrastructure in Gaza. Would you permit me to briefly respond to some of the
points that you have made?
Firstly, Israel's denials of
responsibility for the killings on Gaza beach are not credible. The Independent
reported (`Revealed: the shrapnel evidence that points to Israel's guilt) on 14
June that a former Pentagon battle damage expert, Marc Garlasco, said "All the
evidence points" to a 155mm Israeli land-based artillery shell as being
responsible. There is much more detail in the article which I will not repeat
here.
Secondly, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral, and
not part of any `land for peace deal'. As I am sure you are aware, Israel always
refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians on the grounds that there is no
partner for peace. The plain fact is that Israel does not want a partner for
peace. It simply wishes to impose its own designs unilaterally, in which it is
nearly always aided and supported by western politicians, who have a great deal
to answer for.
You say Gaza was `rapidly filled by
terrorists'. Are you calling the entire Palestinian population terrorists? That
seems to me to be a very extreme comment. Terrorism is often defined as the use
of violence for political ends. It seems very strange how the Palestinians, or
anyone who supports them, seem to be almost uniquely singled out for
this description, and how this is used as a term of abuse i.e. terrorists equal
people who can never be acknowledged or negotiated with. This flies entirely in
the face of history - especially that of the British Empire. Those who used
violence to oppose colonial rule (just as the rulers used violence to
maintain that rule) often became respected statesmen after independence had
been achieved, and established good diplomatic relations. Israel itself was
established through an extensive campaign of terrorism and violence, some of it
against British troops, as I am sure you are very well
aware.
Israel has since maintained its rule through extensive use
of state terror. Western politicians are very quick to condemn Palestinian
suicide bombings (which I should make clear I do not support). But the Israelis
have murdered many more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian `terrorists'
have Israel civilians. How often are those killings condemned, or even
acknowledged? The Palestinians held free democratic elections and elected Hamas.
Western governments then disgracefully supported Israel's attempts to starve the
Palestinians into submission for having the temerity to elect the `wrong'
government.
You refer to the two-state solution. Whatever the
Israelis may say to placate their supporters in the west, they have no intention
of accepting any such solution. They are still stealing Palestinian land through
their `security wall' with the intention of limiting the Palestinians to a few
disconnected `bantustans' which will never be able to cohere into a state.
Western governments have shamefully colluded in this. The ever more desperate
situation of the Palestinians is a running sore on the face of the world,
and all western politicians will do is blame them for their own situation,
collude with every Israeli act of violence against them, and then wonder why
terrorism is increasing. It is increasing out of desperation.
The
only way to put a stop to this appalling situation is a one-state solution.
Israel/Palestine must be a democratic nation where Jew and Arab are equal
and can live in peace. Everything Israel does is designed to prevent this from
happening. Everything western governments do colludes with this. But there
is no other way.
Thank you for your time.
Yours
sincerely,Grouchy.
Middle East Crisis: what can we do?
I suggest that the most important thing we can do is go on the demonstrations on Saturday 22nd July. The main one is in London, but there are others in Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Sheffield, and York.
But I also think it's worth writing to your MP and MEP. It's very easy. Just go to writetothem.com, and as long as you know your own postcode all the details are provided for you. This is the letter I wrote to 8 of the 9 London MEPs (I didn't bother with the UKIP MEP because he won't do anything) on July 14th:
Dear MEP,
I write to you as one of your London constituents. Given the very grave
events currently taking place in the Middle East, I am writing to you to ask you
to use your influence as an MEP to persuade the European Union to take a
constructive role in reversing Israel's actions against its
neighbours.
Up to now the EU has simply seemed to tail the USA in
their quite appalling encouragement of Israel's state terrorism against the
Palestinians. It is vital that the EU plays a more independent role now that
Israel has once again invaded the Lebanon. The EU must call for -
-
the total withdrawal by Israel of all military forces from the Lebanon
- the
ending of the aerial and naval blockade of the Lebanon
- no recurrence of
these attacks
- an end to the blockade of Gaza, and the withholding of
Palestinian revenues
Anything less will do nothing to reduce
the danger of a wider war, and may only increase it.
Thank you for
your time.
Yours sincerely,Grouchy.
Also, write letters to newspapers. This is my letter to my local newspaper:
Dear Editor,
Walthamstow MP Neil Gerrard made an excellent contribution to a recent
debate in Parliament on the tragic situation in the Middle East.He said, `No one in this House in any way supports kidnapping or the
firing of rockets into Israel, but...collective punishment is clearly against
international law and has been
regularly and routinely used by Israel over
the years. It is being used again now in Lebanon'.The Israelis are bombing Lebanon into dust, and have killed over 300
civilians. This has nothing to do with `stopping terrorism'. These are war
crimes against the Lebanese people.
Unfortunately, the British government has
joined the USA in refusing to call for a ceasefire. President Bush only has to
shout `Yo Blair', and Tony comes running like an obedient puppydog for his
orders.If you think our government should be doing everything it can to help
find a peaceful solution, you can do something about it. For a start you can
contact your MP. It is very easy to send an email via www.writetothem.com . You
only need to know your own postcode.
You can also contact your MEPs about the
European Union's attitude in the same way. I have had some good correspondence
with some of London's 9 MEPs in this way.Please raise your voice to force the government to take
action.Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.
BBC News - written in Tel Aviv
It is quite astonishing just how brazen the BBC are in reproducing Israeli propaganda about what Israeli forces are doing in Lebanon.
That was the lunchtime news. I didn't see the six o'clock news. But, lo and behold, at ten o'clock:
I think we need a campaign to remove the licence-fee from BBC News, or just to cancel it altogether and let the BBC collapse. I am tired of being lied to. You can tell the BBC what you think here.
Dear BBC,
Why is a news service funded by the British licence-fee payer
broadcasting Israeli propaganda about the events in the Lebanon, instead of at
least attempting to report even-handedly?
In today's lunchtime news,
newsreader Sophie Raeworth (I think that's her name) told us that `Israel has
bombed more Hezbollah targets' in the Lebanon.
This is pure Israeli propaganda. The Israelis have bombed roads,
airports, factories, housing and just about everything else. Are all these
`Hezbollah targets'? It is quite disgraceful that a British TV news service is
swallowing and regurgitating blatant propaganda.
If you continue to do this - which no doubt you will - you will forfeit
any right to be funded by the licence fee. You are not entitled to my
licence-fee to produce propaganda for Israel - or anyone else for that matter.
If you can't do the job properly, don't bother doing it at
all.
Yours,
Grouchy.
That was the lunchtime news. I didn't see the six o'clock news. But, lo and behold, at ten o'clock:
Dear BBC,
I have already complained about Sophie Raeworth on the lunchtime news
stating that Israel `had bombed more Hezbollah targets' in Lebanon. Now Fiona
Bruce, summing up the headlines at the end of the News at Ten, said that Israel
`had bombed more Hezbollah targets in Beirut'.
This is absolutely
scandalous. Israel has bombed just about everything in the Lebanon - factories,
airports, housing - anything and everything. Just what is it about these things
that makes them `Hezbollah targets', and just how has the BBC independently
verified this is the case? Quite obviously most of these places have nothing to
do with Hezbollah, and the BBC has verifed nothing independently.
You have simply taken Israeli state propaganda, swallowed it
whole, then vomited it out over the British population. I will ask you again.
Why is a British TV news service, funded by British licence-fee payers,
producing propaganda for the state of Israel? Just what do you think you are
doing? If you continue along this road of producing propaganda you will no
longer be entitled to funding from the licence-fee. Why don't you be honest and
get your funding from Washington and Tel Aviv? You are a disgrace.
Yours,
Grouchy.
I think we need a campaign to remove the licence-fee from BBC News, or just to cancel it altogether and let the BBC collapse. I am tired of being lied to. You can tell the BBC what you think here.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Walthamstow MP Watch: Middle East crisis
If you are a UK citizen, what can you do about Israel's current war crimes against its neighbours? Well, it might not seem like much, but I do think it's worth writing to your political representatives in Westminster and Brussels. This is what I wrote to Neil Gerrard, Labour MP for Walthamstow:
Neil Gerrard is a principled MP, and it doesn't surprise me at all that he made this contribution to a debate in Parliament on the 17th July on the situation:
This is a sound and valuable contribution to the debate. Compare it to the weasel words of Government minister, Kim Howells, in reply:
This is disgraceful, disreputable garbage. About eight Lebanese civilians have died for each Israeli civilian killed since Israel launched its war crimes against the Lebanon. Hezbollah only fired rockets into Haifa (which I do not support) after Israel deliberately killed many civilians and attacked vital Lebanese infrastructure. Howells is a cowardly careerist who - for the sake of his career - crawls to Blair, who - for the sake of what exactly? - crawls on his belly to Bush.
To put pressure on the cowards in the British government, go here.
Dear Neil Gerrard,
I am writing to ask you if there is anything you can do as a Member of
Parliament to bring pressure to bear to prevent the Israeli Government from
continuing its current round of war crimes in Gaza and the Lebanon.
Once again Israel is murdering civilians in its neighbour
countries. Once again the USA has vetoed a motion critical of Israel at the
United Nations. Just for once our Government must stop tailending the US
neo-conservatives and speak out for humanitarian values.
Both Britain and the European Union must stop supporting Israeli
war crimes. I would be grateful if you could do anything to
help.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.
Neil Gerrard is a principled MP, and it doesn't surprise me at all that he made this contribution to a debate in Parliament on the 17th July on the situation:
No one in this House in any way supports kidnapping or the firing of rockets
into Israel, but does my hon. Friend accept that collective punishment is
clearly against international law and has been regularly and routinely used by
Israel over the years? It is being used again now in Lebanon, with the bombing
of infrastructure and targeted assassinations from the air that inevitably cause
civilian casualties, as the Israelis know when they do it. Those are not the
actions of a responsible Government. In comparing the actions of Hezbollah and
Israel, let us remember that Israel is a Government and a state, not an
organisation like Hezbollah. One expects any state that claims to be a democracy
and is a member of the UN to abide by
international law.
This is a sound and valuable contribution to the debate. Compare it to the weasel words of Government minister, Kim Howells, in reply:
We certainly expect Israel to abide by international law and we are
totally opposed to collective punishment. My hon. Friend is right in recalling
the history of relationships between Israel and its neighbours since the second
world war. There is a great difference now. Hezbollah recognises no
international law and targets civilians directly. Hamas's terrorist elements
murder civilians directly. That is the way in which terrorists operate. It is
difficult, as we have found in this country to our great pain, to understand how
such an enemy operates, and it is still more difficult to erect defences against
such attacks. That is not to excuse collective punishment, as my hon. Friend
puts it, but we must also try to understand that there are some very
unscrupulous organisations around that operate across frontiers, owe allegiance
to no one and are prepared to use any murderous techniques they care to invent
to achieve their ends. That is a very difficult enemy with which to
negotiate.
This is disgraceful, disreputable garbage. About eight Lebanese civilians have died for each Israeli civilian killed since Israel launched its war crimes against the Lebanon. Hezbollah only fired rockets into Haifa (which I do not support) after Israel deliberately killed many civilians and attacked vital Lebanese infrastructure. Howells is a cowardly careerist who - for the sake of his career - crawls to Blair, who - for the sake of what exactly? - crawls on his belly to Bush.
To put pressure on the cowards in the British government, go here.
BBC News lacks balance - so what else is new?
The BBC's coverage of the current tragic events in the Middle East is as unbalanced as we have come to expect. The usual kinds of bias were on show in last night's Ten o'Clock News:
It really is quite stunning that a British news service, funded by British licence-fee payers, should see its role as propagandising on behalf of Israel. Of course, Israel has numerous supporters in this country, and some of them are quite prepared to justify Israel's state terrorism against its neighbours (step forward Maureen Lipman). But it is certain that there is a majority that does not want to see either Israel attacking Lebanon's infrastructure, or Hezbollah attacking Haifa. So why does the BBC see fit to side with the minority against the majority?
Because the British government is a US plaything, and the USA is the principal backer of Israeli state terrorism. It is to the immense shame of both the British government, and the BBC, that they are so gutless and spineless.
You can let the BBC know what you think here.
UPDATE: This is absolutely essential reading. A detailed analysis of the BBC's disgraceful, spineless pro-Israel propaganda.
Dear BBC,
Gavin Hewitt's piece on the current strife in the Middle
East was not a balanced report. For example, he asked Lebanese refugees in an
aggressive, accusatory way whether they agreed with Hezbollah firing rockets
into Israel. No such questions about Israel bombing and killing civilians were
put to Israelis.
Also, the order of events is being fudged as well as
the comparative scale. Israel attacked civilians first, on a massive scale.
Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel only after this happened. Civilian deaths on
any side are reprehensible, but why is it that the far fewer Israeli casulaties
are given much greater prominence than the many more Lebanese casualties?
Once again the BBC has failed to provide even-handed reports, instead
propagandising on behalf of the Israelis.
Yours,
Grouchy.
It really is quite stunning that a British news service, funded by British licence-fee payers, should see its role as propagandising on behalf of Israel. Of course, Israel has numerous supporters in this country, and some of them are quite prepared to justify Israel's state terrorism against its neighbours (step forward Maureen Lipman). But it is certain that there is a majority that does not want to see either Israel attacking Lebanon's infrastructure, or Hezbollah attacking Haifa. So why does the BBC see fit to side with the minority against the majority?
Because the British government is a US plaything, and the USA is the principal backer of Israeli state terrorism. It is to the immense shame of both the British government, and the BBC, that they are so gutless and spineless.
You can let the BBC know what you think here.
UPDATE: This is absolutely essential reading. A detailed analysis of the BBC's disgraceful, spineless pro-Israel propaganda.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - what happened to the Conservatives?
Nationwide, the local elections of 2006 were regarded as pretty good for the Tories. They achieved 40% of the popular vote and comfortably outdid Labour and the Liberal Democrats. However, things didn't run quite so smoothly for the Tories in Waltham Forest - in fact they had a mini-catastrophe. By losing all three council seats to the Lib Dems in Hale End & Highams Park ward they fell from second to third-largest party in the borough. This was the only change for the Conservatives since the local elections of 2002:
Hale End & Highams Park........................lost 3 seats to the Liberal Democrats
The Tory vote dropped 5% in this ward, while the Lib Dem vote went up over 7%. This may have been tactical voting as Labour's share of the vote fell by nearly 6%, but it isn't really possible to know. The situation was complicated by the Greens standing and taking 3.6%, so where the votes may have moved since last time is unknowable.
The political geography of the borough is a little unusual in that the Tories are virtually unbeatable in the five northernmost wards, but apart from Hale End & Highams Park they are not in contention anywhere else. They have virtually no chance in any of the wards in the rest of the borough. Where there is any contest, it is between Labour and the Lib Dems, with the Tories basically just in the role of onlookers.
The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Tory vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest Tory ward to the hardest for them to win.
WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS
Endlebury.....................72...........c. 67...........+5......................3
Chingford Green............70...............55.........+15......................3
Larkswood....................62...........c. 63...........+0......................3
Valley...........................61...........c. 54...........+7......................3
Hatch Lane...................58...............55...........+3......................3
Hale End & HP.............41...............46...........-5.......................0
Wood Street.................31................15..........+16.....................0
Hoe Street....................19................20..........-1........................0
Lea Bridge....................16................20..........-4........................0
Chapel End...................16................18..........-2........................0
Markhouse...................15................21..........-6........................0
Forest..........................14................11...........+3.......................0
Leytonstone.................12.................7............+5.......................0
Higham Hill..................10..............c. 10..........0........................0
William Morris..............10................15...........-5.......................0
High Street.....................8..................7...........+1.......................0
Cann Hall.......................8..............c. 5...........+3.......................0
Grove Green...................8..................8.............0.......................0
Cathall...........................7.................16..........-9........................0
Leyton...........................6.................7............-1........................0
The Tories only scored big increases in the safe ward of Chingford Green, and Wood Street. Why in those wards? If you have any ideas, please do tell. They scored increases in all five of their safest wards. Then, apart from Hale End & Highams Park, the ups and downs made no difference to any of the other results. The Conservatives are very much corralled in the north of the borough with no sign of any ability to break out in the foreseeable future.
In fact, for the forseeable future, the only way the Conservatives could control the Council would be in coalition with another party. So it was quite interesting to see a letter in the Walthamstow Guardian of 8th June 2006 (letters page not online) from Councillor G.A.Walker, Leader of the Conservative Group on the Council:
To see just how limited the Conservatives chances are, the next table lists the Tories target wards in order from the easiest for them to win, to the hardest. The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward. As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case).
WARD......................CONS %.....OPPONENTS %.....SWING REQ'D
Hale End & HP..........41................Lib Dem 44..................2%
Wood Street..............31................Lab 44..........................7%
Lea Bridge.................16................Lab 56........................16%
Markhouse................15................Lab 46........................16%
Forest.......................14................Lib Dem 44................16%
Hoe Street.................19................Lab 51........................17%
High Street..................8.................Lab 40.......................17%
Leytonstone..............12................Lab 46........................18%
William Morris...........10................Lab 45........................18%
Higham Hill...............10................Lib Dem 49................20%
Grove Green...............8................Lab 47.........................20%
Cathall........................7................Lab 46.........................20%
Chapel End................16................Lib Dem 56.................21%
Cann Hall....................8................Lib Dem 50.................22%
Leyton........................6.................Lib Dem 47.................22%
To gain overall control, the Conservatives would require a swing from Labour and the Liberal Democrats of about 17%. Barring political earthquakes that isn't going to happen. So any urgings from Labour to vote for them to keep the Tories out are completely meaningless in Waltham Forest. The Conservatives can look forward to opposition in perpetuity here - unless they can persuade another party to go into coalition with them.
Hale End & Highams Park........................lost 3 seats to the Liberal Democrats
The Tory vote dropped 5% in this ward, while the Lib Dem vote went up over 7%. This may have been tactical voting as Labour's share of the vote fell by nearly 6%, but it isn't really possible to know. The situation was complicated by the Greens standing and taking 3.6%, so where the votes may have moved since last time is unknowable.
The political geography of the borough is a little unusual in that the Tories are virtually unbeatable in the five northernmost wards, but apart from Hale End & Highams Park they are not in contention anywhere else. They have virtually no chance in any of the wards in the rest of the borough. Where there is any contest, it is between Labour and the Lib Dems, with the Tories basically just in the role of onlookers.
The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Tory vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest Tory ward to the hardest for them to win.
WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS
Endlebury.....................72...........c. 67...........+5......................3
Chingford Green............70...............55.........+15......................3
Larkswood....................62...........c. 63...........+0......................3
Valley...........................61...........c. 54...........+7......................3
Hatch Lane...................58...............55...........+3......................3
Hale End & HP.............41...............46...........-5.......................0
Wood Street.................31................15..........+16.....................0
Hoe Street....................19................20..........-1........................0
Lea Bridge....................16................20..........-4........................0
Chapel End...................16................18..........-2........................0
Markhouse...................15................21..........-6........................0
Forest..........................14................11...........+3.......................0
Leytonstone.................12.................7............+5.......................0
Higham Hill..................10..............c. 10..........0........................0
William Morris..............10................15...........-5.......................0
High Street.....................8..................7...........+1.......................0
Cann Hall.......................8..............c. 5...........+3.......................0
Grove Green...................8..................8.............0.......................0
Cathall...........................7.................16..........-9........................0
Leyton...........................6.................7............-1........................0
The Tories only scored big increases in the safe ward of Chingford Green, and Wood Street. Why in those wards? If you have any ideas, please do tell. They scored increases in all five of their safest wards. Then, apart from Hale End & Highams Park, the ups and downs made no difference to any of the other results. The Conservatives are very much corralled in the north of the borough with no sign of any ability to break out in the foreseeable future.
In fact, for the forseeable future, the only way the Conservatives could control the Council would be in coalition with another party. So it was quite interesting to see a letter in the Walthamstow Guardian of 8th June 2006 (letters page not online) from Councillor G.A.Walker, Leader of the Conservative Group on the Council:
It is not at all surprising that the Lib Dems rejected this overture. Apart from the five northernmost wards, the Tories have little support in the borough. If the Lib Dems had put them into (shared) power, the opposition Labour Group would have taken the opportunity to `talk left' and appear as principled anti-Tories (whereas in power they implement Tory neo-liberal policies). The Lib Dems would suffer the consequences at the next election, and in all likelihood, Labour would win a majority in the borough. The Lib Dems would be set back for quite a few years.`I sent a letter to every Lib Dem councillor offering to form a joint
Lib Dem/Conservative administration which would have given them a 6:4 majority
in the cabinet and leader ship of the council ... it was not until 72 hours
before the annual council meeting that I received a formal indication from the
Lib Dems that they were declining my offer and had done a deal with the Labour
group ... We offered them the chance to jointly take control ... but they have
bottled out, again preferring to shield behind a Labour group upon whom to cast
the blame for failure.'
To see just how limited the Conservatives chances are, the next table lists the Tories target wards in order from the easiest for them to win, to the hardest. The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward. As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case).
WARD......................CONS %.....OPPONENTS %.....SWING REQ'D
Hale End & HP..........41................Lib Dem 44..................2%
Wood Street..............31................Lab 44..........................7%
Lea Bridge.................16................Lab 56........................16%
Markhouse................15................Lab 46........................16%
Forest.......................14................Lib Dem 44................16%
Hoe Street.................19................Lab 51........................17%
High Street..................8.................Lab 40.......................17%
Leytonstone..............12................Lab 46........................18%
William Morris...........10................Lab 45........................18%
Higham Hill...............10................Lib Dem 49................20%
Grove Green...............8................Lab 47.........................20%
Cathall........................7................Lab 46.........................20%
Chapel End................16................Lib Dem 56.................21%
Cann Hall....................8................Lib Dem 50.................22%
Leyton........................6.................Lib Dem 47.................22%
To gain overall control, the Conservatives would require a swing from Labour and the Liberal Democrats of about 17%. Barring political earthquakes that isn't going to happen. So any urgings from Labour to vote for them to keep the Tories out are completely meaningless in Waltham Forest. The Conservatives can look forward to opposition in perpetuity here - unless they can persuade another party to go into coalition with them.
Friday, June 30, 2006
European Union and Palestine: MEPs respond (sort of)
2 or 3 weeks ago I wrote to the London Members of the European Parliament about the humanitarian problems in Palestine caused by the attempts of Israel, the USA, and the European Union to punish the Palestinians for democratically electing the `wrong' party, Hamas.
I have had three replies so far.
Here's the shortest, from Mary Honeyball, (Labour):
Thank you for your email addressed to Mary Honeyball. She has asked me to advise you that she has noted your comments.
Kind regards, Helen Hegarty, Assistant to Mary Honeyball MEP.
Er, fair enough. With several million constituents (all Londoners) I suppose it might be a bit much to ask for a personal reply. And at least she had the courtesy to respond. But it doesn't tell me her attitude to the issue. Surely a short statement could have been appended?
Here's number 2, from Gerard Batten, (UKIP):
I am afraid that I don't approve of the EU interfering in world trade or giving funds to anyone. Its own accounts have not been signed off by the auditors in eleven years, and also the money it has handed over to the Palestinians in the past cannot be properly accounted for; i.e. we have no idea how much of it has ended up in the hands of terrorists. I also think it interesting that Yasser Arafat managed to die a multi-millionaire.
I attach a copy of my Personal Manifesto, which explains the basis upon which I hold my seat in the European Parliament. I am sure you will appreciate from this that I don't think the EU should be spending any British taxpayers’ money on anything.
Whether Britain sends aid to the Palestinians or not or reviews existing trade agreements should be something solely for the British government to decide so I am sorry but I will not be raising this matter in the Europarliament.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Batten MEP
This is pretty much what I would expect UKIP to say. His response was extremely fast. He may not be willing to recognise the EU enough to take any action, but he does seem to respond to constituents quickly. Is that any comfort to you?
Here's number 3, from Dr Charles Tannock, (Conservative):
The Conservative Party does not support any funding to a Hamas led government of the Palestinian Authority (PA), unless they renounce violence, disarm and recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. In the past, hundreds of millions of Euros from the European Union including the UK have been donated in aid to the PA with little to show for it in terms of securing a lasting peace as envisaged in Oslo in 1993, there has instead been widespread corruption and embezzlement of public funds. I personally, although accepting the democratic victory of Hamas, regard them as a banned terrorist organization as do the EU and the USA and, therefore, would never countenance supporting any funds for them until they change their charter and terrorist ideology. The recent suicide bombing outrage in Tel Aviv and ostensibly carried out by Islamic Jihad was publicly supported politically by the Hamas PA Government which is an outrage. Nevertheless, I am committed to lasting peace in the Middle East with a two-state solution in which a viable democratic Palestinian state can live together in peace and security side by side with Israel within internationally recognized borders.
I have to say that I was staggered by the extraordinarily one-sided nature of this response, so I replied:
Dear Charles Tannock,
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to respond to my e-mail - not all your London MEP colleagues have had the courtesy to do so.
Normally I would not bother you any further, but I would ask you to allow me to respond very briefly to your comments, as they were so very one-sided. I can understand why you would consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. However, you make no reference whatever to the state terrorism of Israel, which I find astounding.
Israel has killed - and continues to kill - many more Palestinian citizens than the number of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinian organisations. The recent murders of the Palestinians on the beach in Gaza is only the latest manifestation of this. The current punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza, and the kidnapping by Israel of elected politicians, is yet another example of their lawless behaviour (shamefully backed up by both the USA and the EU).You completely ignore this.
Secondly, it is of no importance what you think of Hamas. They have been democratically elected by the people of Palestine. The game the European Union is playing in refusing to recognise them is a disgraceful capitulation to US warmongering in the Middle East. Israel itself was established by terrorists (who killed British soldiers as I am sure you are aware). Many independent states have been established at least in part through methods you would describe as terrorism - why do you uniquely single out the Palestinians for this treatment?
The shameful capitulation of the EU to US foreign policy in the Middle East - which you appear to wholeheartedly concur with - can only further delay any possibility of peace. Israel is still stealing land from the Palestinians, is still inflicting terror upon them, is still a completely lawless state which behaves wth contempt towards international law, and is still bristing with nuclear weapons which are totally ignored by both the EU and the USA (in contrast to Iran, which doesn't have any!!!).
If the policy statement you sent me remains Conservative Party policy on the Middle East you will share responsibility with the USA for all the needless death and destruction that will continue there until a just peace is brought into being. As far as I am concerned, until you change your policy, you will be completely unelectable and I will never vote Conservative at any election - European, national or local.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.
So that leaves the following MEPs still to reply: John Bowis (Conservative), Claude Moraes (Labour), Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat), Syed Kamall (Conservative), Jean Lambert (Green), and Robert Evans (Labour).
Personally, I shall feel disinclined to vote for any of them at the next election if they can't even be bothered to send an acknowledgement. Just because they are working in Europe rather than in this country, that is no excuse for failing to be accountable to their constituents.
I have had three replies so far.
Here's the shortest, from Mary Honeyball, (Labour):
Thank you for your email addressed to Mary Honeyball. She has asked me to advise you that she has noted your comments.
Kind regards, Helen Hegarty, Assistant to Mary Honeyball MEP.
Er, fair enough. With several million constituents (all Londoners) I suppose it might be a bit much to ask for a personal reply. And at least she had the courtesy to respond. But it doesn't tell me her attitude to the issue. Surely a short statement could have been appended?
Here's number 2, from Gerard Batten, (UKIP):
I am afraid that I don't approve of the EU interfering in world trade or giving funds to anyone. Its own accounts have not been signed off by the auditors in eleven years, and also the money it has handed over to the Palestinians in the past cannot be properly accounted for; i.e. we have no idea how much of it has ended up in the hands of terrorists. I also think it interesting that Yasser Arafat managed to die a multi-millionaire.
I attach a copy of my Personal Manifesto, which explains the basis upon which I hold my seat in the European Parliament. I am sure you will appreciate from this that I don't think the EU should be spending any British taxpayers’ money on anything.
Whether Britain sends aid to the Palestinians or not or reviews existing trade agreements should be something solely for the British government to decide so I am sorry but I will not be raising this matter in the Europarliament.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Batten MEP
This is pretty much what I would expect UKIP to say. His response was extremely fast. He may not be willing to recognise the EU enough to take any action, but he does seem to respond to constituents quickly. Is that any comfort to you?
Here's number 3, from Dr Charles Tannock, (Conservative):
The Conservative Party does not support any funding to a Hamas led government of the Palestinian Authority (PA), unless they renounce violence, disarm and recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. In the past, hundreds of millions of Euros from the European Union including the UK have been donated in aid to the PA with little to show for it in terms of securing a lasting peace as envisaged in Oslo in 1993, there has instead been widespread corruption and embezzlement of public funds. I personally, although accepting the democratic victory of Hamas, regard them as a banned terrorist organization as do the EU and the USA and, therefore, would never countenance supporting any funds for them until they change their charter and terrorist ideology. The recent suicide bombing outrage in Tel Aviv and ostensibly carried out by Islamic Jihad was publicly supported politically by the Hamas PA Government which is an outrage. Nevertheless, I am committed to lasting peace in the Middle East with a two-state solution in which a viable democratic Palestinian state can live together in peace and security side by side with Israel within internationally recognized borders.
I have to say that I was staggered by the extraordinarily one-sided nature of this response, so I replied:
Dear Charles Tannock,
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to respond to my e-mail - not all your London MEP colleagues have had the courtesy to do so.
Normally I would not bother you any further, but I would ask you to allow me to respond very briefly to your comments, as they were so very one-sided. I can understand why you would consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. However, you make no reference whatever to the state terrorism of Israel, which I find astounding.
Israel has killed - and continues to kill - many more Palestinian citizens than the number of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinian organisations. The recent murders of the Palestinians on the beach in Gaza is only the latest manifestation of this. The current punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza, and the kidnapping by Israel of elected politicians, is yet another example of their lawless behaviour (shamefully backed up by both the USA and the EU).You completely ignore this.
Secondly, it is of no importance what you think of Hamas. They have been democratically elected by the people of Palestine. The game the European Union is playing in refusing to recognise them is a disgraceful capitulation to US warmongering in the Middle East. Israel itself was established by terrorists (who killed British soldiers as I am sure you are aware). Many independent states have been established at least in part through methods you would describe as terrorism - why do you uniquely single out the Palestinians for this treatment?
The shameful capitulation of the EU to US foreign policy in the Middle East - which you appear to wholeheartedly concur with - can only further delay any possibility of peace. Israel is still stealing land from the Palestinians, is still inflicting terror upon them, is still a completely lawless state which behaves wth contempt towards international law, and is still bristing with nuclear weapons which are totally ignored by both the EU and the USA (in contrast to Iran, which doesn't have any!!!).
If the policy statement you sent me remains Conservative Party policy on the Middle East you will share responsibility with the USA for all the needless death and destruction that will continue there until a just peace is brought into being. As far as I am concerned, until you change your policy, you will be completely unelectable and I will never vote Conservative at any election - European, national or local.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.
So that leaves the following MEPs still to reply: John Bowis (Conservative), Claude Moraes (Labour), Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat), Syed Kamall (Conservative), Jean Lambert (Green), and Robert Evans (Labour).
Personally, I shall feel disinclined to vote for any of them at the next election if they can't even be bothered to send an acknowledgement. Just because they are working in Europe rather than in this country, that is no excuse for failing to be accountable to their constituents.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Blair `I'm 101% Behind It'
This is what he is 101% behind.
Check it out. Look at all the photos. Yes, I do mean all of them.
Do you still believe this anything to do with exporting democracy?
If Blair has his way, democracy in the UK will look like these photos.
It's not too late for you to do something about it.
Check it out. Look at all the photos. Yes, I do mean all of them.
Do you still believe this anything to do with exporting democracy?
If Blair has his way, democracy in the UK will look like these photos.
It's not too late for you to do something about it.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Do we really need proportional representation?
After the local elections in May the Walthamstow Guardian was kind enough to publish a letter from me pointing out how lopsided the result was, due to the first-past-the-post voting system. In particular, I pointed out that Labour have 43% of the councillors from only 34% of the vote (and thus have 5 more councillors than they are entitled to by their share of the vote). And I also pointed to the fact that the Greens have no representation on the council despite more than 8,000 people voting for them. I concluded by stating that we needed proportional representation to get a fairer and more democratic result.
Not everyone agrees, of course. Someone called M.Griffiths had a letter published in response. As the Letters Page is not online I shall quote, `It is clearly not appreciated by Grouchy that it is proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience'.
Now that struck me as quite an extraordinary statement. So I replied, and once again the Guardian was kind enough to publish, on the 8th June, in edited form. I have no complaint about the letter being edited (it was probably a bit longer than would be regarded as ideal), but it is a pity that they cut the part that tied my general point into the local elections. Never mind. Here it is, with the parts edited out placed in square brackets - like this [....].
Not everyone agrees, of course. Someone called M.Griffiths had a letter published in response. As the Letters Page is not online I shall quote, `It is clearly not appreciated by Grouchy that it is proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience'.
Now that struck me as quite an extraordinary statement. So I replied, and once again the Guardian was kind enough to publish, on the 8th June, in edited form. I have no complaint about the letter being edited (it was probably a bit longer than would be regarded as ideal), but it is a pity that they cut the part that tied my general point into the local elections. Never mind. Here it is, with the parts edited out placed in square brackets - like this [....].
Dear Editor,M.Griffiths writes to oppose proportional representation because `it is the proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience' (Letters June 1). Perhaps M.Griffiths could tell us which of these groups is responsible for the continuing occupation of Iraq, the attacks on our civil liberties [(ID cards, police `shoot to kill' policy)], the undermining of Parliament through the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill, or the lunatic privatisation of the NHS, education and council housing? Which group is responsible for the fact that while the privatised water companies post large profits for their shareholders they allow huge amounts of leakage and claim we are suffering from a drought?
The problem is the direct opposite. [Our foreign policy is run by the USA, and our domestic policy is run in the interests of big business to the detriment of us all].] All three of the main parties are neoconservative in foreign policy (i.e. do what the USA tells them to), and are neoliberal in domestic policy (privatising everything in sight in the interests of big business, and transferring wealth to the already powerful). The first past the post electoral system allows the big parties to ignore the wishes of the electorate. We need proportional representation not because it would be some kind of magic solution, but because it would begin to force the parties to listen to what we want,[rather than Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.]
[The current government was elected by 21.8% of the electorate (33% of those who voted). There is no majority for their current extremist policies. In the local elections Labour received 43% of the councillors from 34% of the vote - and have 5 more councillors than their share of the vote entitles them to. It took 2,229 votes to elect each Labour councillor, but 2,926 to elect each Liberal Democrat, and 3,132 to elect each Conservative. Perhaps M.Griffiths can tell us what it is about that that ensures good local government? I am neither a member or supporter of the Green Party, but I have no doubt that they have sufficient support across the borough to deserve to be represented on the Council.]
We need the smaller parties such as the Greens and Respect to represent the interests of ordinary people rather than the big corporations and the USA. [We need proportional representation to begin to get a more democratic system of national and local government, where what the majority of people want can no longer be ignored. That is called democracy. That is what we need.]Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
US war crimes in Ramadi
The destruction of Fallujah, and the mass murder of its citizens, wasn't enough for the current US government. Now they are repeating the war crimes in Ramadi, capital of the same province in Iraq. However, if you rely on BBC News to keep you informed about what's going on in the world you can expect to continue in blissful ignorance. Not one word about it.
If you want to complain about the poverty of the BBC's coverage of events in Iraq, go here. This is what I said:
If you want to complain about the poverty of the BBC's coverage of events in Iraq, go here. This is what I said:
Why has BBC News not reported anything about the current US assault on Ramadi in Iraq? This is shaping to be a major war crime - like the destruction of Fallujah but (as far as I know) the BBC has not said one word about it. Details can be found at http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=9136 . Civilians are being murdered, and a city destroyed. Why are you pretending nothing is happening?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The Independent abuses Chavez again
I have referred before to the Independent on Sunday abusing the democratically elected Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. Now the daily paper has been up to the same old trick. Here's my letter of complaint to the paper.
Dear Readers' Editor,
I was really quite astonished to read the caption to the picture of Peruvian Presidential candidate Alan Garcia on p. 22 of Tuesday 6 June's edition of The Independent. This is how it reads, `Alan Garcia is widely regarded as the man who will save Peru from the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.'
`The Venezuelan dictator'??? Come again? How many elections does the man have to win to be regarded by Independent journalists as legitimately elected? My dictionary has two definitions of `dictator':
1) someone who uses force to take and keep power in a country. If your journalists think this applies, they are simply delusional.
2) someone who tells people what to do and refuses to listen to their opinions. This definition could be used against many politicians if a journalist was so-minded. It would certainly apply far more to Tony Blair and George W.Bush than to Chavez.
In case you need reminding, Chavez has not illegally invaded another country on false premises despite being authoritatively warned that this would be counter-productive. He is also not threatening Iran with an illegal use of force for sticking to their treaty rights to develop civil nuclear power.
It seems that rather than providing factual reporting you are supplying propaganda on behalf of the current governments in Washington and London. I would be genuinely interested to hear just how `independent' you think that is, and therefore would appreciate a reply from you about this.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
And, of course, they didn't reply. But at least they published a letter expressing similar sentiments later in the week.
Dear Readers' Editor,
I was really quite astonished to read the caption to the picture of Peruvian Presidential candidate Alan Garcia on p. 22 of Tuesday 6 June's edition of The Independent. This is how it reads, `Alan Garcia is widely regarded as the man who will save Peru from the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.'
`The Venezuelan dictator'??? Come again? How many elections does the man have to win to be regarded by Independent journalists as legitimately elected? My dictionary has two definitions of `dictator':
1) someone who uses force to take and keep power in a country. If your journalists think this applies, they are simply delusional.
2) someone who tells people what to do and refuses to listen to their opinions. This definition could be used against many politicians if a journalist was so-minded. It would certainly apply far more to Tony Blair and George W.Bush than to Chavez.
In case you need reminding, Chavez has not illegally invaded another country on false premises despite being authoritatively warned that this would be counter-productive. He is also not threatening Iran with an illegal use of force for sticking to their treaty rights to develop civil nuclear power.
It seems that rather than providing factual reporting you are supplying propaganda on behalf of the current governments in Washington and London. I would be genuinely interested to hear just how `independent' you think that is, and therefore would appreciate a reply from you about this.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
And, of course, they didn't reply. But at least they published a letter expressing similar sentiments later in the week.
Walthamstow MP watch: Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill
You may not have heard much about this bill. The media have paid little attention to it. But it is a first rate menace to the little bit of parliamentary democracy that we have. Put simply, it will take away from Parliament, if a Government minister so chooses, the right to vote on new Bills, or revisions to existing Acts (with a very small number of exceptions).
New laws will be made, if a minister so chooses, purely on the say-so of the minister. If the word `dictatorship' springs into your mind, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Save Parliament blog summarises where the bill is now (going through the House of Lords). I wrote to Neil Gerrard, MP for Walthamstow, back in March. He replied like this:
Well, that might seem reassuring, but what has Neil Gerrard actually done? You might think he would say something about such an important Bill on his website, but there is no mention of it. If you want to know, you have to check out his voting record at the Public Whip. And guess what? He has opposed every effort to amend the Bill in order to reduce its malignant effects. So I wrote to him to ask him what he was doing:
Dear Neil Gerrard,
I wrote to you previously about my deep concerns over the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. You replied as follows:
`The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.'
I would be grateful if you could reconcile this statement with your actual voting record on the bill, where you appear to be doing nothing to support attempts to increase parliamentary scrutiny and control. In particular -
Division 232 - an attempt to increase the requirement for ministers to behave `reasonably'. You voted against.
Division 234 - an attempt to reduce ministers ability to change law commission reports without parliamentary approval. You voted against.
Division 235 - an attempt to ensure that the provisions of the act are demonstrably used for the stated purpose of `reducing the burdens on business'. You voted against.
Division 238 - an attempt to bring persons delegated by ministers to have the power to change legislation under parliamentary scrutiny. You voted against.
Division 240 - an attempt to increase the possibility of parlaimentary veto on an order passed under the bill. You voted against.
Division 241 - the Bill's Third Reading. I was absolutely stunned to see that you voted in favour of this extremely dangerous piece of legislation despite your previous assurances.
If you ask your constituents I am quite sure that a majority will tell you that they did not elect you to parliament to give away vital powers of parliamentary oversight to an already overmighty executive. So why on earth are you doing so,and how can you possibly justify it? I feel betrayed.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.
No reply as yet.
New laws will be made, if a minister so chooses, purely on the say-so of the minister. If the word `dictatorship' springs into your mind, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Save Parliament blog summarises where the bill is now (going through the House of Lords). I wrote to Neil Gerrard, MP for Walthamstow, back in March. He replied like this:
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds
of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the
same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation.
This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change
when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.
Well, that might seem reassuring, but what has Neil Gerrard actually done? You might think he would say something about such an important Bill on his website, but there is no mention of it. If you want to know, you have to check out his voting record at the Public Whip. And guess what? He has opposed every effort to amend the Bill in order to reduce its malignant effects. So I wrote to him to ask him what he was doing:
Dear Neil Gerrard,
I wrote to you previously about my deep concerns over the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. You replied as follows:
`The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.'
I would be grateful if you could reconcile this statement with your actual voting record on the bill, where you appear to be doing nothing to support attempts to increase parliamentary scrutiny and control. In particular -
Division 232 - an attempt to increase the requirement for ministers to behave `reasonably'. You voted against.
Division 234 - an attempt to reduce ministers ability to change law commission reports without parliamentary approval. You voted against.
Division 235 - an attempt to ensure that the provisions of the act are demonstrably used for the stated purpose of `reducing the burdens on business'. You voted against.
Division 238 - an attempt to bring persons delegated by ministers to have the power to change legislation under parliamentary scrutiny. You voted against.
Division 240 - an attempt to increase the possibility of parlaimentary veto on an order passed under the bill. You voted against.
Division 241 - the Bill's Third Reading. I was absolutely stunned to see that you voted in favour of this extremely dangerous piece of legislation despite your previous assurances.
If you ask your constituents I am quite sure that a majority will tell you that they did not elect you to parliament to give away vital powers of parliamentary oversight to an already overmighty executive. So why on earth are you doing so,and how can you possibly justify it? I feel betrayed.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy.
No reply as yet.
Humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine
As the Rolling Stones once memorably told us, `you can't always get what you want'. The good ole USA destabilises, undermines, and invades other countries - supposedly in the name of democracy. But when they get it, they don't like it. For example, the current attempt to starve out the Palestinians for voting for the `wrong' party.
Little Georgie Bush doesn't like Hamas (so naturally his creepy hanger-on Tony doesn't like them either). Hamas came to power (insofar as they have any) in a democratic election. No problem. Just put the pressure on international aid-givers to stop them from providing the supplies the Palestinians need to live (while Israel prevents them from getting at their own money).
Result - starvation, and the eruption of feuding between democratically-elected Hamas and Georgie's chosen ones, Fatah. Those Palestinians just haven't got the hang of democracy yet. You're supposed to look at the choices (if there are any) then do as the USA tells you - after all, that's what we do in `democratic' Britain.
The good people at War On Want don't accept this. You shouldn't either. What can you do? For a start, how about writing to your Members of the European Parliament to urge the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement - under which Israel receives trading preferences - until Israel stops violating the Palestinians rights.
This is my letter to the London MEPs:
"I am writing as a constituent of yours. I am very concerned about the current situation in Palestine. UN reports reveal that 60% of Palestinians are now living in acute poverty and that over half of all Palestinians are completely dependent on food aid. These increases in poverty are a direct result of Israel’s Occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its intensification of action against the Palestinian people over the past four years.
The UK Government’s policy of close engagement has failed to produce any significant results. Neither Britain nor the EC seems to be reacting with appropriate concern to the recent killing of so many Palestinians on the beach in Gaza - not the first time such an event has occurred. It is now time for action to pressure the Israeli government to abide by international law.
The EU must suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, under which Israel enjoys trading preferences with the EU. Article 2 of that Agreement makes Israel’s trading preferences conditional upon respect for human rights, a condition which UN specialists say has been breached by Israel’s continued violation of Palestinians’ rights. I urge the British government to press for this suspension immediately and to halt all arms sales to Israel until the Occupation is brought to an end, and I would ask you to take this matter forward in the European Parliament.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy"
Little Georgie Bush doesn't like Hamas (so naturally his creepy hanger-on Tony doesn't like them either). Hamas came to power (insofar as they have any) in a democratic election. No problem. Just put the pressure on international aid-givers to stop them from providing the supplies the Palestinians need to live (while Israel prevents them from getting at their own money).
Result - starvation, and the eruption of feuding between democratically-elected Hamas and Georgie's chosen ones, Fatah. Those Palestinians just haven't got the hang of democracy yet. You're supposed to look at the choices (if there are any) then do as the USA tells you - after all, that's what we do in `democratic' Britain.
The good people at War On Want don't accept this. You shouldn't either. What can you do? For a start, how about writing to your Members of the European Parliament to urge the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement - under which Israel receives trading preferences - until Israel stops violating the Palestinians rights.
This is my letter to the London MEPs:
"I am writing as a constituent of yours. I am very concerned about the current situation in Palestine. UN reports reveal that 60% of Palestinians are now living in acute poverty and that over half of all Palestinians are completely dependent on food aid. These increases in poverty are a direct result of Israel’s Occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its intensification of action against the Palestinian people over the past four years.
The UK Government’s policy of close engagement has failed to produce any significant results. Neither Britain nor the EC seems to be reacting with appropriate concern to the recent killing of so many Palestinians on the beach in Gaza - not the first time such an event has occurred. It is now time for action to pressure the Israeli government to abide by international law.
The EU must suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, under which Israel enjoys trading preferences with the EU. Article 2 of that Agreement makes Israel’s trading preferences conditional upon respect for human rights, a condition which UN specialists say has been breached by Israel’s continued violation of Palestinians’ rights. I urge the British government to press for this suspension immediately and to halt all arms sales to Israel until the Occupation is brought to an end, and I would ask you to take this matter forward in the European Parliament.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Grouchy"
Thursday, June 08, 2006
BBC still covering up for war criminals
This evening's Six O'Clock News bulletin reported on the death of Al-Zaqarwi in Iraq. Personally, I had no time for him, and if he was responsible for attacks on Shia civilians there as claimed, then his death is no loss. However, in the course of this report the BBC claimed that he was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.
What about Fallujah then? Who was responsible for that? The BBC are still making propaganda for the war criminals in Washington and London. This is the text of my complaint to the BBC:
"BBC 6 o'clock news tonight claimed that Al-Zarqawi was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.
What about the destruction of Fallujah and the mass murder of civilians there? What about the illegal use of chemical weapons in the course of that war crime?
That was nothing to do with Al-Zarqawi. It was purely the responsibility of George W.Bush, backed up by Tony Blair.
When is the BBC going to stop attempting to cover up for the war criminals in Washington and London? All you are doing is undermining your own credibility, and undermining the argument that the BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee. If BBC News chooses to put out propaganda, you have no right to be funded by the British licence-fee payer."
If you wish to register your opinions on the quality of the BBC's `News' operation, go here.
Incidentally, the BBC reported that other people, including a child, were killed in the attack on Zarqawi. This is very reminiscent of the way Israel targets Palestinians activists with not a care in the world about how many ordinary people they kill.
Congratulations USA. You just murdered another child in Iraq, and you don't give a shit about it.
What about Fallujah then? Who was responsible for that? The BBC are still making propaganda for the war criminals in Washington and London. This is the text of my complaint to the BBC:
"BBC 6 o'clock news tonight claimed that Al-Zarqawi was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.
What about the destruction of Fallujah and the mass murder of civilians there? What about the illegal use of chemical weapons in the course of that war crime?
That was nothing to do with Al-Zarqawi. It was purely the responsibility of George W.Bush, backed up by Tony Blair.
When is the BBC going to stop attempting to cover up for the war criminals in Washington and London? All you are doing is undermining your own credibility, and undermining the argument that the BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee. If BBC News chooses to put out propaganda, you have no right to be funded by the British licence-fee payer."
If you wish to register your opinions on the quality of the BBC's `News' operation, go here.
Incidentally, the BBC reported that other people, including a child, were killed in the attack on Zarqawi. This is very reminiscent of the way Israel targets Palestinians activists with not a care in the world about how many ordinary people they kill.
Congratulations USA. You just murdered another child in Iraq, and you don't give a shit about it.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - what happened to the Lib Dems?
Nationally the Liberal Democrats' performance was rather disappointing. However, in one respect at least, their performance in Waltham Forest must have been quite satisfying. They took 3 Council seats from the Conservatives, and thus became the second largest party in the borough. But they must have been disappointed with their performance against Labour. Given Labour's problems it seemed quite likely that they might take a few seats from them - in the end overall they gained one (if intervening byelections are taken into account). These were the changes affecting the Lib Dems since the 2002 local elections:
Forest..................won 2 seats from Labour (1 won at byelection)
Grove Green.........lost 1 seat to Labour
High Street...........won 2 seats from Labour
Leyton.................lost 1 seat to Labour
William Morris......won 1 seat from Labour (won at byelection)
Hale End & HP......won 3 seats from the Conservatives
The Liberal Democrats now have 19 seats, 12 short of an overall majority. So it is likely that the Council will continue to be run by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.
The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Lib Dem vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest ward to the hardest for them to win.
WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS
Chapel End...................56............54..............+2....................3
Cann Hall......................50............66.............-16....................3
Higham Hill...................49............48..............+1....................3
Leyton..........................47............60............-13....................2
Forest...........................44............28...........+16....................2
Hale End & HP..............44............37.............+7.....................3
High Street....................43............36.............+7.....................2
Cathall..........................41............19...........+22.....................0
William Morris..............40.............25............+15.....................1
Grove Green.................40.............38.............+2....................0
Leytonstone.................26.............34............-12....................0
Lea Bridge....................21.............23..............-2....................0
Hoe Street....................20............16..............+4....................0
Valley...........................20............12..............+8....................0
Wood Street.................19.............32............-13....................0
Markhouse...................19.............16.............+3.....................0
Chingford Green............19............20..............-1.....................0
Hatch Lane...................14............11..............+3....................0
Larkswood....................13............15..............-2....................0
Endlebury.....................12............15..............-3....................0
It is not easy to discern any clear voting pattern from the above figures. For example, in the south of the borough the Lib Dems vote fell by a considerable percentage in Cann Hall and Leyton wards; but increased sharply in Cathall. Why? Perhaps there were factors local to those wards. A bit further north the Lib Dems scored sizeable percentage increases in Forest and William Morris wards; but fell markedly in Wood Street. Voting patterns may be less clear because there is less of a clear line between the Lib Dems and Labour - both are responsible for Council decisions - but that doesn't really explain such big differences between different wards. If anyone has an explanation, I would be interested to hear it.
What is clear is the size of the Lib Dems victory in Hale End and Highams Park, winning all three seats away from the Conservatives. However, they are unlikely to win any more seats away from the Tories in future elections (as can be seen from the next chart) so the major electoral battles in the future are likely to continue to be between Labour and the Lib Dems in the southern half of the borough (unless any of the smaller parties emerge to make a real challenge).
The next chart looks at the situation in the Lib Dems' target wards (all wards where they do not hold all the council seats). The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward (except for Leyton, Forest, and High Street wards, where it is to win one seat in each case). As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case). These are listed from the most marginal to the hardest for the Lib Dems to win.
WARD......................LIB DEM%.....OPPONENTS %.....SWING REQ'D
Leyton............................47..............Lab 44....................<1%
Forest............................44..............Lab 36....................<1%
High Street.....................43..............Lab 40.....................2%
Cathall............................41.............Lab 46......................3%
William Morris................40.............Lab 45.......................3%
Grove Green...................40.............Lab 47.......................4%
Leytonstone....................26.............Lab 46......................11%
Wood Street....................19.............Lab 44......................13%
Markhouse......................19.............Lab 46....................14%
Hoe Street......................20..............Lab 51....................16%
Lea Bridge......................21..............Lab 56....................18%
Valley............................20..............Con 61...................21%
Hatch Lane.....................14.............Con 58...................23%
Larkswood......................13.............Con 62...................25%
Chingford Green...............19............Con 70...................26%
Endlebury.......................12...............Con 72..................31%
Since the Lib Dems would require 12 extra Council seats to have an overall majority they would require a swing from Labour in the order of 11% to achieve that. Unless there are very big political changes between now and the next election that seems unlikely. In practice, unless Labour can increase their popularity the Lib Dems will continue to be the kingmakers in the borough.
In theory they could ally themselves either with Labour or the Conservatives to form a majority administration. However, the latter option seems unlikely. It could certainly be viable for one term. But unless support for Labour declines dramatically, and Cameron achieves real changes in the Conservative Party, any such coalition would be likely to be punished at the following election. The Conservatives are really only popular in the five northernmost wards in the borough. The reaction elsewhere to the Lib Dems putting the Tories into power would probably be highly negative.
What we really need is proportional representation, of course.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
Forest..................won 2 seats from Labour (1 won at byelection)
Grove Green.........lost 1 seat to Labour
High Street...........won 2 seats from Labour
Leyton.................lost 1 seat to Labour
William Morris......won 1 seat from Labour (won at byelection)
Hale End & HP......won 3 seats from the Conservatives
The Liberal Democrats now have 19 seats, 12 short of an overall majority. So it is likely that the Council will continue to be run by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition.
The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Lib Dem vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest ward to the hardest for them to win.
WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS
Chapel End...................56............54..............+2....................3
Cann Hall......................50............66.............-16....................3
Higham Hill...................49............48..............+1....................3
Leyton..........................47............60............-13....................2
Forest...........................44............28...........+16....................2
Hale End & HP..............44............37.............+7.....................3
High Street....................43............36.............+7.....................2
Cathall..........................41............19...........+22.....................0
William Morris..............40.............25............+15.....................1
Grove Green.................40.............38.............+2....................0
Leytonstone.................26.............34............-12....................0
Lea Bridge....................21.............23..............-2....................0
Hoe Street....................20............16..............+4....................0
Valley...........................20............12..............+8....................0
Wood Street.................19.............32............-13....................0
Markhouse...................19.............16.............+3.....................0
Chingford Green............19............20..............-1.....................0
Hatch Lane...................14............11..............+3....................0
Larkswood....................13............15..............-2....................0
Endlebury.....................12............15..............-3....................0
It is not easy to discern any clear voting pattern from the above figures. For example, in the south of the borough the Lib Dems vote fell by a considerable percentage in Cann Hall and Leyton wards; but increased sharply in Cathall. Why? Perhaps there were factors local to those wards. A bit further north the Lib Dems scored sizeable percentage increases in Forest and William Morris wards; but fell markedly in Wood Street. Voting patterns may be less clear because there is less of a clear line between the Lib Dems and Labour - both are responsible for Council decisions - but that doesn't really explain such big differences between different wards. If anyone has an explanation, I would be interested to hear it.
What is clear is the size of the Lib Dems victory in Hale End and Highams Park, winning all three seats away from the Conservatives. However, they are unlikely to win any more seats away from the Tories in future elections (as can be seen from the next chart) so the major electoral battles in the future are likely to continue to be between Labour and the Lib Dems in the southern half of the borough (unless any of the smaller parties emerge to make a real challenge).
The next chart looks at the situation in the Lib Dems' target wards (all wards where they do not hold all the council seats). The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward (except for Leyton, Forest, and High Street wards, where it is to win one seat in each case). As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case). These are listed from the most marginal to the hardest for the Lib Dems to win.
WARD......................LIB DEM%.....OPPONENTS %.....SWING REQ'D
Leyton............................47..............Lab 44....................<1%
Forest............................44..............Lab 36....................<1%
High Street.....................43..............Lab 40.....................2%
Cathall............................41.............Lab 46......................3%
William Morris................40.............Lab 45.......................3%
Grove Green...................40.............Lab 47.......................4%
Leytonstone....................26.............Lab 46......................11%
Wood Street....................19.............Lab 44......................13%
Markhouse......................19.............Lab 46....................14%
Hoe Street......................20..............Lab 51....................16%
Lea Bridge......................21..............Lab 56....................18%
Valley............................20..............Con 61...................21%
Hatch Lane.....................14.............Con 58...................23%
Larkswood......................13.............Con 62...................25%
Chingford Green...............19............Con 70...................26%
Endlebury.......................12...............Con 72..................31%
Since the Lib Dems would require 12 extra Council seats to have an overall majority they would require a swing from Labour in the order of 11% to achieve that. Unless there are very big political changes between now and the next election that seems unlikely. In practice, unless Labour can increase their popularity the Lib Dems will continue to be the kingmakers in the borough.
In theory they could ally themselves either with Labour or the Conservatives to form a majority administration. However, the latter option seems unlikely. It could certainly be viable for one term. But unless support for Labour declines dramatically, and Cameron achieves real changes in the Conservative Party, any such coalition would be likely to be punished at the following election. The Conservatives are really only popular in the five northernmost wards in the borough. The reaction elsewhere to the Lib Dems putting the Tories into power would probably be highly negative.
What we really need is proportional representation, of course.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - what happened to Labour?
Overall the Labour Party in the borough were probably fairly relieved by the results. Nationwide they lost something like 315 council seats in a dismal performance. However, they suffered a net loss of just one seat in Waltham Forest (if byelection results since the last elections in 2002 are taken into account). These were the changes affecting Labour since the 2002 local elections:
Forest..................lost 2 seats to the Lib Dems (1 lost at byelection)
Grove Green.........won 1 seat from the Lib Dems
High Street...........lost 2 seats to the Lib Dems
Leyton.................won 1 seat from the Lib Dems
William Morris......lost 1 seat to Lib Dems (lost at byelection)
So Labour continue to be the largest party in the borough with 26 councillors (to the Lib Dems 19 and the Conservatives 15), but they are 5 councillors short of an overall majority. In practice we can expect the borough to continue to be run by a Lab/Lib Dem coalition.
The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Labour vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest Labour ward to the hardest for them to win.
WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS
Lea Bridge....................56...........52..............+4........................3
Hoe Street....................51............41............+10.......................3
Grove Green.................47............40..............+7.......................3
Markhouse...................46............39..............+7.......................3
Leytonstone..................46............38.............+8.......................3
Cathall.........................46............65..............-19......................3
William Morris..............45............51...............-6.......................2
Wood Street.................44............43..............+1.......................3
Leyton..........................44............33............+11.......................1
High Street...................40............43...............-3.......................1
Cann Hall.....................37............29..............+8.......................0
Higham Hill..................36............42...............-6........................0
Forest..........................36............38..............-2........................1
Chapel End..................23............28...............-5........................0
Valley..........................19............34.............-15........................0
Larkswood...................18............22...............-4........................0
Hatch Lane..................18............27................-9.......................0
Endlebury....................12............18................-6.......................0
Hale End & HP.............11...........17................-6.......................0
Chingford Green............11...........15................-4.......................0
It can be seen that despite a poor performance nationwide, in Waltham Forest Labour increased its percentage vote in most of its strongest wards (with the exception of Cathall and William Morris). Conversely, its percentage vote fell in all of its weakest wards, which - because of First Past The Post - had no effect on the results. The latter ward results may be a sign that Tory voters are returning to the fold with the advent of David Cameron to the party leadership.
How was it that Labour managed to increase its percentage in most of its strongest wards? I wish I knew the answer to that question. It seems that in Waltham Forest - unlike in some other parts of London - we aren't yet seeing the unravelling of the traditional Labour vote. There was little sign of tactical voting against Labour at this election.
However, another four years of privatisation of housing and education, plus cuts in support for special schools, closing old people's day centres, cuts in adult education - in short, New Labour's neoliberal agenda - may start the process by the next elections. It may depend, too, on the quality of opposition to Labour. It remains to be seen whether there will be a growth in organised opposition to neoliberalism in the borough (which is the official policy of all three main parties), but we desperately need it.
The next chart looks at the situation in Labour's target wards (all wards where Labour do not hold all the council seats). The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward (except for William Morris, where it is to win one seat). As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case). These are listed from the most marginal to the hardest for Labour to win.
WARD......................LAB %........OPPONENTS %........SWING REQ'D
William Morris..........45...............Lib Dem 40.................1% from Lib Dem
Leyton.....................44...............Lib Dem 47.................2% from Lib Dem
High Street..............40...............Lib Dem 43.................2% from Lib Dem
Forest.....................36...............Lib Dem 44.................5% from Lib Dem
Cann Hall.................37...............Lib Dem 50.................7% from Lib Dem
Higham Hill..............36...............Lib Dem 49.................7% from Lib Dem
Hatch Lane..............18...............Cons 58.....................16% from Cons
Chapel End..............23...............Lib Dem 56................17% from Lib Dem
Hale End & HP........11................Lib Dem 44...............17% from Lib Dem
Valley.....................19...............Cons 61.....................22% from Cons
Larkswood..............18................Cons 62....................23% from Cons
Chingford Green......11................Cons 70....................30% from Cons
Endlebury...............12................Cons 72....................31% from Cons
As Labour require 5 extra councillors for an overall majority, a uniform swing from the Lib Dems to Labour across the borough of 2-3% (all other things remaining equal) would be enough. Labour would win the remaining seats in their top three target wards. Given that the Labour vote in these elections across the country was at an historic low of 26%, that may not seem too great an aim for next time. However, changes in the Labour government in the intervening period, and the importance of local factors, mean that it will not be a foregone conclusion.
Barring political earthquakes, it looks as if only the top six wards in the list will be in contention for Labour (plus defending the wards they already hold). So there is no real direct competition between Labour and the Tories. Any Polly Toynbee-like invocations to `vote Labour to keep the Tories out' are meaningless here. And by extension, this would also seem to be the case for parliamentary contests in Waltham Forest.
Finally, some thoughts on our appalling first-past-the-post electoral system. As I have pointed out before Labour won 34% of the vote in the borough, but 43% of the council seats. The difference amounts to five councillors. Labour has five more councillors than it is entitled to by share of the popular vote. That accounts for nearly all of Labour's majority over the Liberal Democrats. In itself, that is quite clearly damaging to democracy in the borough.
But the problem goes much deeper. The Power Inquiry has reported on the deep disillusion amongst the population in general with what they feel is their lack of influence on the political system. First-past-the-post is at the heart of this problem. If you are a non-Conservative voter in Chingford Green, why bother voting? Or a non-Labour voter in Lea Bridge. The results are a foregone conclusion. So those voters are disenfranchised. This must be a contributory factor to the continuing decline in turnout at elections.
A system of proportional representation would deal with these problems. No vote would be wasted. Everyone would have an incentive to go out and vote - particularly because smaller parties would not be marginalised as they are at present. The Greens received over 8,000 votes in Waltham Forest. That was from one candidate in each of 18 wards (compared to three in each of 20 for the main parties). If they stood more candidates their vote would be even higher. Yet it is still unlikely that they would win any council seats. That is quite outrageous.
We need electoral reform now, before the next local elections in 2010.
Forest..................lost 2 seats to the Lib Dems (1 lost at byelection)
Grove Green.........won 1 seat from the Lib Dems
High Street...........lost 2 seats to the Lib Dems
Leyton.................won 1 seat from the Lib Dems
William Morris......lost 1 seat to Lib Dems (lost at byelection)
So Labour continue to be the largest party in the borough with 26 councillors (to the Lib Dems 19 and the Conservatives 15), but they are 5 councillors short of an overall majority. In practice we can expect the borough to continue to be run by a Lab/Lib Dem coalition.
The following chart lists the wards in order of strength of the Labour vote (by percentage). It runs from the safest Labour ward to the hardest for them to win.
WARDS..........................%......(% 2002)...DIFF(+/-)...COUNCILLORS
Lea Bridge....................56...........52..............+4........................3
Hoe Street....................51............41............+10.......................3
Grove Green.................47............40..............+7.......................3
Markhouse...................46............39..............+7.......................3
Leytonstone..................46............38.............+8.......................3
Cathall.........................46............65..............-19......................3
William Morris..............45............51...............-6.......................2
Wood Street.................44............43..............+1.......................3
Leyton..........................44............33............+11.......................1
High Street...................40............43...............-3.......................1
Cann Hall.....................37............29..............+8.......................0
Higham Hill..................36............42...............-6........................0
Forest..........................36............38..............-2........................1
Chapel End..................23............28...............-5........................0
Valley..........................19............34.............-15........................0
Larkswood...................18............22...............-4........................0
Hatch Lane..................18............27................-9.......................0
Endlebury....................12............18................-6.......................0
Hale End & HP.............11...........17................-6.......................0
Chingford Green............11...........15................-4.......................0
It can be seen that despite a poor performance nationwide, in Waltham Forest Labour increased its percentage vote in most of its strongest wards (with the exception of Cathall and William Morris). Conversely, its percentage vote fell in all of its weakest wards, which - because of First Past The Post - had no effect on the results. The latter ward results may be a sign that Tory voters are returning to the fold with the advent of David Cameron to the party leadership.
How was it that Labour managed to increase its percentage in most of its strongest wards? I wish I knew the answer to that question. It seems that in Waltham Forest - unlike in some other parts of London - we aren't yet seeing the unravelling of the traditional Labour vote. There was little sign of tactical voting against Labour at this election.
However, another four years of privatisation of housing and education, plus cuts in support for special schools, closing old people's day centres, cuts in adult education - in short, New Labour's neoliberal agenda - may start the process by the next elections. It may depend, too, on the quality of opposition to Labour. It remains to be seen whether there will be a growth in organised opposition to neoliberalism in the borough (which is the official policy of all three main parties), but we desperately need it.
The next chart looks at the situation in Labour's target wards (all wards where Labour do not hold all the council seats). The swing required here is that necessary to win the majority vote in the ward (except for William Morris, where it is to win one seat). As these are multi-seat constituencies that would not in itself guarantee winning all 3 seats in the ward (although that would usually be the case). These are listed from the most marginal to the hardest for Labour to win.
WARD......................LAB %........OPPONENTS %........SWING REQ'D
William Morris..........45...............Lib Dem 40.................1% from Lib Dem
Leyton.....................44...............Lib Dem 47.................2% from Lib Dem
High Street..............40...............Lib Dem 43.................2% from Lib Dem
Forest.....................36...............Lib Dem 44.................5% from Lib Dem
Cann Hall.................37...............Lib Dem 50.................7% from Lib Dem
Higham Hill..............36...............Lib Dem 49.................7% from Lib Dem
Hatch Lane..............18...............Cons 58.....................16% from Cons
Chapel End..............23...............Lib Dem 56................17% from Lib Dem
Hale End & HP........11................Lib Dem 44...............17% from Lib Dem
Valley.....................19...............Cons 61.....................22% from Cons
Larkswood..............18................Cons 62....................23% from Cons
Chingford Green......11................Cons 70....................30% from Cons
Endlebury...............12................Cons 72....................31% from Cons
As Labour require 5 extra councillors for an overall majority, a uniform swing from the Lib Dems to Labour across the borough of 2-3% (all other things remaining equal) would be enough. Labour would win the remaining seats in their top three target wards. Given that the Labour vote in these elections across the country was at an historic low of 26%, that may not seem too great an aim for next time. However, changes in the Labour government in the intervening period, and the importance of local factors, mean that it will not be a foregone conclusion.
Barring political earthquakes, it looks as if only the top six wards in the list will be in contention for Labour (plus defending the wards they already hold). So there is no real direct competition between Labour and the Tories. Any Polly Toynbee-like invocations to `vote Labour to keep the Tories out' are meaningless here. And by extension, this would also seem to be the case for parliamentary contests in Waltham Forest.
Finally, some thoughts on our appalling first-past-the-post electoral system. As I have pointed out before Labour won 34% of the vote in the borough, but 43% of the council seats. The difference amounts to five councillors. Labour has five more councillors than it is entitled to by share of the popular vote. That accounts for nearly all of Labour's majority over the Liberal Democrats. In itself, that is quite clearly damaging to democracy in the borough.
But the problem goes much deeper. The Power Inquiry has reported on the deep disillusion amongst the population in general with what they feel is their lack of influence on the political system. First-past-the-post is at the heart of this problem. If you are a non-Conservative voter in Chingford Green, why bother voting? Or a non-Labour voter in Lea Bridge. The results are a foregone conclusion. So those voters are disenfranchised. This must be a contributory factor to the continuing decline in turnout at elections.
A system of proportional representation would deal with these problems. No vote would be wasted. Everyone would have an incentive to go out and vote - particularly because smaller parties would not be marginalised as they are at present. The Greens received over 8,000 votes in Waltham Forest. That was from one candidate in each of 18 wards (compared to three in each of 20 for the main parties). If they stood more candidates their vote would be even higher. Yet it is still unlikely that they would win any council seats. That is quite outrageous.
We need electoral reform now, before the next local elections in 2010.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Chavez - The Independent on Sunday ignores history
Venezualan President Hugo Chavez stirred quite a few journalistic feathers on his recent private visit to London. Media Lens have done an excellent review of the kind of bias that informed almost every article. But I was particularly interested in the Independent on Sunday's editorial (subscription required).
This admitted - seemingly through gritted teeth - that Chavez is a democrat. However, it went on to claim that he was, `using anti-US sentiment to create an external threat', thus revealing his true nature as a `tyrant'. So I wrote to the editor. I do not hold out great hopes (to say the least) of seeing it published. Here it is:
Dear Editor,
Do your editorial writers have any knowledge of history at all? Do you think it would be useful if they did?
Your editorial last Sunday on Hugo Chavez accused him of sinister `use of anti-US sentiment to create an external threat in the classic gambit of the tyrant'. Would this be the same USA that knew in advance of the coup against Chavez and did nothing to discourage it, and proceeded to support it against the democratically expressed wishes of the Venezualan people?
Could it possibly be the same USA that financed and armed the vicious right-wing Contra terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who murdered thousands of innocent people to overthrow a democratically-elected government that was not to US liking? Or the USA that supported Pinochet's murderous suppression of democracy in Chile in 1973? Or the Brazilian generals' coup in 1964? Or the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala in 1953?
How many examples is it necessary to quote? How about death squads in El Salvador? Perhaps you could explain to your readers just how Chavez is `creating an external threat'. Are you seriously suggesting that the external threat doesn't exist? Only a fool or a simpleton would believe you.
Still, I'm sure you feel it is quite reasonable not to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story, eh?
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
This admitted - seemingly through gritted teeth - that Chavez is a democrat. However, it went on to claim that he was, `using anti-US sentiment to create an external threat', thus revealing his true nature as a `tyrant'. So I wrote to the editor. I do not hold out great hopes (to say the least) of seeing it published. Here it is:
Dear Editor,
Do your editorial writers have any knowledge of history at all? Do you think it would be useful if they did?
Your editorial last Sunday on Hugo Chavez accused him of sinister `use of anti-US sentiment to create an external threat in the classic gambit of the tyrant'. Would this be the same USA that knew in advance of the coup against Chavez and did nothing to discourage it, and proceeded to support it against the democratically expressed wishes of the Venezualan people?
Could it possibly be the same USA that financed and armed the vicious right-wing Contra terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who murdered thousands of innocent people to overthrow a democratically-elected government that was not to US liking? Or the USA that supported Pinochet's murderous suppression of democracy in Chile in 1973? Or the Brazilian generals' coup in 1964? Or the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Guatemala in 1953?
How many examples is it necessary to quote? How about death squads in El Salvador? Perhaps you could explain to your readers just how Chavez is `creating an external threat'. Are you seriously suggesting that the external threat doesn't exist? Only a fool or a simpleton would believe you.
Still, I'm sure you feel it is quite reasonable not to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story, eh?
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - ward by ward results
As can be seen from the map above, Waltham Forest is an elongated shape running north-south, from Chingford in the far north of the borough, down through Highams Hill and Highams Park, then through Walthamstow, down to Leyton and Leytonstone in the south. Socially it is very diverse. Chingford has more in common with the Essex stockbroker belt than with the south of the borough, which is often described as having the same kinds of problems as London's inner city. This underlies the political character of the borough, which can broadly be divided into three parts.
The north of the borough splits into two parts. The five northernmost wards are very safe Conservative territory. The Tory vote here exceeds all the other parties put together. Two of the next three wards heading south are fairly safe for the Liberal Democrats; the third has just changed hands from the Tories to the Lib Dems, making a block of three Lib Dem wards. The south of the borough is different. Here all the wards are in more or less close contention between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Conservatives have little chance of victory here.
The overall result is that the Conervatives remain a substantial minority on the Council with 15 councillors; while neither Labour nor the Lib Dems can achieve a majority on their own (Labour have 26 councillors, and the Lib Dems 19). So in practice, the Council is run by a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition.
I have already posted an overall analysis here. The purpose of this post is to look at the results ward by ward. I will set out the results heading from the far north of the borough heading south.
Total votes per party,and percentages, in 2006 are followed by the 2002 results, percentage only (in brackets). [The data for 2002 was taken from the London Strategic Voter website].
1 The Conservative safe wards
1) Chingford Green - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected
Cons: 6,766 - 70% (2002 - 55%) / Lib Dem: 1,800 - 19% (20%) /
Lab: 1,061 - 11% (15%) Turnout: 43%
2) Endlebury - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected
Cons: 6,346 - 72% (c. 67%) / Lab: 1,076 - 12% (18%) /
Lib Dem: 1,046 - 12% (15%) / Green: 398 - 4% (n/a) Turnout: 40.4%
3) Hatch Lane - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected
Cons: 4,677 - 57% (55%) / Lab: 1,461 - 18% (27%) /
Lib Dem: 1,101 - 14% (11%) / BNP: 509 - 6% (n/a) /
Green: 380 - 5% (8%) Turnout: 37.9%
4) Valley - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected
Cons: 4,887 - 61% (c. 54%) / Lib Dem: 1,624 - 20% (12%) /
Lab: 1,529 - 19% (34%) Turnout: 37.1%
5) Larkswood - NO CHANGE - 3 Conservatives elected
Cons: 4,849 - 62% (c. 63%) / Lab: 1,402 - 18% (22%) /
Lib Dem: 993 - 13% (15%) / Green: 294 - 3.8% (n/a) /
UKIP: 270 - 3% (n/k) Turnout: 34.5%
2 The Liberal Democrat (fairly) safe wards
6) Higham Hill - NO CHANGE - 3 Lib Dems elected
Lib Dem: 3,762 - 49% (48%) / Lab: 2,773 - 37% (42%) /
Cons: 781 - 10% (c. 10%) / Green: 327 - 4% (n/a)
Turnout: 34.7%
7) Chapel End - NO CHANGE - 3 Lib Dems elected
Lib Dem: 4,610 - 56% (54%) / Lab: 1,911 - 23% (28%) /
Cons: 1,261 - 16% (18%) / Green: 419 - 5% (n/a)
Turnout: 35.7%
8) Hale End & Highams Park - CHANGED - 3 Lib Dems elected
(formerly 3 Cons)
Lib Dem: 4,532 - 44% (37%) / Cons: 4,143 - 41% (46%) /
Lab: 1,168 - 11% (17%) / Green: 367 - 4% (n/a)
Turnout: 46.7%
3 The southern half of the borough
9) High Street - CHANGED - 2 Lib Dems, 1 Lab elected
(formerly 3 Lab)
Lib Dem: 4,293 - 43% (36%) / Lab: 4,045 - 40% (43%) /
Cons: 846 - 9% (7%) / Green: 604 - 6% (10%) /
Soc Alt: 245 - 2% (n/k) / Turnout: 43.1%
10) William Morris - NO CHANGE (from byelection) -
2 Lab, 1 Lib Dem elected (2002 3 Lab)
Lab: 4,083 - 45% (51%) / Lib Dem: 3,649 - 40% (25%) /
Cons: 934 - 10% (15%) / Green: 496 - 5% (n/a)
Turnout: 40.4%
11) Markhouse - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected
Lab: 3,600 - 46% (39%) / Lib Dem: 1,493 - 19% (16%) /
Cons: 1,129 - 15% (21%) / Respect: 1,004 - 13% (n/a) /
Green: 570 - 7% (16%) / Turnout: 36.3%
12) Lea Bridge - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected
Lab: 3,942 - 56% (52%) / Lib Dem: 1,497 - 21% (23%) /
Cons: 1,131 - 16% (20%) / Green: 429 - 6% (n/a)
Turnout: 27.1%
13) Hoe Street - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected
Lab: 3,951 - 51% (41%) / Lib Dem: 1,596 - 21% (16%) /
Cons: 1,474 - 19% (20%) / Green - 785 - 10% (17%)
Turnout: 34.7%
14) Wood Street - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected
Lab: 4,143 - 44% (43%) / Cons: 2,878 - 31% (15%) /
Lib Dem: 1,822 - 19% (32%) / Green: 557 - 6% (8%)
Turnout: 40.2%
15) Forest - CHANGED - 2 Lib Dem, 1 Lab elected
(formerly 3 Lab)
Lib Dem: 4,263 - 44% (28%) / Lab: 3,477 - 36% (38%) /
Cons: 1,321 - 14% (11%) / Green: 534 - 6% (12%)
Turnout: 41.5%
16) Leyton - CHANGED - 2 Lib Dem, 1 Lab elected
(formerly 3 Lib Dem)
Lib Dem: 4,266 - 47% (60%) / Lab: 3,914 - 44% (33%) /
Cons: 559 - 6% (7%) / Green: 253 - 3% (n/a)
Turnout: 37.6%
17) Grove Green - CHANGED - 3 Lab elected
(formerly 2 Lab, 1 Lib Dem)
Lab: 4,303 - 47% (40%) / Lib Dem: 3,630 - 40% (38%) /
Cons: 770 - 8% (8%) / Green: 480 - 5% (9%)
Turnout: 38.4%
18) Leytonstone - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected
Lab: 4,057 - 46% (38%) / Lib Dem: 2,323 - 26% (34%) /
Cons: 1,097 - 12% (7%) / Respect: 771 - 9% (n/a) /
Green: 594 - 7% (15%) / Turnout: 38.8%
19) Cathall - NO CHANGE - 3 Lab elected
Lab: 3,171 - 46% (65%) / Lib Dem: 2,828 - 41% (19%) /
Cons: 484 - 7% (16%) / Green: 270 - 4% (n/a) /
2 Independents: 178 - 2% (n/a) / Turnout: 34%
20) Cann Hall - NO CHANGE - 3 Lib Dem elected
Lib Dem: 3,862 - 50% (66%) / Lab: 2,892 - 37% (29%) /
Cons: 648 - 8% (c.5%) / Green: 337 - 4% (n/a)
Turnout: 34.5%
When I have the time I intend to put up a further post drawing some conclusions from these statistics about the support for the various parties within the borough.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Letter on Local Elections to the Walthamstow Guardian
The Walthamstow Guardian published this letter on the 10th May (letters page not online).
Dear Editor,
There is a serious lesson to be learnt from last week's local elections. The Conservatives got 25% of the Councillors from 27% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats got 32% of the Councillors from 32% of the vote, but Labour got 43% of the Councillors from 34% of the vote.
The main victims of our unrepresentative voting system are the smaller organisations like the Green Party and Respect. They have a sizeable minority of voters who are completely unrepresented on the Council, and hardly represented in Parliament.
The recent Power Inquiry report highlighted the widespread disillusion with politics in Britain, with people feeling alienated from the political system. We desperately need electoral reform with some form of proportional representation so everyone is represented. Otherwise important arguments are ignored, not just by politicians, but also by the media which concentrates its coverage on elected politicians.
We need action now if we are to have anything like a representative democracy in this country.
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
Dear Editor,
There is a serious lesson to be learnt from last week's local elections. The Conservatives got 25% of the Councillors from 27% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats got 32% of the Councillors from 32% of the vote, but Labour got 43% of the Councillors from 34% of the vote.
The main victims of our unrepresentative voting system are the smaller organisations like the Green Party and Respect. They have a sizeable minority of voters who are completely unrepresented on the Council, and hardly represented in Parliament.
The recent Power Inquiry report highlighted the widespread disillusion with politics in Britain, with people feeling alienated from the political system. We desperately need electoral reform with some form of proportional representation so everyone is represented. Otherwise important arguments are ignored, not just by politicians, but also by the media which concentrates its coverage on elected politicians.
We need action now if we are to have anything like a representative democracy in this country.
Yours faithfully,
Grouchy.
Waltham Forest Council Election 2006 - An Analysis
William Morris Ward Polling Station 4 May 2006
OVERVIEW
Parties.................Votes.......%....Councillors....%....Votes per Cllr
Labour.................57,959....33.9........26.............43.3..........2,229
Liberal Democrat..54,990....32.2........19..............31.7.........2,926
Conservative.........46,981....27.5........15..............25...........3,132
Greens..................8,094......4.7
Respect................1,775.......1
BNP........................509.....<1
UKIP.......................270.....<1
Socialist Alt.............245.....<1
Independents...........178.....<1
[Ward by ward results can be found here]
This table is best used for comparing the performance of the three main parties as they each stood 3 candidates in each of the 20 wards. The Greens support is understated here because they stood only 1 candidate in each of 18 wards. It is not possible to draw conclusions about the extent of the support of the smaller parties from this table because they stood candidates only in 2 wards (Respect, 2 candidates each in each of 2 wards); or in 1 ward (all the other parties who each stood 1 candidate). There were 2 Independent candidates in 1 ward.
One way to examine the relative support of all the parties is to divide the total number of votes per party by the number of their candidates and compare the resulting percentages. The main problem is that we don't know whether the small parties' support from only one or two constituencies would be replicated across the borough. Nevertheless, this gives us a rough and ready measure of their support.
Parties...................Votes...........Candidates....Votes per Cndte...%
Labour....................57,959................60................966................20.7
Liberal Democrat................54,990................60................916................19.6
Conservative............46,981................60................783................16.8
Greens.....................8,094................18................450..................9.6
Respect....................1,775.................4................444..................9.5
BNP..........................509...................1................509.................10.9
UKIP..........................270..................1................270...................5.8
Socialist Alt.............................245...................1.................245.................5.2
Independents.............178....................2..................89..................1.9
We can draw some important conclusions from the statistical information here. Most importantly, first-past-the-post significantly distorts electoral representation. Although the percentage of Conservative votes and councillors, and of Lib Dem votes and councillors is quite closely aligned, that of Labour is considerably skewed. Labour received 33.8% of the vote, but 43.3% of the councillors. The smaller parties are the main victims here.
The Greens received 4.7% of the vote from just under one-third as many candidates as the main parties. If they stood more candidates their share of the vote would undoubtedly increase, but under the present system they would probably still not get any councillors. What would happen if we had a much more representative system of proportional representation? If the councillors were distributed amongst the parties according to the above table (excluding the Independents who received less than 5% per candidate), the comparison would look like this:
Now: Lab - 26, Lib Dem - 19, Cons - 15, Total = 60
With PR: Lab - 12, Lib Dem - 12, Cons - 10, BNP - 7, Greens - 6,
Respect - 6, UKIP - 3, Socialist Alternative - 3, unallocated - 1, Total = 60
Of course, the real results would not be quite like this. I think it unlikely that the BNP would get much support outside the northern wards of the borough - and hopefully not much there. Also, it seems unlikely that Respect or the Socialist Alternative would do as well in the northern wards, although they might compensate for this in the rest of Waltham Forest. The main point is that much wider points of view would be represented on the Council, that are currently ignored.
The Power Inquiry recently reported on the deep alienation of the British electorate from the political system. The results in Waltham Forest clearly show how a sizeable minority of the electorate is disenfranchised by our current electoral system. In fact they are doubly disenfranchised. Not only are their views not represented in the Council (and only just barely in Parliament), but also they are largely ignored by the media who concentrate on reporting on elected politicians and ignore almost everyone else.
THE CONCLUSION IS VERY CLEAR. WE MUST HAVE ELECTORAL REFORM, AND WE NEED IT NOW - NOT IN SEVERAL YEARS TIME.
(I intend to post a ward-by-ward analysis shortly to supplement this post).
UPDATE 19/5/06 I have adjusted the figures slightly because revised voting figures have been issued for one of the (unsuccessful) Lib Dem candidates in Hoe Street ward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)