Luke's Blog

Council by-elections

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:55:00 +0000

Tonight's council by-election results:

Castleside Ward, Derwentside DC. Ind hold. Ind 297 (82.3%,+8.3%), Con 64 (17.7%, +3.7%). Swing of 2.3% from Con to Ind since 2007.

Townfield Ward, LB Hillingdon. Lab hold. Lab 1031 (45.3%, -12.6%), LD 506 (22.2%, +8.7%), Con 445 (19.6%, -9%), BNP 186 (8.2%, +8.2%), NF 74 (3.3%, +3.3%), Green 34 (1.5%, +1.5%). Swing 10.7% Lab to LD since 2006. This is in John McDonnell's seat.

Batchley Ward, Redditch BC. Con gain from Lab. Con 630 (39%, -12.4%), Lab 539 (33.4%, -4.3%), BNP 299 (18.5%, +18.5%), LD 121 (7.5%, -3.4%), Ind 25 (1.5%, +1.5%). Swing of 4.1% from Con to Lab since 1 May this year. This is in Jacqui Smith's extremely marginal parliamentary seat.

Uckfield New Town Ward, Wealden DC. LD hold. LD 311 (47.4%, -16%), Con 289 (44.1%, +7.5%), UKIP 56 (8.5%, +8.5%). Swing of 11.8% from LD to Con since 2007.

Arrow Valley East Division, Worcs CC. Con gain from Lab. Con 1437 (42.2%, +11.1%), Lab 1041 (30.6%, -17.3%), LD 455 (13.4%, -7.6%), BNP 367 (10.8%, +10.8%), Ind 103 (3%, +3%). This consists of another 3 district wards from Jacqui Smith's seat. Swing of 14.2% from Lab to Con.

Cameron on redistribution

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:56:00 +0000

I haven't once listened to Radio 4's Today programme since 1990 - these days I'm already on a 243 bus to work when it starts.

Luckily DWP Secretary of State James Purnell does tune in, and is pointing any Labour folk he happens to run into towards this telling quote - evidence of an increasing harshness in the Tory line on social issues now they feel they have detoxified their brand - from an interview with David Cameron on Tuesday morning at about 07.59, where Mr Cameron clarifies the ideological difference between the two main parties on tackling poverty:

"The Labour Party for a long time said it, only it, could deal with deep poverty because it understood about transferring money from rich to poor, but I think we've reached the end of that road, ... we need quite conservative solutions to deal with those problems".

I think we can take it from the phrasing "I think we've reached the end of that road" that a Tory government won't be seeking to increase redistribution. They seem to have an interesting view that making the poor richer doesn't er... reduce poverty. Run that past me again will you Dave?

Anyway, the bottom line is that if you think there should be redistribution to make our unequal society more equal, David Cameron doesn't agree with you. I dread to imagine what his "quite conservative solutions" to poverty might be. Any guesses?

Cancellation of Spring Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:44:00 +0000

I'm not impressed by the Labour Party's decision to cancel its 2009 Spring Conference reported in the press today.

It's pretty pathetic if we can't manage to organise an event in a way that is at least self-funding and ideally profit-making.

It's also insulting to Labour councillors as the main function of the Spring Conference is to discuss local government issues - and removes a platform that could have been used to launch our campaign for important County and Euro elections.

The proposed substitution of regional events was a disaster when it was tried before in 2007 - amateurish, poorly publicised and attended and attracting none of the beneficial collateral media coverage the Spring Conferences get.

Could Glasgow East be the turning point?

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:01:00 +0000

Conventional wisdom and media punditry has liked the idea that the Glasgow East by-election due on 24 July was going to be the final nail in Gordon Brown's political coffin.

Personally I think there is more chance it will be the turning point when Labour's, and Brown's fortunes, start - perhaps slowly but surely - to go upwards.

Today's ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph puts Labour on 47% in the constituency, with the SNP on 33%, the Lib Dems on 9% and Tories on just 7%.

I'm sure it will be closer when it gets to polling day, but such has been the media expectations game played so far that even a narrow victory is going to look like an against the odds triumph for the PM.

The results in inner London constituencies on 1 May with similar (though more ethnically mixed) demographics to Glasgow East showed that where a good campaign is fought, Labour's core vote is still remarkably solid - and will turn-out enthusiastically in a tight contest.

There's good reason for this. Contrary to the incredibly patronising portrayal of Glasgow East voters in the media over the last couple of weeks, voters in the most economically deprived constituencies in the UK aren't cannon fodder voting Labour through habit against their own interest. They've had to deal with the worst excesses of Thatcherism and they know that whilst the past 11 years of Labour government have not been a socialist Nirvana, they've been a hundred times better than the alternative. They are also not gullible enough to be sucker-punched into thinking that Norman Lamont's ex-Special Adviser Mr Cameron, whilst he may indeed have developed a social conscience since his Thatcherite youth, really knows or cares about life in parts of Britain his party drift into for an occasional "gosh look at all these poor people" by-election walk-about, rather than live in and represent all year round.

Life in Glasgow East is tough - beyond tough - for many of its residents, and the health and poverty statistics for the constituency (and similar areas in East London and other major cities and outside them in former mining areas) are as good an argument for democratic socialism and as good a reminder of why the Labour Party exists as any one needs. Labour's work in Glasgow East and similar seats isn't finished. It's hardly begun. A fourth term Labour Government isn't a luxury for these kind of constituencies - it's a matter of life or death when male life expectancy in a constituency lags behind the national average by 11 years - if you don't have a Government whose priority is redistribution and investment in healthcare, that 11 year gap will get bigger not smaller.

But the direction of travel after 11 years of Labour Government is a good one and if you are living in what Australian PM Bob Hawke called the "inch between a Labour and a rightwing government you know that inch is a good place to live". Many people in Glasgow East don't have the buffer zone of comfort in their lives to gamble and risk a return to the economic decline, under-investment in health and education and disinterest in the regeneration of their city that they endured under the Tories until 1997. All the things that it's easy to be blase about that Labour has done over the last 11 years have had the greatest impact in the seats like Glasgow East with the greatest poverty: the National Minimum Wage, massive investment in police, schools and hospitals, a massive reduction in unemployment, child benefit up 26%, Sure Start, huge reductions in pensioner and child poverty, tax credits. All of these things, which have been at the core of what Labour in government has been about, have made the most difference in this kind of constituency. That's quite apart from the specific investment happening in Glasgow - ranging from the city's shipbuilding industry getting a major share in building the new Type 45 destroyers and the two new aircraft carriers, creating and sustaining jobs and skills, through to the £1.6bn Clyde Gateway project, which has targeted building 10,000 new homes and 400,000 square metres of commercial property in the next 20 years and aims to create 21,000 new jobs and increase the population in the East End of Glasgow by 20,000.

I think we'll pull it off - maybe narrowly - in Glasgow East because voters there aren't stupid and will vote in their self-interest to protect the improvements to their lives of the last 11 years and to safeguard the future hope that only Labour cares enough to bring to the UK's least well-off communities.

It looks like we have an excellent local candidate and I have a hunch that in a few years time we may all be raising a toast to Margaret Curran and the people of Glasgow East as the folk who saved Labour in its hour of greatest need.

Compass - less than 300 active members

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:26:00 +0000

The results of the executive elections for soft left faction Compass are out here: http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/compass/Compass1.xls

They reveal that it only has 274 members active enough to bother voting in its internal elections. You can - like former NUS President Gemma Tummelty - get on their executive with only 10 first preference votes.

Hardly a mass membership organisation poised to sweep to control of the Labour Party.

Council by-election results

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:45:00 +0000

There were some real by-elections last night, as well as the pointless waste of public money in Haltemprice & Howden.

Croft Ward, Blyth Valley DC. Lab hold. Lab 439 (48%, -9%), Ind 266 (29.1%, +29.1%), LD 176 (19.3%, -7%), Con 32 (3.5%, -13.2%). Swing of 19.1% from Lab to Ind since 2007. However, there is a swing to Lab compared with the May 1 results for the new Northumberland Unitary. Blyth Valley DC is being abolished next year.

Risca West Ward, Caerphilly UA. Lab hold. Lab 636 (56.0%, +5.6%) Plaid Cymru 315 (27.8%, +0.3%) Con 137 (12.1%, -10%) Lib 47 (4.1%, +4.1%). Swing of 2.6% from PC to Lab since May. Good result given context of tightness of outcome in May on Caerphilly (32 Lab, 32 PC, 9 Ind - there were 9 Labour losses on 1 May).

Barton Ward, Canterbury DC. LD hold. LD 993 (51.8%, +8.1%), Con 701 (36.6%, +4.2%), Green 121 (6.3%, +6.3%), Ind 102 (5.3%). Swing of 2% from Con to LD since 2007. Strange that there was no Labour candidate in a ward that I'm fairly sure was a 3-way marginal in the '90s - is there a non-aggression pact between the former coalition partners in my home town?

Aberystwyth Rheidol Ward, Ceredigion UA. Plaid Cymru gain from LD. PC 271 (40.2%, +12.0%), LD 252 (37.4%, -30.2%), Ind 98 (14.5%, +14.5%), Lab 36 (5.3%, +5.3%), Con 17 (2.5%, -2.7%). Swing 21.1% LD to PC.

Bury Ward, Chichester DC. Con hold. Con 431 (69.3%, +14%), LD 191 (30.7%, +30.7%). Changes in vote share are since 2007 when it was a Con vs Ind straight fight.

Bradwell South & Hopton Ward, Great Yarmouth DC. Con hold. Con 623 (49.9%, +1.9%), Lab 429 (34.4%, +15.2%), UKIP 196 (15.7%, +5.3%). Swing 6.7% Con to Lab (mainly because the LDs did not field a candidate).

Dalton Ward, Kirkless MBC. Lab hold. Lab 1397 (40.5%, +10%), LD 1155 (33.5%, -0.8%), Con 605 (17.5%, -1.9%), BNP 157 (4.5%, -6.3%), Green 103 (3%, -2%), Ind 34 (0.9%, +0.9%). Swing of 5.4% since May. Good result in a ward where the other 2 cllrs are Lib Dem. This is in Huddersfield parliamentary constituency.

Cranbrook Ward, LB Redbridge. Con hold. Con 1,625 (60.0%, +8.4%), Lab 729 (26.9%, -5.1%), LD 318 (11.7%, -4.7%), BNP 37 (1.4%, +1.4%). Swing of 6.8% from Lab to Con since 2008.

Common Ward, Stafford BC. Con gain from Lab. Con 397 (40.4%, -3.5%), Lab 294 (29.9%, -26.1%), LD 140 (14.2%, +14.2%), EPP 78 (7.9%, +7.9%), Green 74 (7.5%, +7.5%). Swing 11.3% Lab to Con since 2007. Labour's worst result of the night due to intervention by minor parties in what had been a two-way fight.

Trowbridge Central, West Wiltshire DC. Con gain from LD. Con 452 (55.3%, +21.9%), LD 366 (44.7%, +3.8%). Swing of 9.1% from LD to Con since 2007 following withdrawal of independents who ran then.

Wigan West Ward, Wigan MBC. Lab hold. Lab 817 (38.3%, -5.5%), Con 528 (24.8%, +5.8%), LD 344 (16.1%, -2.4%), BNP 200 (9.4%, -5.1%), UKIP 124 (5.8%, +5.8%), Community Action 118 (5.5%, +5.4%). Swing 5.7% Lab to Con since May.

With the exception of Stafford these are rather better results than for several months.

Out-controversialed

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:37:00 +0000

Any worries I have ever had about getting into trouble with senior management at work for saying something too controversial here have now disappeared, as my company's Chief Exec, Colin Byrne has got a bit of coverage here, here, here and here for being less than complimentary about the No10 press operation.

Being a multi-party agency we have quite a diversity of views in my workplace, so just for the record I don't share Colin's critique (sorry Colin!).

Empowerment White Paper

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:36:00 +0000

As I was in local government geek mode today I've posted about my take on Hazel Blears' Empowerment White Paper, announced today, and related issues ranging from elected Mayors through electoral reform for local government, Foundation Hospital Board elections and tenant participation to "double devolution" over on the Progress website.

Waking the political dead

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:51:00 +0000

Serves me right for being a) provocative and b) naively honest about saying what I believe.

I have achieved the unique double of breathing new life into the decaying political corpses of both the Hackney Conservatives and Hackney Liberal Democrats (an endangered species down to their last 2 councillors) with my slightly hard line positions on counter-terrorism expressed here previously.

I now feature on the front pages of both parties' websites - the Tory one and Lib Dem one which judging by the similarities in text is being ghost-written by Labour-to-LD turncoat/Hackney-to-Islington carpet-bagger Meral Ece.

I'm braced for another exciting story in the Hackney Gazette.

For the record, my views as the strapline to this blog says "are entirely personal" and don't represent those of anyone else or any organisation I'm a member of.

I just happen to take the pragmatic view that there are some very dangerous people out there who want to cause mass casualty terrorist incidents (using CBRN materials if they can get them) that would dwarf 9/11 and 7/7 in scale. Security agencies have a good idea who and where some of those people are, but lack the necessary evidence to arrest and convict them using conventional law enforcement methods (or they live in territories where there is no conventional law and order, or a state that has a lot of law and order but is sympathetic to what the individuals want to do and hence unsympathetic to arresting and extraditing them). Hence the need to pick some of these people up extra-judicially and remove them to custody in another jurisdiction, known as extraordinary rendition.

Some of these people also turned up in battle or after it in Afghanistan, having been involved with the Taliban or al-Qaeda. They were not part of an army so were not conventional POWs. It would have been irresponsible beyond belief to let them loose to carry on with their terrorist careers. They needed to be kept somewhere where they couldn't escape from and where they could be interrogated about what they knew about al-Qaeda and its plans. Hence the need for Guantanamo Bay.

I believe that it is probable that many thousands of innocent lives may have been saved - perhaps some of them here in London - through the thwarting of potential acts of terrorism by the US Government's use of extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay.

That doesn't mean, as Lib Dem Councillor Dawood Akhoon (known as the Invisible Man of Hackney Council so infrequently does he appear or speak in the council chamber) claims, that I'm "actually in favour of people being .... tortured". I believe that extraordinary rendition of people to countries where torture might be used is wrong. I also believe that the alleged use of extreme forms of interrogation at Guantanamo is wrong, not least because quite aside from moral objections to the methods used, it's a useless way of getting information out of people because they just say anything to get the interrogator to stop.

The onus on people who don't believe in extraordinary rendition is to explain how they would deal with people believed or known to be terrorists at large in third countries. Leave them free to carry on planning atrocities? It's also on people who oppose the creation of Guantanamo Bay to explain how they would have dealt with the influx of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters picked up in Afghanistan. Set them loose with a promise not to be bad after confiscating their Kalashnikovs?

I've no doubt the other political parties in my home patch will attempt to play a sordid game of communalism with my views on this come the 2010 council elections and will try to smear my Labour colleagues (despite the fact they as far as I know they all disagree with me). I've also no doubt that Muslim residents in my council ward are a lot more interested in my ability to get their lifts fixed or a new controlled parking zone set up, the job they elect me to do, than in my idiosyncratic but deeply held views on international issues. Far from my views having "outraged" Hackney residents as Cllr Akhoon claims, they only seem to be of interest to Lib Dem and Tory councillors - I've not had any ordinary voter raise them with me, though as I reported a couple of weeks ago, my appearance in the Gazette did bemuse/entertain some of my constituents.

Susan Press

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:22:00 +0000

I don't normally bother reacting to the lunacy spouted by Susan Press of Labour Left Briefing and the Labour Representation Committee on her blog, http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com/

But three of her four most recent posts really are extraordinary.

Post one attacks the Labour campaign in the Glasgow East by-election. How about waiting until after polling day to critique it Susan? Did it not occur to you that Labour members should be saying supportive things while an important by-election is actually being contested?

Post two reveals that one of Susan's mates in the LRC is named Lenin, presumably because his parents thought it was appropriate to glorify a mass-murderer and dictator when they named their kids.

Post four urges Labour Party activists to pick where they will campaign based not on the marginality of the seat, but on the politics of the MP i.e. the left should only campaign for left MPs. Having spent a lot of time earlier this year campaigning for Ken Livingstone, and in previous years alongside Diane Abbott - despite not sharing much of either one's politics - I find this suggestion grossly offensive. Labour activists should campaign for the Labour Party Candidate in their own seat, and for the nearest MP in a marginal seat that needs their help - you don't pick and choose who you canvass for based on whether they pass your own ideological litmus test.

In contrast ...

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:17:00 +0000

One of the people who should have been Deputy Leader and is displaying admirable loyalty to the PM, Hazel Blears, was on form at the LGA last week, with this to say about the role of political parties, councillors and councils:

"So I am announcing today a new set of powers for local authorities to be able to promote democracy. This ‘duty to promote democracy’ will mean that local councils are placed in their proper context: not as units of local administration, but as lively, vibrant hubs of democracy.

I want councillors to be in charge of councils. That may seem obvious – unless you’ve served as a councillor!

I am reminded of the story told by Tony Benn from his days as Minister for Technology in the Wilson Government. There was a large demonstration outside the department, as so often happened in the 1960s. There were all the usual groups: the International Socialists, the Revolutionary Workers, the Anarchists. The Permanent Secretary burst into Tony Benn’s office, and warned him: Minister, we have to evacuate. The Anarchists are trying to take over the Department. To which Benn replied: ‘but I’ve been trying to do that for months…’

It always sounds better when he tells it!

So I see this new duty being interpreted in various practical ways which will help councillors be more effective.

For example, I never again want to hear an officer tell a councillor that they can’t hold surgeries on council premises, or appear on a council website or leaflet because that’s ‘political’.

I want political parties to be able to hold their meetings in council buildings, and to have stalls at council-run public events, so that political parties are seen as every bit as legitimate as the chamber of commerce or the voluntary sector.

I want every citizen to be able to phone up their council, and for the person on the end of the phone to be able to tell them the name of the Leader of the council, the political party they belong to, which party or parties are in control, and when the next set of elections is.

I am making money available to train these council staff in the basics of local democracy.

I want leaders of councillors to have reasonable facilities: a desk, a phone, a computer, support staff.

I want every council (not just the best) to run lively campaigns to explain the voting system, to encourage first-time voters, and to sign people onto the register.

Some of you may say: but Hazel we already do all of this stuff. But ask yourself whether every council does it, and you will see we need to send a signal loud and clear that councillors are in charge of councils: elected, representative, accountable.

These measures will make it clear that politics is not a dirty word, that councils are political entities, and that councillors, with power on loan from the people, are in charge."

Et tu, Harriet?

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:09:00 +0000

If this article, suggesting Harriet Harman is promoting herself as a potential successor to the PM, is true, it represents a degree of personal betrayal and disloyalty that I find breathtaking, given that Harman spent the whole Deputy Leadership election portraying herself as the candidate closest to Brown.

Ministers should be using their spare time to canvass voters in Glasgow East, not to canvass the PLP in pursuit of their own ambitions.

Council by-election results

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:26:00 +0000

Last night's council by-election results:

Christchurch Ward, LB Bexley. Con hold. Con 1192 (47.8%, -16.1%), LD 459 (18.4%, +3.5%), BNP 431 (17.2%, +17.2%), Lab 411 (16.5%, -4.7%). Swing 9.8% Con to LD since 2006. Tories hit by BNP intervention in an area that polled very heavily for Boris on 1 May.

Chadwell Heath Ward, LB Barking & Dagenham. Con gain from Lab. Con 842 (37.4%, +7.5%), Lab 641 (30.7%, -7.0%), BNP 564 (25.1%, +25.1%), UKIP 142 (6.3%, -6.9%), Ind 11 (0.5%, -18.7%). Swing 7.3% Lab to Con. More evidence from Jon Cruddas' constituency that there is a fundamental flaw in his strategy of moving Labour to the left i.e. his own constituents want a more right-wing, not more left-wing government.

South Hornchurch Ward, LB Havering. Ind gain from Residents Assoc. Ind 661 (Ind 27.0%, +7.9%), BNP 518 (BNP 21.2%, +21.2%), Con 438 (Con 17.9%, -4.7%), Lab 416 (17.0%, -5.9%), Havering Residents 287 (11.7%, -12.8%), UKIP 64 (2.6%, +2.6%), English Dems 28 (1.1%, +1.1%), London Residents 17 (0.7%, -4.5%), Ind 17 (0.7%, +0.7%). Swing 6.7% Ind to BNP since 2006. This ward goes into Cruddas' Dagenham & Rainham seat under the forthcoming boundary changes - it's a split ward with 1 Labour cllr.

Eckington Division, Derbyshire CC. Lab hold. Lab 824 (35.9%, -15.3%), Con 658 (28.6%, +11%), Ind 300 (13.1%), BNP 253 (11.1%, +11.1%), Ind 150 (6.5%), LD 113 (4.9%, -9.1%). Swing 13.2% Lab to Con since 2005.

Killamarsh West Ward, NE Derbyshire DC. Lab hold. Lab 480 (46.1%), Con 342 (32.8%), Ind 169 (16.2%), LD 51 (4.9%). Labour were unopposed in 2007.

Unstone Ward, NE Derbyshire DC. LD gain from Ind. LD 169 (31.2%, +31.2%), Con 160 (29.6%, +29.6%), Lab 146 (27%, -13%), Ind 66 (12.2%, -47.8%).

Bexhill Sackville Ward, Rother DC. Con hold. Con 571 (49.4%, +6.5%), LD 491 (42.5%, +5.8%), Lab 93 (8.1%, +0.7%). Swing 0.4% LD to Con since 2007.

Burgess Hill St Andrews Ward, Mid-Sussex DC, 2 seats. 2 LD holds. LD 876/829 (56.8%, +1.3%), Con 561/501 (36.4%, +0.5%), Green 65 (4.2%, +4.2%), Lab 40 (2.6%, -6%). Swing 0.4% Con to LD since 2007.

There was also a referendum in Bury on whether to have Directly Elected Mayor - result was "no".

Apologies for the late posting of the results this morning, I'm recovering from celebrating being awarded the title "UK Consultant of the Year" at last night's Public Affairs News Awards, the trade awards for my day job as a public affairs consultant.

Off to see Morrissey at the Wireless Festival in Hyde Park this afternoon.

Ingrid Betancourt

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:46:00 +0000

Well done to the Colombian military for rescuing former Green Candidate for President of Colombia, Ingrid Betancourt, and three US defence industry contractors from their years as hostages of the FARC narco-terrorist organisation.

I wonder if those people on the left in the UK who campaign against Britain and the US helping to train and equip the armed forces that pulled off this amazing rescue are celebrating her freedom with the rest of the world or are depressed by this setback for those seeking to overthrow democracy in Colombia?

Who are Compass backing?

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:34:00 +0000

For an organisation dedicated to changing the political direction of the Labour Party, Compass seem a bit silent on the current NEC elections. They aren't part of the Grassroots Alliance yet some individual Compass members seem to see themselves as part of a "broad left".

Who are they backing?

I'm particularly interested to know their stance on Treasurer, given the personal backgrounds of both Neal Lawson and Jon Cruddas in the TGWU, Jack Dromey's union.

David Clelland MP

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:24:00 +0000

What a great letter.

I hope the PLP office send a template version to all Labour MPs to deploy in case of receipt of letters like this one.

Why Labour can still win the next General Election

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:51:00 +0000

The answer is buried in the most recent Populus poll for the Times, and has been unearthed at www.politicalbetting.com by Nick Palmer MP.

Although the headline figures are Con 45%, Lab 25% and LD 20%, scroll to table 9 and you find that 45% either like the Labour government or would prefer it to a Tory one, whereas 42% would prefer a Tory one.

Incidentally the lowest level of satisfaction with Labour at the moment is shown in this poll as not amongst the richest or poorest voters, but amongst traditional swing voters - the lower middle class/skilled working class C1s and C2s - showing that a retreat to the ideological comfort zone would be drawing completely the wrong lessons from the current polls.

If this is union control, let's have more of it

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:41:00 +0000

The Guardian gives front page coverage to Labour's affiliated unions' policy demands (in return for financially rescuing the Party) in the run up to the "Warwick II" National Policy Forum meeting.

I have to say that if the Guardian has accurately reported what the unions want, then I would happily subcontract large slices of the next manifesto-writing process to them, as it all sounds both eminently reasonable and likely to win us back votes.

The Guardian says the agenda being pushed is:

"unions have deliberately decided to hold back from demanding traditional workers' rights, and are instead pushing issues which they hope will have a broad appeal with core Labour voters."
"The public services union Unison is to propose that primary school children should all get free school meals to help families and increase healthy living."
"The GMB is tabling amendments that would allow environmental workplace representatives to be created to encourage "green" workplaces"
"Unite, the largest union, is proposing that employees have better access to flexible workplace leave. At present parents with children up to the age of six may request time off if their child has an exam or a medical appointment. The unions want the age limit raised to 16."
"John Hannett, the general secretary of the shop workers' union Usdaw, said his union's priorities would be to extend "lifelong learning in the workplace, better protection for young workers, helping parents and carers to balance their home and working lives, and tackling crime including antisocial behaviour"."

Good stuff, let's have more of it.

NEC Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:50:00 +0000

Labour Party members should have received their NEC ballot paper by now. I would recommend voting for:

NEC:
Azhar Ali
Deborah Gardiner
Sonika Nirwal
Ellie Reeves
Peter Wheeler
tactically it makes sense to not use your sixth vote

Treasurer:
Jack Dromey (reluctantly - in my case the deciding factor was receiving an invite to join "Labour Friends of Palestine" on Facebook from his rival Mark MacDonald)

Auditor:
Kevin Hepworth
Michael Leahy

If you are a councillor you get some extra votes. Choices are a bit more nuanced here as there is no Grassroots Alliance slate running but I settled on:

NEC Local Govt Reps:
Sir Jeremy Beecham
Ann Lucas

NEC Joint Local Govt Cttee:
Caitlin Bisknell
Mehboob Khan

NPF
Jamie Carswell
Pauleen Lane
Roger Lawrence
Irene MacDonald

Gippsland by-election

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:56:00 +0000

We're not the only country with a by-election or two.

In Australia voting is taking place in the Gippsland seat in rural Victoria. It's been held by the National Party and its predecessors since 1922.

Labor are unlikely to gain it but might get a swing in their favour in the first federal by-election since Kevin Rudd took power.

Result after transfers in the 2007 General Election was Nat 55.9%, ALP 44.1%.

ABC's News' Antony Green's profile of the seat is here.

If anyone in Australia is reading this and knows the result before I post it here, please can they post it in the comments.

David Davis' opposition

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:20:00 +0000

With 25 candidates running against David Davis, in the absence of a Labour candidate I would be thinking about voting for Jill Saward if I lived in the Haltemprice & Howden constituency. Her stance on the issues Davis wants to debate in the by-election is set out here. I think Davis might get more of a debate than he bargained for.

Also running in Haltemprice is my Hackney acquaintance Rev George Hargreaves (Christian Party) who targeted my council ward as Christian Party ("Proclaiming Christ's Lordship") agent in the 2006 borough elections with leaflets claiming Tony Blair was a Marxist dialectical materialist so Christians shouldn't vote Labour! He also put out extremely inflammatory leaflets in the Springfield Ward by-election last year (with his wife as candidate) which seemed to designed to damage relations between Stamford Hill's Orthodox Jewish community and their Christian neighbours. Luckily only 40 people in Springfield were taken in by this unpleasant tactic.

Agreeing with Diane Abbott

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:05:00 +0000

I found myself in the unusual position of nodding vigorously at Diane Abbott's assessment of the overall political situation in her MP's report at the Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP meeting last night.

Her basic message (from memory) was:

we'd be nuts to change leader again so quickly
we all need to stop panicking and that will be helped by MPs going on Recess and not all being in London stirring each other up
Gordon should focus on using the next two years to deliver two or three landmark policies that are the things he really wants to achieve in politics and will, to quote Diane, be "recognisably Labour, not necessarily left wing, but inspiring and heartening to Labour people"

Another by-election

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:57:00 +0000

Sometimes you just get a run of bad luck in politics that compounds problems that were already there.

Labour seems to be hitting one of those runs, with a fourth by-election now on the horizon just when we least need one.

Labour MP David Marshall is stepping down from his Glasgow East seat due to ill-health.

Where did it all go wrong?

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:51:00 +0000

Lots of newsprint this week has been dedicated to deciding where it all went wrong for Gordon.

Although it's actually rather more important to think about how we can get it to all go right for him, my take on the last year is as follows - apologies if this upsets anyone.

I think it actually all started to go wrong in August 2006, nearly a year before the leadership election.

Stephen Byers MP made what turned out to be a completely on-the-money assessment that Inheritance Tax was going to be a big stick which the Tories could use to beat Labour in the south where house prices were meaning lots of fairly humble folk were suddenly finding themselves liable for it.

Instead of taking this at face value as a sensible contribution to debate by a politician with his finger on the pulse of how key swing voters think, the paranoid pre-leadership election atmosphere meant Byers was leaped on and denounced as an "outrider" and "maverick", with an assumption made that he was just trying to create mischief.

13 months later the chickens came home to roost, as the exact moment when Labour's poll rating changed direction and started a downward trajectory can be traced to the Monday of Tory Party conference when George Osborne delivered a powerful speech the centrepiece of which was a promise to raise the Inheritance Tax threshold.

The knock this gave to Labour's poll lead led to the first of a series of u-turns and the sudden doubts about the wisdom of calling an early election which damaged the PM's reputation for strong leadership and squandered the opportunity to renew our mandate. And the rest is history.

What a difference it would have made if instead of sneering at him and launching savage attacks on him, Byers had been listened to. Without a key policy attractive to swing voters (and rejected by Labour) Osborne's speech would have been technically accomplished but politically hollow. Labour would have maintained its poll lead through early October and won a snap General Election on 8th November 2007. Gordon would now be able to deal with the economic downturn, taking tough decisions safe in the knowledge that he had 4 years to go before he had to face the electorate again, not less than 2.

Perhaps part of the solution might be to bring forward-thinking (and experienced) ex-Ministers like Mr Byers back into the tent and see how they can help.

Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Luke Akehurst) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:04:00 +0000

Not sure whether to laugh or cry about the Henley by-election result. Labour crashing to fifth place certainly isn't a reflection on the campaign run by Labour candidate Richard McKenzie and Regional Director Malcolm Powers. I'm told they worked their socks off. Unfortunately I don't remember receiving anything from the national party encouraging people to go there and help. If we decide we are going to get a catastrophic result and don't try to put in resources then guess what, we end up with a self-fulfilling prophesy. I'm not saying we could have done well, given the territory and the national polls, but it would have been nice to save our deposit and beat the Greens and BNP. Interesting that Lib Dem whispers that they were running a close second turned out to be a total fantasy.

Also out last night was a YouGov poll that was at least moving in the right direction - Con 46% (-1%), Lab 28% (+5%), LD 15% (-3%). This may sound academic but the narrowing of the Tory lead by 6% represents an extra 44 Labour MPs, and 44 fewer gloating Tory newbie MPs elected by surprise in heartland Labour seats.

There were some council by-elections last night as well:

Park Ward, Blackpool UA. Con gain from Lab. Con 977 (55.1%, +28%), Lab 448 (25.3%, -8.4%), BNP 218 (12.3%, -4.8%), LD 97 (5.5%, -9.5%), UKIP 30 (1.7%, -6.7%). Swing 18.2% Lab to Con since 2007. Stunning result for the Tories at expense of all other parties in a ward in a parliamentary marginal.

Hatfield C Ward, Welwyn & Hatfield DC. Lab gain from Con! Lab 425 (33.2%, -7.5%), LD 329 (25.7%, +8.9%), Con 319 (24.9%, -17.6%), BNP 138 (10.8%, +10.8%), Ind 69 (5.4%, +5.4%). Swing 8.2% Lab to LD since 1 May. Labour picks up 3rd seat in a split ward on a council where we only got 5 councillors on 1 May.

Diss Ward, S Norfolk DC voted on Friday. Con hold. Con 1041 (55.6%, -3.2%), LD 768 (41%, -0.2%), Lab 63 (3.4%, did not stand last time). Swing of 1.5% from Con to LD since 2007.