Psephology

It's been nearly a week, and I thought that I would look at the election results in Crawley in more detail, comparing with 2006 and 2004 (all out).

I am particularly interested in the overall trends, and I won't produce the results for all 39 instances.

I'll start Ward by Ward, and then go over the parties at the end.

Bewbush
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 193/216/275
2006 - Labour, maj 192
2007 - Labour, maj 374
A Safe Labour ward. The Labour vote is holding up or increasing. The Tories are slipping back a little. The Lib Dems are slipping back, and our Mr Khan is plugging away in last place

Broadfield N
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 99/261
2006 - Tory, maj 0
No elections in 2007. New ward in 2004. In theory a safe Labour area, was lost last year after a dead heat and drawing of lots

Broadfield S
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 22/52
2006 - Tory, maj 112
No elections in 2007 New ward in 2004. Surprisingly went Tory in 2004, and they strengthened their position last year, although the main losers in that were the Greens.

Furnace Green
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 155/318
2006 - Tory, maj 547
2007 - 2 Tory, maj 524/568
Tory ward, although was Labour until the late 1990s. Becoming much safer for the Tories now, although the Labour vote is holding, and the others are slipping back. The resignation of Mike Weatherley resulted in an extra seat coming up this year.

Gossops Green
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 33/47
2007 - Tory, maj 150
Marginal in 2004, when the Tories gained it. No real change in positions, Labour slightly down, Tories up a little since 2004, Lib Dems on pretty much the same.

Ifield
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 96/100/191
2006 - Tory, maj 21
2007 - Tory, maj 59
Marginal. Labour in 2004 by about 100 votes. Last year Tory gain by 21 votes. This year the Tories led by 59 votes. The only real noticeable trend other than that is that the BNP vote is going down

Langley Green
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 268/303/352
2006 - Labour, maj 406
2007 - Labour, maj 148
Safe Labour seat. Bucked the trend last year with an increased majority, only to become much closer this year. The Conservative candidate this year was a Sikh, and reportedly turnout among this group was high.

Maidenbower
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 682/744/779
2006 - Tory, maj 1132
2007 - Tory, maj 1215
Safe Tory seat. The Tory vote leapt up last year, and the Lib Dems overtook Labour. This year, Labour beat the Lib Dems to second place.

Northgate
2004 - 2 LibDem, maj 292/334
2006 - LibDem, maj 276
2007 - LibDem, maj 250
Liberal Democrat haven. Becoming less secure. Labour second, Tories third. The main trends are for the Lib Dems to bleed a few votes, the Tories challenged for second last year (14 votes behind), but have slipped back again. In 2006 a Socialist Labour candidate may have split the Labour vote. Turnout dipped overall this year.

Pound Hill N
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 778/795/831
2006 - Tory, maj 1280
2007 - Tory, maj 1001
Safe Tory. Labour second, and unusually the Lib Dems gained votes this year (perhaps because this time they had a local candidate, not a Seekings standing). The rest of the drop in Tory majority seems to be down to turnout, which makes sense as this was hardly a seat in question.

Pound Hill S and Worth
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 707/760/828
2006 - Tory, maj 1210
2007 - Tory, maj 1072
Safe Tory. Like PH North, the Tories walked it with a slight fall in turnout. The Lib Dems came second in 2006, but this year lost votes. Labour regained second place and were the only gainers.

Southgate
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 3/50/51
2006 - Tory, maj 198
2007 - Tory, maj 179
Marginal. The Tories won this seat in 2003 by 3 votes, probably helped by the Greens standing. Since 2004, the BNP have overtaken the Greens (but both of their votes are down quite a bit), with the Lib Dems in third. The Labour vote is consistently around 725. The Tories gained about 250 votes in 2006, and slipped back slightly this year.

Three Bridges
2004 - 1 Labour , 1 Tory
2007 - Tory, maj 356
A major Tory gain here. The Labour vote did not fall much, but the smaller parties lost more votes, with the Tories the only gainers. In 2004 the BNP stood and came 6th out of 8 (beating a Green and a Lib Dem). This year the English Democrats stood and narrowly beat the Green.

Tilgate
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 84/87
2007 - Tory, maj 355
Like Three Bridges, a major gain for the Tories. In fact, not only is the majority almost the same, but the Labour vote were exactly the same in both wards this year (549). However, unlike Three Bridges, Labour lost votes and the swing was much greater. In 2004 only the two main parties stood. In 2007 the Greens, Lib Dems and BNP put up candidates. The BNP came third here.

West Green
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 147/274
2006 - Labour, maj 117
Usually safe Labour. Turnout was low last year, and the Tory vote held up. The BNP came third, beating the Lib Dems and an Independent. No election this year.

Tories
A mixed year. In the core seats (those to the East of the London-Brighton line), they slipped back, but that is likely to be down to the inevitability of the results. In the seats they won last year, they pretty much held up. In what were thought to be the new 'marginal' seats, they achieved large swings. Whether they would have had the same if the seats had been contested last year, or whether the campaigning of this year also made a difference I can't tell. The only odd trend was the boost to the vote in Langley Green, where I think communal voting came into play.

Labour
A bad year, but looking at it, not worse than last year. I am sure that there will be recriminations about Ifield, but there always are (even if they win). In the safe Tory and Labour wards, the general trend was up. In many places the vote held up, but needed to go up to win or hold seats. The main point of collapse was Tilgate. There, the vote was possibly split by other parties. Also, the Tory candidate was a prominent local church member, and had a lot of support from there. Our candidate was not local, and the branch lost key members in the past year (to old age).

Lib Dems
Overall, the trend is down. If it continues, Northgate could possibly come into play in future years. The only place where the vote increased was Pound Hill North, where the candidate was the only local standing.

Greens
In 2003 they arrived in force for the first time. The catalyst was the defection of Councillor Malcolm Liles from Labour, in protest at the Iraq war. In 2004 they put up quite a few candidates and achieved reasonably high votes. However, now they can't beat the BNP or the English Democrats, let alone get close to any of the main parties. Most of their candidates are members of Malcolm's family. Lowest poll was 35 in Northgate, highest was 185 in Furnace Green.

BNP
Still not to be discounted, their popularity is waning. Where they once got 400 votes, they get 300 or less. Where they stand for the first time, they do better (I think it's the novelty factor), but they aren't getting the over 15% share that they achieved last year. Ifield is their strongest ward, with 309 votes and 3rd place.

English Democrats
Brand new, arrived out of nowhere (or Harrow, it seems), and merely seem to have split the vote. They are made up of ex-UKIPers, which may mean that they stick around, but around here many of the UKIP members either drifted to the BNP or appear to have gone back to they Tory party. Beat the Greens, which seems to be no great challenge.

Far Left
No candidates from the Socialist Labour Party or Respect or any 'Independant Socialists' this year. Their absence may explain better results for Labour in Northgate and Bewbush.

Independents
Arshad Khan (officially of the 'Justice Party', but in no way connected to the Brum based party of that name, and a one-man-band in reality) wins the battle of the also-rans, beating Richard Symonds by 5 votes. Daniel Capstick-Bedson got 30 votes, the least of any candidate across the town. I think that Richard Symonds can take comfort from the splitting effect in Ifield, but overall the Independent vote is going down since 2004. I suspect that Khan's increased vote in Bewbush may be a result of absence of Robin Burnham, or the presence of the Lib Dem candidate - who I hear is not a particularly popular gentleman.

Thank Clint!

Fulham 1 - 0 Liverpool

A season rescued at the near death by a super-sub and an opposition who might have been a little preoccupied with an upcoming trip to Athens.

The only way we can go down is for Charlton to win both of their games. The last is away to Liverpool (who may be more careful about playing a low-end team), and they are currently losing at home to Spurs.

[edit 9:55 pm - Charlton lost 2-0. A shame for my mate Toby, but frankly I'd rather them than us]

Crawley Town are in a similar position, although the Conference season is over. The threat there is that the owners don't pay back their debts in time. Last I heard they have until Friday 11 May, but were asking for an extension until the end of May. It would be a real shame for the team to be penalised because of the actions of their owners. However, I still don't know how West Ham got away with no points deduction for the Tevez-Mascherano tranfser shenanigans.
It does mean that I can wind Skuds up next season about how they should be in the Championship....

John Reid won't oppose Brown, but won't serve under him either

Good.

I had a reasonable view of Dr Reid until I met him in early 2003. Now he's down there with the Charles Clarkes and Alan Milburns of the world.

oh dear

My contacts tell me that Labour held 2 seats in Crawley (Bewbush and Langley Green). That means losing seats in Ifield, Three Bridges, Southgate and Tilgate, presumably to the Tories. It is unlikely that any other seats changed hands.

That would give the Conservatives control of the council with 22 seats, a majority of 7. Labour would be on 12 and the Liberal Democrats on 3.

I haven't seen the figures, so it's hard to tell whether it represents a major change from last year. Southgate and Ifield were the scene of losses last year (and a nasty and inaccurate piece of hate mail went out in Ifield just before the election). Three Bridges was a seat in which the result was very close in 2004, and it was a hard ask to hold that seat. Tilgate is very disappointing, but the omens did look bad there yesterday.

Commiserations to the losing Labour candidates. Well done to Chris Cheshire and David Shreeves for their re-elections. Across the town this was a tough campaign, and we always knew that it would be an uphill struggle to hold all seats, let alone make any gains. But the members really pushed as hard as they could.

There are, of course, a few factors which overshadow the elections, some of which are beyond the controll of local councillors (Iraq, Blair, the Hospital). However, we can't escape the fact that the Tories have consolidated power and have the momentum, and that there are local factors as well.

Tory Sleaze

One thing that the post-election drinks provide is a chance to catch up on the gossip.

What I learned today is this:

When the Tories claim that 'Horsham GPs' support their Campaign for Pease Pottage Hospital, they mean that 11 GPs (out of 40) support it. My maths may be a bit hazy (it's been 12 years since I sat that degree), but 27% is not a majority. Given that several of those GPs also work in the same practice as one of the authors of their report, it's an even less impressive endorsement.

Also on the c4pph, one of the authors of their report was Adrian Brown. When I asked Henry Smith who he was, he described his background in general terms. What he omitted to mention was that Mr Brown was sacked from East Surrey Hospital when the finances were going down the tubes a few years back.

Lorraine Matthews was until recently involved in the project to decide whether or not to transfer out Council Housing in Crawley. She was the chair of the Tenants Panel, and there were strong suggestions that she was far more keen on transfer than the average tenant. She will now be working for the Council in a brand new post as 'Community Engagement Manager'. Who created this post? How does it chime with the Tory agenda to cut out 'superfluous' posts at the Town Hall?

Vote Early, Vote Often

At about half past seven, I cast two votes in Southgate. Nothing illegal went on, Ms Danivon had to go away so see her mum, and she arranged for me to have her proxy vote.

After that was along day of leafletting and standing outside the polling station, I am now knackered and totally confused.

The results here are unpredictable. If the Tories gain one single seat, they will regain control of the council. However, I didn't see the swagger from them that they had last year.

The early results suggest that the picture nationally is mixed, but that in some places the Tories have gained at the expense of the Lib Dems more than from Labour. Crawley will not be counting the votes until tomorrow, which means it's a nail-biting time for all candiates over the next twelve hours.

Local Elections 3 May - Don't forget to vote!

(and vote Labour)

In Crawley, it is pretty much a straight contest between Labour and the Tories in all seats (except for Northgate, which is solidly Lib Dem).

Some seats have a BNP candidate, and it is vital that they not get a foothold in Crawley.

The Labour candidates for the Crawley wards this year are:

• Bewbush:
  Chris CHESHIRE
  
  
• Furnace Green (2 votes): TT *
  TP PATEL & Andrew SKUDDER

• Gossops Green: T
  Chris MULLINS
  
  
• Ifield: *
  John STANLEY
  
  
• Langley Green:
  David SHREEVES
  
  
• Maidenbower: T
  Ron FINCH
  
  
• Northgate:
  Bill WARD
  
  
• Pound Hill Nth: T
  Jasmin SAMSON
  
  
• Pound Hill Sth & Worth: T
  Colin MOFFATT
  
  
• Southgate: *
  Ian IRVINE
  
  
• Three Bridges:
  Daryl ENGLISH
  
  
• Tilgate: *
  Jayne SKUDDER

Where the BNP are standing, I have marked the ward with *. Where the Conservatives currently hold the seat(s), I have marked the ward with a T (for Targetting Tories).

With the Council on a knife edge (Conservatives 1 seat short of a majority), and several close contests, every vote could count. In Southgate, we had results within 3 votes two years running. Crawley has had two elections result in dead heats in the last ten years.

So, if you want to lift the threat of higher charges for tenants (with lower standards of upkeep for council houses), if you want to safeguard local services, if you want to see improvements, then Vote Labour to keep the Tories out.

Best of luck to all of our candidates tomorrow. I will be out and about in Southgate, where we are working to re-elect a hard working councillor Ian Irvine.

Guernica

70 years ago, 24 bombers from the Nazi 'Condor Legion' dropped their loads on the Basque town of Guernica/Gernika in Spain. From the bombs and the resulting fires, hundreds of civilians were killed.

It was immortalised by a Picasso mural named after the town. He was actually working on it before 26 April, for the Paris Exposition and was shown on the Spanish Pavilion during July of that year.

Ten days ago, I was looking at the painting, which now hangs in the Reina Sofia Museum in Madrid. Until 1981, it had never been in Spain, although prints and photographs were clandestinely produced. A full size copy is in the United Nations building (it was covered over in 2003 when Colin Powell was giving a press conference to promote the invasion of Iraq).

As powerful works of art go, Guernica is incredible, and full of the horrors of war.

Life Expectancy - the elephant in the room

The Crawley News has obtained comparitive figures for Life Expectancy across the town. There is (and this is not a surprise to me as I've seen similar figures in the past) a significant difference between the highest and the lowest wards:

Maidenbower 83.5
Southgate 77.1

The low figure for Southgate can be partially explained by the disproportionate number of residential care homes. So they don't compare my neck of the woods with Maidy, but they take the next lowest, Bewbush (77.6).

Now, they make the usual statistical error of mixing up the people with the place - by suggesting that if you move, it will improve your prospects. Of course, the figures are an average based on the people currently living there. If you personally have a low life expectancy, moving to Maidenbower or Pound Hill is not likely to increase your time in this mortal coil (although it might slightly reduce their average...). Fair enough, it's a standard misconception and it's easily done. Oh, and these are the expectancy at birth based on data from 1998 to 2002, so it's not even relevant to people born outside Crawley, or before 1998!!

Of course, it's not like we can actually get accurate figures for life expectancy for areas which had virtually nobody living in them less than 60 years ago (most of Crawley), but we can do for the people who live there now.

However, when comparing Bewbush and Maidenbower, and casting around for possible reasons, they are a bit blinkered. A Maidenbower resident jokes that it is 'easier to be stabbed in Bewbush', which is particularly crass (I don't know anyone who has been stabbed in Bewbush, but I did once work with a guy who got stabbed in Horsham - and it was easy for him as he was the wrong colour). A Bewbush resident also mentions crime and violence. Another Maidenbowerite who uses the word 'one' for 'I' puts it down to diet and a healthy lifestyle.

Of course, these are possible contributory factors (although it's not like people in nice areas don't get murdered, such as in Poles Lane.

The one factor that is completely missed is the also one that tends to also influence crime, diet, lifestyle etc.

Wealth, or the lack of it.

Poverty levels in Bewbush are much higher than in Maidenbower. The correlation between income and life expectancy is very close. Similarly, Broadfield has higher levels of deprivation (although it also has some more comfortable parts), and Pound Hill is also relatively wealthy.

However, there are pockets of deprivation in Pound Hill, and even in Maidenbower. The average life expectancy for those people will likely be lower than for their near neighbours.

Who the FAQ is Danivon?

• Who is Danivon?

Well, my real name is Owen Richards. I was born in Crawley in 1974. I've lived there most of the time since, apart from a few years in the 1990s when I studied and worked in Manchester. From February 2009 I've been living in Rugby.

I was a councillor on Crawley Borough Council from May 2000 to June 2004, representing my home ward of Southgate for the Labour Party. I stood down after a single term due to the problem of balancing work and a social life with political office. As much as I enjoyed it, I was getting too tired to keep doing the job to the best of my abilities.

• So why do you use a pseudonym?

Why not? When the internet was first popular, people were always using pseudonyms. I don't use it to hide who I am, it's just not a big deal to me to use a different name. I have been using the name on other sites for some time, and it's easier to keep things the same all over the place.

While I am not concealing my true identity, I am also wary of being too open on the internet, where people and software can trawl through data to get a lot of information. I get enough spam as it is, thanks.

• Where did you get the name 'Danivon' from?

From the book Sideshow, by Sheri S Tepper. Danivon Luze is one of the main characters. I don't identify with him per se, it's just I quite liked the name. To be honest, I got him mixed up with the character Cheradenine Zakelwe from Use of Weapons by Iain M Banks when I first used it, back when I was playing Command&Conquer: Red Alert online (and getting trounced every time).

• Who is Rodney McAree then?

He is a football player, and the subject of an old terraces chant at Craven Cottage from the glorious 1996/7 season. See more here: http://rodneymcaree.blogspot.com/2005/04/rodney-mcarce.html

• Who do you work for?

I'm not going to say. I don't intend to discuss work, let alone my employer, so it isn't relevant. All I will say is that I work in the private sector, for an IT company.

Despite what some may think, I don't work for the Labour Party. I am a member of the Party, and I am involved at a local level. I have views that I want to express, which may or may not be in accordance with local (or national) Party policy. I did hold the post of 'Press Officer' for one year, which is confined to drafting Press Releases. I don't view blogging, or commenting on other blogs or internet forums as part of that activity, and the views expressed on this site against my name are mine alone.

• Why are you in the Labour Party?

Well, my family were all members. My dad was a councillor in the 1970s, and his dad was one in the 1950s. My parents were active in the 1980s, and I can remember them raising money for the families of striking miners in 1984 and my dad going up to printworks to assist the pickets during the Wapping dispute. I joined at the age of 15, when Thatcher was still the PM. Then I was purely an 'emotional' socialist - I didn't really understand the 'why'.

After getting an interest in History at school, I developed my theoretical and philosophical political views. I think that is long journey to start, and I'm by no means finished.

• Are you a New Labour apparatchik?

No. In 1994 I opposed Blair's leadership bid and the changes to Clause 4 of the Party constitution. While feeling a bit young to take on the label 'Old Labour', and not comfortable enough in dogma to stick with people like the Campaign Group, I have always been critical of the Party Leadership where they deserve it. However, I still think that the Labour Party, even one dominated by 'New Labour' is the best of all of the available alternatives for government. I worked my socks off in three constituencies during the 1997 campaign, and like many people was jubilant at the victory, and the scale of it. However, I said at the time:

"I'm happy, but I'm not satisfied"

That still applies today. Labour has done a lot of good in this country over the past 10 years, but they have also been timid in important areas. The Iraq war has overshadowed and undermined the whole period, and I am concerned about the tendency towards illiberal policies like detention without charge and ID cards.

However, I am proud to be a member of the Party, and there is a lot that should be celebrated and built on.

• Is that all you're going to say?

Not necessarily. If you want to ask a question, put it in the comments, and I'll answer it if I can.