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.
No comments:
Post a Comment