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:

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 I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation.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 I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation.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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Walthamstow Labour - legal, decent, honest, truthful?

Do Advertising Standards Authority codes apply to election literature? If they did I think the Walthamstow Labour Party might have one or two problems with their latest leaflet headed `Eight screen cinema for Walthamstow!' (pictured above).

The Yahoo! Walthamstow Group has already had a number of contributors saying Labour's claim that `only Labour has worked to get a cinema for Walthamstow' is not true. I would also like to see some evidence to support the claim that `the Tories and Lib Dems ... will vote together to block [it]'. The whole saga of what has happened to the EMD cinema (closed down and bought up by the UKCG) is still very murky. What do Labour intend to do about it? Is it their policy to try to get it back into use as a cinema (which does have considerable local support, after all) or are they against this idea? If the latter, what is going to happen to it? We are none the wiser. Unfortunately, this leaflet smacks of electoral opportunism.

But things go from bad to worse with the accompanying leaflet designed to play the `law & order' card. Look at the two pictures (under the heading `Please don't think all political parties are the same. There is a real difference between Labour and Liberal Democrats). In the picture on the left, we see a group of three police officers in a residential street (which I somehow suspect is not even in Walthamstow); in the picture on the right we see three youths in hoodies walking away from the camera. Clearly, we are supposed to think that under Labour there are more police on the streets, whereas under the Lib Dems the streets are full of young criminals. Is there any evidence to suggest there is any difference between Councils run by Labour and those run by the Lib Dems? The leaflet doesn't provide any.

And what about those pictures. For a start, young people wearing hoodies are not automatically criminals and I, for one, do not appreciate this stereotyping of them to make cheap political points. Tony Blair famously claimed that he would be `tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime', but he only ever seems to consider the former, never the latter. The Walthamstow Guardian letters page (letters page not online) has published a number of letters pointing out the lack of facilities for young people.

For example, a correspondent called Midge Broadley had a letter published on the 6th April with this, `I have long felt the only message yong people are getting these days is "Buzz off, you're not wanted here". For years the Council's youth services budget has been cherry-picked to support other services and maybe the time has come for the balance to be redressed'. If Labour want to reduce crime - a laudable aim - they shouldn't just bang on about ASBOs all the time. What about positive efforts to reduce the causes of crime, like giving young people positive opportunities?

And do we want our streets saturated with policemen? The police force that played such an infamous role in the miners' strike of 1984-85, and that shot Jean Charles de Menezes, is not particularly trustworthy as far as I am concerned. Another blogger has discussed the difference between low and high policing; the former being the attention to the prevention and detection of the crimes that affect people the most, and the latter being the kind of political policing that New Labour are doing their damnedest to introduce. So if New Labour have their way, in future years the police will be spending ever larger portions of their time demanding to see your ID card, and ensuring that your personal details are on the national identity database, arresting people who fail to notify the government that they have changed their address, etc. Is that what most people want?

I would bet you that when it comes to policing, what most people want would be something like Heartbeat on ITV. If New Labour have their way, what they will get will be more like Orwell's 1984. Sorry, Walthamstow Labour Party, I don't think you have anything to boast about.

New issue of The Underdog

`Walthamstow's Rabble Rousing Rebel Rag' Issue 13 May 2006

When I went to the newsagent's to pick up my Sunday paper I was pleased to see the latest issue of The Underdog there. If you haven't seen it before, it's well worth a read. It's produced by the Walthamstow Anarchist Group, and I think it's pretty widely available (free) from newsagents around Walthamstow. However, if you haven't seen it, you can download it from their website at www.walthamstowanarchy.org.uk .

Although I'm a socialist, and the people behind it are anarchists, I have always found myself in 100% agreement with what they have to say. This issue leads on the excellent victory by the Greenleaf Road Anti-Mast Action Group against the attempt to install a 3G mobile phone mast on Forest Road Police Station. It also covers ID cards, supposedly bad behaviour by kids at Walthamstow Bus Station, domestic violence, terrorism, the effects of the rise of supermarkets on local shops, and Pizza Hut's lighting policy in their toilets (!). A right rattling good read, go and get yourself a copy.

I see they are also planning a public meeting on the 11th June. Should be well worth attending. They say they will put up details on their website.

William Morris Ward - London Strategic Voter Recommendations

London Strategic Voter - set up to encourage tactical voting to get New Labour out of office - has made recommendations on who to vote for in the upcoming local elections. The William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council recommendations are here.

Let it be said straight away that this is an attempt to get New Labour out from the Left. There are many former Labour voters - like me - who can no longer stomach voting for a party led by war criminals who want to destroy our civil liberties, and are bent on privatising everything in sight.

So for William Morris ward LSV recommends voting 1 Green, and 2 Lib Dem. This raises the question of which 2 of the 3 Lib Dem candidates to vote for. I suggested to LSV that this could be made on the basis of opposition to ID cards, because I have had replies to my letter from 2 of the 3, both strongly opposing the government's legislation.

LSV have gone along with this, and so they are currently recommending voting as follows - 1 vote for the Green candidate (Alexandra Rowe) and 2 for the Lib Dems (Simon Jones and Bob Wheatley). There is nothing against the 3rd Lib Dem candidate, but he hasn't yet replied to me on ID cards, so that seems a reasonable way to make a choice.

Is the PM taking liberties? - Observer blog comments

Tony Blair and Charles Clarke recently went on a PR offensive against those who have criticised their attacks on our civil liberties. Below are my comments on the Observer blog about this issue:


Mr Blair claims that he has to act to suppress our civil liberties in order to ensure the greater right not to be blown up by terrorists. If that is so, why did he ensure UK forces illegally invaded Iraq when he was very clearly and authoritatively warned that such an action would be very likely to make us targets for terrorist attack? It seems our right not to be blown up was rather unimportant compared to his desire to slavishly follow US neoconservative foreign policy.

So why are New Labour introducing all this authoritarian legislation? I don't believe it has anything to do with preventing terrorism, and still less to do with `combating identity fraud' or whatever fantasy they are peddling at present. Personally, I don't believe it is (yet) to do with peak oil either. I think it is preparation for social unrest due to the growing unpopularity of neoliberal economics (and the associated political policies).

This can be seen virtually everywhere these days. Political parties across the industrialised world seem incapable of offering any alternative to failed neoliberalism. Consequently, we see French goverments elected to only one term of office, then booted out. We see stalemate in Germany and Italy. Opposition to neoliberalism is growing, as we have seen with recent ructions in France, with the rejection of the EC constitution, and the fight against Bolkestein in the ferries dispute in Ireland.

This battle is going to intensify. I think New Labour are preparing to stick the boot into any attempt to undermine neoliberalism, and that's why they are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and are attempting to introduce an abomination like the Leg and Reg Reform Bill. I'm sorry to say that I think things may get a lot worse before they get better. But it isn't all one-way traffic. The French went out on the streets and got the CPE attack on young workers rescinded. We will have to be prepared to defend our freedoms if they are not to be taken away from us.

One final thought - the role of the media. Blair has had a very soft ride thus far, especially from the truly pathetic BBC (although I don't think the Guardian has been much better). The gentlemen and ladies of the media had better look to their laurels. Judging by the tone of much of the comment here people are `sick up to here' with Blair and New Labour. If the media continue to wipe Blair's backside for him in their present loathesome manner they are going to lose all credibility. They have been warned.

Letter on ID cards to Walthamstow Guardian

The Walthamstow Guardian issue dated April 27 2006 published the following letter (letters page not online) from me about ID cards and the local election, under the headline `Back candidate who will fight ID cards all the way':

Dear Editor,

Although there are important local issues to consider in the Local Elections on 4th May, many people will be be voting on national issues. Personally, I am deeply concerned about the Government's continuing attacks on our civil liberties.

So I wrote to all 10 candidates in William Morris ward to ask them their views on the Government's ID card plans, and whether they would support a Council motion against forcing people to produce ID cards to get Council services. (The Government plans to force everyone to have an ID card and produce it to get basic services. This will enable it to keep track of where we are and what we do on a daily basis).

So far I have had replies from 2 Conservative, 2 Labour and 2 Liberal Democrat candidates. All have said that they are against ID cards, and that they would personally support a Council motion against them.

However, the Labour candidates said they would only vote for such a motion if the Labour Group on the Council agreed. So although I would urge everyone to only vote for a candidate who opposes ID cards, it is also vital that he or she will vote for a Council motion against them.

Please ask for your local candidates' attitudes before considering voting for them. This may be a last chance to preserve some freedom against state intrusion into every aspect of our private lives.

Yours sincerely,
.
Grouchy

Labour candidates reply to ID cards letter

In April I wrote to all 10 local election candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council to ask about their attitude to ID cards. These are the replies of the Laboour candidates:

1. Geraldine Reardon

Thank you for your letter of 9 April. I share your concerns with the ID Cards Bill. In Walthamstow Labour Party we have had regular discussions about the Bill with Neil Gerrard.

If a motion, such as the one put to Cambridge City Council were proposed to Waltham Forest Council, I would want to support it. However, as you know, each member of Labour Group is bound to obey the Whip and I could only vote if Labour Group supported the proposal. Therefore, beforehand I would have to make sure that Labour Group were in favour of the motion.

My concerns are that a national register will not be voluntary, that compulsion is built into it its implementation, and that it will inevitably encroach on other aspects of our lives. I also don't believe it will do anything to prevent terrorism and will cost a huge amount of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

May I wish you well with the campaign.

2. Adam Gladstone

Thank you for your letter dated 9th April asking for my position on ID cards.

I have always been opposed to ID cards. I opposed them when they were suggested by Michael Howard and the Tories and I oppose them now, even though sadly it is my party which is now proposing them. I oppose them because I think the whole scheme is horribly flawed and will prove disastrously expensive but, perhaps much more importantly, I oppose them because I do not believe that the state has any right to force every citizen to identify themselves.

The potential for creeping authoritarianism is clear. I have no doubt that as a white, middle-class male in my thirties, I would not be asked for my ID card very much. I suspect members of other groups in society may not have such confidence, even though they are just as law-abiding as me. As an individual I therefore have no problems at all supporting such a motion as you suggest.

However I would like to point out that were I elected on May 4th I would be part of a Labour group and would be expected to follow an agreed position within that group. I can only promise you that I would be strongly urging for my group to support such a motion. As you may know, our local MP, Neil Gerrard is a prominent Labour critic of these proposals and has voted against them.

I hope this has answered your questions. I share your view that this issue is very important and I understand why you wish to know the position of candidates before casting your vote on May 4th. Please feel free to contact me again if you want to discuss this or any other matter.

I have not yet received a reply from the 3rd Labour candidate, Khevyn Raj Limbajee.

I am quite heartened by the opposition expressed by these candidates to the ID cards legislation. However, if elected, they still might be overruled by the rest of the Labour Group. And judging by the last Council's apparently enthusiastic introduction of Blairite neoliberal policies, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in their willingness to oppose Blair on ID cards. Labour candidates throughout the country really ought to be aware by now of how little support there is for Blair's extremist policies amongst the population at large.

Lib Dem candidates reply to ID card letter

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the local elections for William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council to ask about their attitudes to the government's ID cards legislation. These were the Lib Dem replies.

1. Bob Wheatley

Bob Wheatley rang me to assure me that his views were in line with Lib Dem national policy on ID cards. He said he was comletely opposed and may be willing to move a Council motion against them, depending on the size of the Lib Dem group after the election.

2. Simon Jones

I am opposed to the compulsory issue of ID Cards, and would vote for this motion if presented to Waltham Forest Borough Council.

The national Liberal Democrat policy is to oppose the introduction of ID Cards, and our main arguments for this stance are laid out at this web page:
Liberal Democrats : Id Cards


Personally, I find several parts of the Identity Cards Bill make me raise my eyebrows. For example:

(4)
For the purposes of this Act something is necessary in the public interest if, and
only if, it is—

in the interests of national security

“national security”, to me, is one of those phrases (like “health and safety issue”) which make me uneasy: not because they are redundant concepts in themselves but because they are so often hijacked by mindless authoritarians. The ejection of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang from the last Labour Party Conference was an issue of “national security”, apparently, which shows how inappropriately such seemingly benign powers can be applied.

(8) (3) d
d An ID Card issued to an individual … remains the property of the person issuing it

- this might be a more trivial point, but I don’t see why an individual should be asked to pay for something that remains government property.

Other, less specific, reasons for my opposition to these cards include:
- my distaste for the back-door technique to introduce them as compulsory documents;
- the use of paranoia about terrorism to give them a sheen of necessity (all the 7/7 bombers were registered, average citizens right up to the moment they detonated their devices, and would have been eligible to carry quite legitimate ID Cards); and
- the obvious incompatibility between the dream of a registered population and the reality of the Home Office’s failure to provide remotely accurate figures on immigration.

I hope this is helpful to you. And thank you for sending me the details of Cambridge’s resolution – exactly what I would expect from good Liberal Democrats!

Please email or ring me if you wish to discuss anything further.

I have not yet received a reply from the 3rd Liberal Democrat candidate, Mohammad Saeed Diwan, but the Liberal Democrats opposition to ID cards is very clear.

UPDATE Saeed Diwan has now replied to me as follows:

Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in replaying to your letter dated the 9th April 2006, I am sure you can appreciate that election time is very demanding for us the candidates.

In response to your question regarding the ID cards, my view on this is that the United Kingdom is fast and furiously becoming a police state. We are watched every step of the way by CCTV, tracked by our credit cards and monitored by the banks.

There are no guarantees that the ID Cards will not be forged, there are no guarantees that ID cards will save us from identity theft. Whatever, technology is used to secure the information on the ID cards there will always be someone out there who can and will counter it.

On a recent trip to Kenya I witnessed a man being beaten and then dragged off to the police station by five police men because he was not carrying an ID Card.

I do not support ID cards and will certainly not support any motion in favour of them.

Regards


Saeed Diwan

Conservative candidates reply to ID cards letter

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council in the local elections to ask about their attitude to ID cards. These are the replies of the Conservative candidates:

1. Tim James

Thank you so much for your letter dated 9th April with regard to the local elections and the wider issue of Identity Cards.

I can confirm without hesitation that I am utterly opposed to the introduction of ID cards both personally and politically. David Cameron reiterated the parties hostility to such measures only recently.

I am also concerned that even at proposal stage we witness yet again this willingness to chip away at our civil liberties and freedoms.

Financially - this is yet another burden that will have to be endured by households across the nation, many of whom are already struggling with personal debt which have arisen by trying to meet the shortfalls in their expenditures due to the massive programme of taxation imposed over the past 10 years to pay for this Governments extravagant and alas often wasteful public spending. (An issue mirrored by local government)

Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that these would make our streets safer. ID cards and CCTV cameras are no substitute for police on the street. Crime has become a serious issue over recent years. The Government's response to this has been to downgrade the classification of cannabis, legalise prostitution for women working from home and to extend licencing hours. Needless to say crime has soared. Last July and August serious assault and muggings DOUBLED in Waltham Forest (Data supplied by the Metropolitan Police for Greater London)

I hope this clarifies my position and helps you to come to a decision for the local elections on May 4th. However you decide I know that we are all hoping to make this Borough a better, safer and cleaner place to live without having to bankrupt it's residents with taxes.

Best regards,

Tim James

2. Ian Drury

Thank you for your letter.

I rejoined the Conservative Party the day after the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, announced that ID cards would be introduced, and on an effectively compulsory basis. I oppose ID cards on principle: this is an unacceptable extension of state power and a potential instrument of tyranny.

I would support such a motion as you describe in your letter and if elected, will press for a similar motion to be adopted here.

Kind Regards,
Ian Drury

3. Emily Garrett

Thank you for your recent letter asking for my views on the identity cards bill.

The Conservative party both nationally and in Waltham Forest strongly oppose the introduction of compulsory identity cards as we consider it to be an infringement of civil liberties.

Personally I am also against the introduction of compulsory identity cards for the reason stated above and because I consider it to be an unreasonable financial burden on individuals and do not believe that it is a sensible solution for the problems it is meant to be intended to solve. (i.e. terrorism, crime, identity theft and fraud.)

I would therefore strongly support any motion such as the one cited in your letter should I become a Councillor in Waltham Forest.

I hope this answers your question, but if you would like to ask anything else please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Emily Garrett

So clearly the local Conservative candidates oppose the ID cards legislation. I wish David Cameron would explain, however, why he felt it necessary to compromise on the legislation so that Conservative MPs voted in favour of the introduction of the compulsory database for passport applications combined with an optional ID card - a compromise that is completely worthless. I hope the Conservatives opposition is not going to be tempered should they win office again. That unnecessary compromise raises questiuons in my mind.

Letter to Local Election candidates re ID cards

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest council to ask about their attitudes to the government's ID cards legislation, as follows:

Dear candidate,

I am writing to you as an election candidate in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council. I am a resident in the ward and I would like to ask you a question to help me to decide how to vote in the May local elections. Although there are important local issues at stake I will probably be voting with regard mainly to national issues.

Accordingly, I would like to ask you if you could tell me your attitude to the recently passed ID Cards Bill. Are you in favour or against this measure? Which way would you vote if the question arose - for example on a Council resolution against this measure? For example, Cambridge City Council passed the following motion in February 2005:

This Council notes that the Home Secretary is currently attempting to push an ID Cards Bill through Parliament. This Bill will have an effect upon all of the people of Cambridge. This Council believes:
1) That the disadvantages of such a scheme will outweigh any likely benefits to the people of
Cambridge.
2) That the scheme will do little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud.
3) That the national database that underpins the identity card scheme may facilitate criminal
fraud, terrorism and potential state abuses of human rights.
4) That the ID card and database proposals are likely to fundamentally alter the relationship
between the state and the individual. According to Government estimates, the cost of such a
scheme could reach 5.5 billion, with independent commentators predicting substantially
higher costs. Cambridge residents will be required to pay an estimated 35 for a stand-alone
ID card or 85 for a passport and ID card together.
This Council resolves to:
1) affiliate to the 'No2ID' campaign, which already includes MPs and several political parties
2) make representations at every possible stage, reiterating this Council's opposition to ID
cards
3) take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the introduction of the
national identity cards
4) make it a policy of the council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required
to access council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by law
5) only co-operate with the national identity card scheme where to do otherwise would be
unlawful
6) instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Home Secretary expressing these views and
asking him to reconsider his decision to push forward this legislation.

Would you support or oppose such a motion in Waltham Forest?
I would appreciate it if you would be willing to answer these questions for me, and if possible, to reply by e-mail. My contact details follow.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Neil Gerrard MP - reply on civil liberties issues

I have now had quite a long and reasoned reply from my MP - Neil Gerrard (Lab, Walthamstow) - to recent civil liberties concerns that I wrote to him about.

Dear Grouchy,

Thank you for your emails and apologies for my delay in replying.

Firstly on the ID Cards Bill there have been some changes as a result of the Lords proposing various amendments. I was involved in a couple of meetings with Charles Clarke when these amendments were due for debate. He accepted a Lords Amendment which will mean that it will not be possible to bring in compulsion to have an ID card, or register, without new legislation, as opposed to being able to bring in a regulation under the Bill as it stood. I do believe this is a step forward, and it was for this reason that I was prepared to abstain on a further Lords Amendment.

I also asked, and have on record in the Commons, that it is possible for anyone to renew their passport at any time, without waiting for it to expire. This does mean that if there is a regulation in two or three years to say that anyone applying for a passport must put their details on the national ID register, it will be possible to get a new passport before that which will be valid for 10 years. I am convinced that the Home Office will be incapable of setting in place the technology to run an ID cards system as proposed, something which no other country in the world has done or is attempting, and that it will collapse as a costly folly.

If there is a future attempt to bring in compulsion I believe the objections will be huge. Many of the people who currently say they support ID cards do so in the mistaken belief that it will not affect them. There is an attitude of "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about" which I think would quickly evaporate once people realised that they were going to have to have a card and produce it for all sorts of normal transactions and to obtain public services.

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.

As far as the activities of the Special Branch are concerned and interviewing actors and people like Morrissey, it suggests a complete lack of common sense. I don't see it as a public warning not to criticise; if so it will have exactly the opposite effect.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gerrard

Waltham Forest Council Election 4 May 2006

This Council is currently under No Overall Control. In practice, it is run by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition who seem to get on together like cats tied up in a bag. The Walthamstow Guardian letters page (letters page not online) seems to be full of letters from Councillors bitterly slagging each other off. Whatever their differences, they don't seem to be about policy. Both parties are enthusiastic privatisers in the currently fashionable neoliberal style. Anyway, if you live in Waltham Forest this is your chance to do something about it.

The candidates list has just been published. There are 207 candidates in 20 wards. The Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats are each standing 3 candidates in each ward. The Greens are standing 1 candidate in each ward except for 2 (Chingford Green and Valley). Respect are standing 4 candidates (2 each in Leytonstone and Markhouse). There is 1 Socialist Alternative candidate (High Street). There are 2 Independents (both in Cathall). UKIP is standing 1 candidate (in Larkswood), and the BNP have 1 candidate (in Hatch Lane).

London Strategic Voter are arguing for tactical votes to get New Labour out. I am very sympathetic to this view as New Labour have gone way beyond the bounds of the acceptable (e.g. Iraq, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation in health education and housing, etc). But are LSV right in recommending voting for the Lib Dems? Personally, although I don't want to waste my vote I like to vote FOR something if at all possible.

So if I lived in a ward with Respect candidates, they would get my votes. I don't believe such votes would be wasted. They received a very good level of support in the Leytonstone byelection not long ago and it is quite credible that they could be the main challengers to New Labour in those wards. What about the other 18 wards though? I think it's worth voting for the Greens. I don't agree with all their policies but they are avowedly anti-neoliberal, and for me that's the main thing. They also have enough weight not to be merely token candidates. I am sorry to say that I think that the Socialist Alternative probably is a token candidate. It's too important to get New Labour out to waste votes on token candidates, even if they have good policies. I don't know anything yet about the 2 Independents in Cathall ward.

So, what about the Lib Dems? With a heavy heart, I would argue that if you only have a choice between the 3 main parties and the Greens - and you have 3 votes - you should cast 1 vote for the Greens and 2 for the Lib Dems. Not because I believe there is any real difference between Labour and the Lib Dems, but because it is really vital to kick New Labour in the teeth. A really bad result in the local elections may help to undermine the Blair/Brown national agenda. We really mustn't miss any opportunity to do that.