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.