I've been meaning to get back to posting more regularly for a while, and I notice that back in May, almost 2 months ago, I promised to discuss Crewe & Nantwich.
Of course, since that by-election there's been Henley and Howden & Haltemprice. Before the local elections, and even with them, it could be claimed that Labour was just in the middle of a normal 'mid-term blues' patch.
The local elections in May 2008 were not much different for Labour nationally than the results of the previous year or (perhaps more significantly) 2004 - a year before the last General Election. However, the main difference is that the Tories are now a more credible force and they are able to maintain a sustained lead in opinion polls.
The economic situation is also confused and likely to become harder in some way. The problem is that oil and food prices have risen sharply (the price of oil has a major impact on the price of food, due to increased transportation costs and the surprising amount of energy used to grow food crops and create fertilisers). This is having an inflationary effect, making life harder for people on low and fixed incomes.
At the same time, the US-born credit crunch has combined with the long anticipated peak in the UK property market to start affecting economic growth. I remember way back in 1999 I was a bit worried when I bought my house that prices were unsustainably high. Since then they have more than doubled and every year various 'economic experts' have predicted a 'correction'. Now it's here everyone has suddenly begun to panic a bit.
However, we are not in recession, and even now there is likely to be a small amount of growth in the UK in the next year (technically a recession is two successive quarters of a shrinking economy in GDP terms). Of course, some sectors will be affected more than others. The current strength of the Euro means that the Pound is cheaper, making our exports more competitive - which is good for manufacturing. On the other hand, construction is getting hit hard and retail (having been able to rely on a steady stream of customers on credit) appears to have been doing poorly. Unemployment is going up again, although it's still relatively low for now.
The problem with the combination of low growth and high inflation is that the usual solution is to adjust interest rates, but the direction is different for each. To encourage growth (and counter the credit crunch), lower rates would allow more cash to flow. However, higher interest rates are the usual salve for inflation, the idea being that it restricts cash flow to reduce the demand-led pull on prices.
My opinion is that as the inflation is not demand-led but comes from the supply side, increasing interest rates is not likely to have as much of an effect as usual. However, the Bank of England was tasked (by Gordon Brown) with keeping inflation under control, but not explicitly to prioritise the rate of growth of the economy.
Anyway, all of this leads to uncertainty and pessimism. This will naturally reflect on the government whichever party ran it. As Labour has been in power for eleven years, and as Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten of those years before getting his promotion, it becomes even easier see it as down to Gordon and the party. That the credit-crunch was precipitated by the even more loopy borrowing rampant in the USA, and that oil and food price inflation are both global phenomena make little difference to most people.
So, the economy is leading to a wide-scale malaise in Britain, and is also leading to two problems for the government. Firstly, a slowdown in economic growth puts pressure on government spending but inflation leads to higher wage demands from public employees, so we are seeing more complaints and strikes from them. This adds to a picture of a government losing control - and is particularly bad when a Labour government is in open conflict with it's affiliated Trades Unions.
Secondly, the malaise is self-perpetuating. Just as a boom is often fuelled by people being confident and borrowing against a rosy future, a slowdown can be worsened if it becomes the main topic of discussion and people start assuming the worst. It is possible that we could 'talk ourselves' into a recession. At such a time, we would need a very confident leader who could project a more positive image. Gordon Brown, it seems, is not that leader. As much as I was opposed to Blair (and to Blairism) within the party, I did think that Brown would make a decent Prime Minister. A year ago it all looked very positive - even flooding in East Yorkshire seemed not to have a negative effect - and Brown appeared to be a welcome change after the populist and PR-led Brown. But while Brown is good during the good times, and while he was able to react well at first, there have been several areas in which he's been less than impressive and has appeared to be letting things get out of his control.
Last autumn, during the media-frenzy over whether Brown would call an early election or not (I still think he was right not to), there were a couple of wobbles where it seemed that the Tories were pressing the agenda, particularly on Inheritance Tax. However, the real seed of Brown's current unpopularity stems from his last Budget as Chancellor:
Brown did something very silly with Income Tax, using the abolition of the lower rate of 10% to help pay for a cut in the main rate of tax from 22% to 20%. For anyone with an income below £18,000 who was not on tax credits, this meant a loss. This was bad enough, but the worse thing was that Brown denied that anyone would be worse off. Frank Field and other Labour backbenchers had been questioning this for a year, but it was only when it became more immediate and Alistair Darling had missed the chance to deal with it in his first Budget that the media and the Tories started to really press the issue. The 'fix' was to play with Allowances, which did reduce drastically the number of losers among the low-paid but also meant that people on medium earnings got a further reduction in tax. As this 'fix' doesn't actually come into effect until the Autumn and is only really going to be in effect for this tax year unless further changes are made.
What this did was to undermine the claim that Labour was working for it's normal 'core' support, the working classes. Combined with higher prices for basics and greater worries about employment and debt, the last thing that people on low incomes needed was an increase in taxes. Even though that increase was small in cash terms, it was in some cases nearly 4% of total income.
Thing is, changing the Prime Minister (again) won't make a jot of difference. What is needed is what was needed about five years ago - a government that listened to it's own backbenchers and the party that got it into power, rather than being overly concerned with process and the latest polls.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Quiet, innit?
No particular reason for my being quiet, and the only reason for this posting is that I noticed that the links needed a serious sorting out.
Renewed Labour and Let's be Sensible have stopped months ago, and Labour Humanist hasn't written anything since Christmas so they are gone. I can't get on to Adam Brown's site - or all I can get is a blank page - and I notice that Duncan Crow now has a blog so that was an easy 1-for-1 replacement (can't have too many Tory councillor blogs getting publicity from me, can I?). Richard Symonds doesn't use the Crawley Independent to blog anymore, he's got his own forum which (once does contain the odd pearl of information about local doings, in amongst all the rest of what I can only call conspiracy theories, as much as it riles him).
The Crawley News site has been moved and relaunched. It's much better, you get most of the paper's stories and people can comment on them. The old one was shared with about three other papers based in Surrey (and was on icsurrey.co.uk) and was very difficult to navigate. I'll not comment on the quality of the journalism though. If you follow my other new link to the Maidenbower Forum, you will probably find someone moaning about grossly inaccurate reporting.
I know that there are probably a couple of new local sites that I should add in - Such as Ian Irvine's blog, but I can't remember what the url is and I'm about to eat my Sunday lunch soon.
Also, there's going to be a new blog for Crawley to 'celebrate' all of the holes that appear in the town's streets. When it's up and running, it will get a trail here.
Renewed Labour and Let's be Sensible have stopped months ago, and Labour Humanist hasn't written anything since Christmas so they are gone. I can't get on to Adam Brown's site - or all I can get is a blank page - and I notice that Duncan Crow now has a blog so that was an easy 1-for-1 replacement (can't have too many Tory councillor blogs getting publicity from me, can I?). Richard Symonds doesn't use the Crawley Independent to blog anymore, he's got his own forum which (once does contain the odd pearl of information about local doings, in amongst all the rest of what I can only call conspiracy theories, as much as it riles him).
The Crawley News site has been moved and relaunched. It's much better, you get most of the paper's stories and people can comment on them. The old one was shared with about three other papers based in Surrey (and was on icsurrey.co.uk) and was very difficult to navigate. I'll not comment on the quality of the journalism though. If you follow my other new link to the Maidenbower Forum, you will probably find someone moaning about grossly inaccurate reporting.
I know that there are probably a couple of new local sites that I should add in - Such as Ian Irvine's blog, but I can't remember what the url is and I'm about to eat my Sunday lunch soon.
Also, there's going to be a new blog for Crawley to 'celebrate' all of the holes that appear in the town's streets. When it's up and running, it will get a trail here.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
The godless meme
Like Unity, I'm not big on memes. But like Unity, I like this one
Q1. How would you define ‘atheism’?
The lack of belief in God/gods.
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
No. My parents were not religious at all. My first introduction to the concept of 'God' was at school. Apparently I was pretty annoyed at Mum and Dad for not having mentioned this whole thing about one bloke making the whole world. It's not as if they 'made me' an atheist, they just didn't see any point discussing it, and left me to find out for myself.
As a child I was generally agnostic until I was about 11 or 12. The religion I was agnostic on would have been that fluffy Anglicanism that we English cling on to. I was a cub scout and in St Johns Ambulance as a cadet, so every week I had to pledge to God (and the Queen), and I knew that I was lying (on both counts).
Q3. How would you describe ‘Intelligent Design’, using only one word?
Mistaken
Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?
That's a really tough question, as there are loads of possible answers - the Human Genome project, space travel, quantum computing....
My background is Mathematics, and so it may not be 'sexy' or have an immediate impact, but I'd say Game Theory is a favourite, and I can apply it to playing Diplomacy.
Q5. If you could change one thing about the ‘atheist community’, what would it be and why?
I'm not sure that there is a 'community', or that there could or should be one. I'd rather that atheists as individuals didn't attack religion for the sake of it, but on the other hand I'd also want them to defend each other more robustly when the religious attack some of us.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said ‘I’m joining the clergy’, what would be your first response?
I don't have kids, so I don't know how I'd react. I'd like to think I'd have some clue that a child of mine was religious already, so it shouldn't be a massive shock. I'd probably make a joke about them getting a free house.
I would not force my atheism on my kids, just as my parents didn't force theirs on me. I would, however bring my kids up to question everything, and I would certainly make sure that they were equipped to question their own beliefs (or lack thereof). If they decide that they want to become a priest, nun, whatever, then fine. As long as they are happy, and don't try to convert me.
Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
I'm not sure about it. The most common one is the idea that everything has to have had a beginning, and that beginning is God. The challenge (if not a refutation), is that this is unknowable. Time could be infinite, in which case there is no beginning.
Q8. What’s your most ‘controversial’ (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
Dunno. Perhaps continuing to support the Labour Party even though Blair and Brown (and most leaders in fact) have been religiously motivated in some way.
Q9. Of the ‘Four Horsemen’ (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
I've not read much Dennett or Harris, but what I have is a little too confrontational for it's own sake. Likewise, Hitchens just likes to take an argument and let loose the rhetoric to show how clever he is. When I agree with CH I can nod along vehemently, and when he's wrong (as he is on Iraq in my opinion), he's an annoying git.
So it's Dawkins then, by default. Actually, I've read The God Delusion and it's pretty well presented (and is often misrepresented in order to demonise him and through him all atheists), so it's not just be default. He does, however, sometimes go a little too far when speaking.
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
I can't think of a specific person. Perhaps a Jehovah's Witness who's refusing to accept life saving treatment as a result of their beliefs.
Right, there it goes. I don't nominate people to pick up a meme (in fact, if a meme is a true meme, it would be taken up without me needing to).
Q1. How would you define ‘atheism’?
The lack of belief in God/gods.
Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?
No. My parents were not religious at all. My first introduction to the concept of 'God' was at school. Apparently I was pretty annoyed at Mum and Dad for not having mentioned this whole thing about one bloke making the whole world. It's not as if they 'made me' an atheist, they just didn't see any point discussing it, and left me to find out for myself.
As a child I was generally agnostic until I was about 11 or 12. The religion I was agnostic on would have been that fluffy Anglicanism that we English cling on to. I was a cub scout and in St Johns Ambulance as a cadet, so every week I had to pledge to God (and the Queen), and I knew that I was lying (on both counts).
Q3. How would you describe ‘Intelligent Design’, using only one word?
Mistaken
Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?
That's a really tough question, as there are loads of possible answers - the Human Genome project, space travel, quantum computing....
My background is Mathematics, and so it may not be 'sexy' or have an immediate impact, but I'd say Game Theory is a favourite, and I can apply it to playing Diplomacy.
Q5. If you could change one thing about the ‘atheist community’, what would it be and why?
I'm not sure that there is a 'community', or that there could or should be one. I'd rather that atheists as individuals didn't attack religion for the sake of it, but on the other hand I'd also want them to defend each other more robustly when the religious attack some of us.
Q6. If your child came up to you and said ‘I’m joining the clergy’, what would be your first response?
I don't have kids, so I don't know how I'd react. I'd like to think I'd have some clue that a child of mine was religious already, so it shouldn't be a massive shock. I'd probably make a joke about them getting a free house.
I would not force my atheism on my kids, just as my parents didn't force theirs on me. I would, however bring my kids up to question everything, and I would certainly make sure that they were equipped to question their own beliefs (or lack thereof). If they decide that they want to become a priest, nun, whatever, then fine. As long as they are happy, and don't try to convert me.
Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?
I'm not sure about it. The most common one is the idea that everything has to have had a beginning, and that beginning is God. The challenge (if not a refutation), is that this is unknowable. Time could be infinite, in which case there is no beginning.
Q8. What’s your most ‘controversial’ (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?
Dunno. Perhaps continuing to support the Labour Party even though Blair and Brown (and most leaders in fact) have been religiously motivated in some way.
Q9. Of the ‘Four Horsemen’ (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?
I've not read much Dennett or Harris, but what I have is a little too confrontational for it's own sake. Likewise, Hitchens just likes to take an argument and let loose the rhetoric to show how clever he is. When I agree with CH I can nod along vehemently, and when he's wrong (as he is on Iraq in my opinion), he's an annoying git.
So it's Dawkins then, by default. Actually, I've read The God Delusion and it's pretty well presented (and is often misrepresented in order to demonise him and through him all atheists), so it's not just be default. He does, however, sometimes go a little too far when speaking.
Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?
I can't think of a specific person. Perhaps a Jehovah's Witness who's refusing to accept life saving treatment as a result of their beliefs.
Right, there it goes. I don't nominate people to pick up a meme (in fact, if a meme is a true meme, it would be taken up without me needing to).
Friday, May 23, 2008
A crushing disappointment
Manchester City qualified for Europe in the Fair Play League, with Fulham only 3 points behind.
The next placed team who weren't already going to Europe were West Ham, which might draw a wry smile to one or two passing readers...
(oh, and not only did the Tories win in Crewe and Nantwich, they hammered us, but more on that later on)
The next placed team who weren't already going to Europe were West Ham, which might draw a wry smile to one or two passing readers...
(oh, and not only did the Tories win in Crewe and Nantwich, they hammered us, but more on that later on)
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Talk about leaving it late...
Today was a nerve-wracking day. A lovely sunny afternoon wandering around Horsham was overshadowed by an ominous threat.
On the last day of the Premiership season, Fulham started just outside the relegation zone, only on goal difference over Reading and with a single point more than Birmingham. This mean that at Portsmouth, Fulham had to win to guarantee another season in the top division, or at least to do as well as Reading (playing at already relegated Derby City) and Birmingham City (home to mid-table and nothing to play for Blackburn).
I managed to drag the gf into a pub, but unfortunately it had no tv, and she wasn't in the mood to move. So I was forced to tangle with my phones' WAP in a low signal and a low battery to keep up with events.
It went a bit like this:
3:00pm. In the Crown, with a pint of IPA, breaking the news to Jas that I might be a little preoccupied for the next couple of hours.
3:15. See that Reading have scored against Derby. Oh. Still, it's early on.
3:35. See that Birmingham have scored against Blackburn. Damn. We really need to score a goal here. More beer required.
3:45 to 3:50. Keep checking to see if we've managed to take the lead going into half time. We haven't.
4:15. Blackburn have equalised at St Andrews. Come on Derby, you can get one back too
4:20. Derby 0-2 Reading. Come on Derby, you can get two back.
4:30. Derby 0-3 Reading. Ok, Derby, three goals in fifteen minutes, should be doable...
4:35. Birmingham get another goal. So we need more than a hugely unlikely recovery at Pride Park. We need someone to actually score for the whites
4.36. YESssss!! (three people in virtually empty pub stare at the odd man waving a phone about) Danny Murphy, who I have rated since he was playing at Liverpool, scores - on checking it was a header from a Jimmy Bullard free kick. Ten minutes to not throw away the lead...
4.45. No change in the scores, but no sign of games ending. Some signs of nervous drinking.
4.50. Reading and Birmingham have both scored again. Please let it be meaningless.
4.53. No whistles at all? Come on. According to Vodaphone, no games have ended yet? Are they trying to give me an ulcer?
4.54. Text from my dad, simply saying "yes", suggests that there have been some whistles going.
4.55. Call dad - turns out Birmingham scored again to make it 4-1, but the game at Fratton Park is definitely over.
4.56. Text from dad, simply saying "yes" (hmm, he really needs to learn not to keep hitting the 'send' button.
4.57. Phone dies. More beer. I rejoin whatever conversation I was supposed to be having with the gf. All is right with the world (and as Brum were relegated, the gf is happy, coming from the 'other' side of Birmingham, but only to the extent of disliking the Bluenoses rather than supporting Villa).
Now, I'm eagerly awaiting the update of the Fair Play table. Why? Well, England topped the European Fair Play league, and so get an extra UEFA Cup place. Which goes to the team at the top of the domestic Fair Play table who haven't already qualified for Europe.
Fulham were lying in 7th place last week, which sounds bad, but the top four are Spurs (in UEFA for winning the League Cup), Man Utd (in the Champions League for winning the Premiership), Liverpool and Arsenal (both through for their league positions). Everton were in 6th, and clinched a UEFA Cup spot today. So the only team ahead of Fulham for the Fair Play qualification were Man City, by 8 points (1199 to 1191)
And Man City had a player sent off as they lost 8-1 (Eight! ha ha ha) to Middlesbrough. They only lose three points for that, but it's entirely possible that the players were a bit 'robust' and showed their frustration as they were being taken apart.
So, we go from desperately fighting relegation (in every game for the last three weeks) to possibly qualifying for Europe.
On the last day of the Premiership season, Fulham started just outside the relegation zone, only on goal difference over Reading and with a single point more than Birmingham. This mean that at Portsmouth, Fulham had to win to guarantee another season in the top division, or at least to do as well as Reading (playing at already relegated Derby City) and Birmingham City (home to mid-table and nothing to play for Blackburn).
I managed to drag the gf into a pub, but unfortunately it had no tv, and she wasn't in the mood to move. So I was forced to tangle with my phones' WAP in a low signal and a low battery to keep up with events.
It went a bit like this:
3:00pm. In the Crown, with a pint of IPA, breaking the news to Jas that I might be a little preoccupied for the next couple of hours.
3:15. See that Reading have scored against Derby. Oh. Still, it's early on.
3:35. See that Birmingham have scored against Blackburn. Damn. We really need to score a goal here. More beer required.
3:45 to 3:50. Keep checking to see if we've managed to take the lead going into half time. We haven't.
4:15. Blackburn have equalised at St Andrews. Come on Derby, you can get one back too
4:20. Derby 0-2 Reading. Come on Derby, you can get two back.
4:30. Derby 0-3 Reading. Ok, Derby, three goals in fifteen minutes, should be doable...
4:35. Birmingham get another goal. So we need more than a hugely unlikely recovery at Pride Park. We need someone to actually score for the whites
4.36. YESssss!! (three people in virtually empty pub stare at the odd man waving a phone about) Danny Murphy, who I have rated since he was playing at Liverpool, scores - on checking it was a header from a Jimmy Bullard free kick. Ten minutes to not throw away the lead...
4.45. No change in the scores, but no sign of games ending. Some signs of nervous drinking.
4.50. Reading and Birmingham have both scored again. Please let it be meaningless.
4.53. No whistles at all? Come on. According to Vodaphone, no games have ended yet? Are they trying to give me an ulcer?
4.54. Text from my dad, simply saying "yes", suggests that there have been some whistles going.
4.55. Call dad - turns out Birmingham scored again to make it 4-1, but the game at Fratton Park is definitely over.
4.56. Text from dad, simply saying "yes" (hmm, he really needs to learn not to keep hitting the 'send' button.
4.57. Phone dies. More beer. I rejoin whatever conversation I was supposed to be having with the gf. All is right with the world (and as Brum were relegated, the gf is happy, coming from the 'other' side of Birmingham, but only to the extent of disliking the Bluenoses rather than supporting Villa).
Now, I'm eagerly awaiting the update of the Fair Play table. Why? Well, England topped the European Fair Play league, and so get an extra UEFA Cup place. Which goes to the team at the top of the domestic Fair Play table who haven't already qualified for Europe.
Fulham were lying in 7th place last week, which sounds bad, but the top four are Spurs (in UEFA for winning the League Cup), Man Utd (in the Champions League for winning the Premiership), Liverpool and Arsenal (both through for their league positions). Everton were in 6th, and clinched a UEFA Cup spot today. So the only team ahead of Fulham for the Fair Play qualification were Man City, by 8 points (1199 to 1191)
And Man City had a player sent off as they lost 8-1 (Eight! ha ha ha) to Middlesbrough. They only lose three points for that, but it's entirely possible that the players were a bit 'robust' and showed their frustration as they were being taken apart.
So, we go from desperately fighting relegation (in every game for the last three weeks) to possibly qualifying for Europe.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Another poor day at the polls
Given the results in the previous two years, and the national political picture after the debacle of the 10% tax band, there was no real surprise at the outcome of yesterday's Crawley Borough Council elections.
Last year I looked at the trends in each ward and for each party, and I thought I'd do the same thing. We have now had a full cycle since the 2004 boundary changes and all-out-elections, so we can compare over the past 4 years and see the overall trends. In each seat this year, the person who was in position before May had been the most popular candidate of those elected in 2004.
Bewbush
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 193/216/275
2006 - Labour, maj 192
2007 - Labour, maj 374
2008 - Labour, maj 281
Again the largest Labour majority in Crawley. The incumbent had stood down due to ill health, and may have had some personal vote, but it does seem that there was a slip in support. The Tory got a similar percentage of the vote to last year, and Arshad Khan managed over 100 votes. The main difference to previous years was that the Lib Dems put no-one up and the BNP had a candidate. As is usual, the BNP took about 15% of the vote at the first attempt (they tend to slip back in later years).
Broadfield N
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 99/261
2006 - Tory, maj 0
2008 - Labour, maj 150
A popular local incumbent was re-elected here, and the Tories got fewer votes than in 2006. The Lib Dems lost about a third of their vote. Now the only ward with councillors from more than one party.
Broadfield S
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 22/52
2006 - Tory, maj 112
2008 - Tory, maj 165
The incumbent was Marcella Head, elected as a Conservative and who defected to the Lib Dems in 2006 over the Council Housing issue. She apparently endorsed Ian Irvine the Labour candidate this time, but in the end the Tories extended their lead in a two-horse race.
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. No election this year.
Gossops Green
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 33/47
2007 - Tory, maj 150
2008 - Tory, maj 281
The Tory vote was about the same as last year, with Labour down and a BNP candidate in third. The Lib Dems lost half of their vote.
Ifield
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 96/100/191
2006 - Tory, maj 21
2007 - Tory, maj 59
2008 - Tory, maj 236
Last year I had this as marginal. The BNP have stood here several times and for the first time increased their vote, getting back some of the losses since 2004. The Tory vote went up by 100, and Labour lost about 80. The Lib Dems vote pretty much held. Where we had two independents last year, none stood this time.
Langley Green
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 268/303/352
2006 - Labour, maj 406
2007 - Labour, maj 148
2008 - Labour, maj 232
Safe Labour seat, although one of the councillors is always convinced that it is dead close. The Labour and Tory votes both went up, with the Lib Dems losing half of theirs (the normal candidate stood in Maidenbower instead, perhaps there's some personal vote there).
Maidenbower
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 682/744/779
2006 - Tory, maj 1132
2007 - Tory, maj 1215
2008 - Tory, maj 1386
Safe Tory seat. The Tory vote leapt up in 2006, and has been creeping higher since then. The Lib Dems and Labour tied for second place (and last place).
Northgate
2004 - 2 LibDem, maj 292/334
2006 - LibDem, maj 276
2007 - LibDem, maj 250
Liberal Democrat haven. No election this year.
Pound Hill N
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 778/795/831
2006 - Tory, maj 1280
2007 - Tory, maj 1001
2008 - Tory, maj 1082
Safe Tory. The Lib Dems overtook Labour to come second (the only ward in 2008 where the Lib Dem vote was more than the Labour total), and the only reason that I can see for the slip in the Tory majority is lower turnout, which is natural such a safe seat.
Pound Hill S and Worth
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 707/760/828
2006 - Tory, maj 1210
2007 - Tory, maj 1072
2008 - Tory, maj 1189
Safe Tory. The Lib Dems were in second in 2006, but Labour overtook them last year and maintained second place. The BNP stood here for the first time and came last - the only place where the Lib Dems beat them.
Southgate
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 3/50/51
2006 - Tory, maj 198
2007 - Tory, maj 179
2007 - Tory, maj 254
Marginal but getting safer for the Tories. The Tories won this seat in 2003 by 3 votes, probably helped by the Greens standing. The BNP and Greens used to stand here but didn't this time. The Labour vote went up, but the Tory vote went up faster. The Lib Dems gained votes (probably from ex-Green voters).
Three Bridges
2004 - 1 Labour , 1 Tory
2007 - Tory, maj 356
2008 - Tory, maj 297
The Tory vote did fall slightly, and the Labour vote went up slightly, but from being a knife-edge seat is firmly Tory for now. Last year there was an English Democrat and a Green, but they were absent this time. The Lib Dems did pick up votes (from the Greens again?)
Tilgate
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 84/87
2007 - Tory, maj 355
2008 - Tory, maj 97
Like Three Bridges, a major gain for the Tories last year. However, unlike Three Bridges, Labour came much closer to holding a seat as the Tories dropped 180 votes. The BNP beat the Lib Dems to third, both gaining a few votes.
West Green
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 147/274
2006 - Labour, maj 117
2008 - Labour, maj 180
Usually safe Labour. The winner this year was Bert Crane, who must be in contention for the longest serving councillor in the country (over 50 years). The Tory vote did go up slightly, the BNP shed votes and unlike previous years, no others stood.
Tories
Overall, a fairly stable set of results. Where they have made gains in recent years these have been consolidated (except for Broadfield North which was unusual). The only bad spot was Tilgate, which was won with a very large swing in 2007 and was much closer this time around. Now have a majority of 15 on the Council.
Labour
Another bad year. Some glimmers of hope where the vote went up (despite the national trend), but could not hold on to the remaining seats in Tilgate, Southgate or Ifield.
Lib Dems
Overall, the trend is down again. Back down to two seats after Marcella Head (who was elected as a Tory) stood down and no replacement candidate was put up in Broadfield South. In some wards shed a third of even a half of their vote, and did well in few wards where they couldn't pick up Green votes.
Greens
First making an impact in 2003 (after a Labour Councillor defected in protest at the Iraq war), they tried to expand with several candidates across the town in later years. This time no Green candidates stood at all, apparently to avoid splitting the non-Tory vote.
BNP
Stood in six wards this year, more than ever before. In most places where they stand for the first time, they get between 10% and 20% of the vote, and thereafter the trend is slowly downwards. Ifield is their best ward, where they picked up some votes this year, but not as many as in 2004/5.
English Democrats
Came in last year, stood in two seats, did pretty badly and not a word of them since.
Far Left
No candidates from any of the left-of-Labour parties this year, as was the case last year.
Independents
After last year when several independent candidates stood, only Arshad Khan with his self-styled 'Justice Party' remained. He did actually pick up some votes this time.
Last year I looked at the trends in each ward and for each party, and I thought I'd do the same thing. We have now had a full cycle since the 2004 boundary changes and all-out-elections, so we can compare over the past 4 years and see the overall trends. In each seat this year, the person who was in position before May had been the most popular candidate of those elected in 2004.
Bewbush
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 193/216/275
2006 - Labour, maj 192
2007 - Labour, maj 374
2008 - Labour, maj 281
Again the largest Labour majority in Crawley. The incumbent had stood down due to ill health, and may have had some personal vote, but it does seem that there was a slip in support. The Tory got a similar percentage of the vote to last year, and Arshad Khan managed over 100 votes. The main difference to previous years was that the Lib Dems put no-one up and the BNP had a candidate. As is usual, the BNP took about 15% of the vote at the first attempt (they tend to slip back in later years).
Broadfield N
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 99/261
2006 - Tory, maj 0
2008 - Labour, maj 150
A popular local incumbent was re-elected here, and the Tories got fewer votes than in 2006. The Lib Dems lost about a third of their vote. Now the only ward with councillors from more than one party.
Broadfield S
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 22/52
2006 - Tory, maj 112
2008 - Tory, maj 165
The incumbent was Marcella Head, elected as a Conservative and who defected to the Lib Dems in 2006 over the Council Housing issue. She apparently endorsed Ian Irvine the Labour candidate this time, but in the end the Tories extended their lead in a two-horse race.
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. No election this year.
Gossops Green
2004 - 2 Tory, maj 33/47
2007 - Tory, maj 150
2008 - Tory, maj 281
The Tory vote was about the same as last year, with Labour down and a BNP candidate in third. The Lib Dems lost half of their vote.
Ifield
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 96/100/191
2006 - Tory, maj 21
2007 - Tory, maj 59
2008 - Tory, maj 236
Last year I had this as marginal. The BNP have stood here several times and for the first time increased their vote, getting back some of the losses since 2004. The Tory vote went up by 100, and Labour lost about 80. The Lib Dems vote pretty much held. Where we had two independents last year, none stood this time.
Langley Green
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 268/303/352
2006 - Labour, maj 406
2007 - Labour, maj 148
2008 - Labour, maj 232
Safe Labour seat, although one of the councillors is always convinced that it is dead close. The Labour and Tory votes both went up, with the Lib Dems losing half of theirs (the normal candidate stood in Maidenbower instead, perhaps there's some personal vote there).
Maidenbower
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 682/744/779
2006 - Tory, maj 1132
2007 - Tory, maj 1215
2008 - Tory, maj 1386
Safe Tory seat. The Tory vote leapt up in 2006, and has been creeping higher since then. The Lib Dems and Labour tied for second place (and last place).
Northgate
2004 - 2 LibDem, maj 292/334
2006 - LibDem, maj 276
2007 - LibDem, maj 250
Liberal Democrat haven. No election this year.
Pound Hill N
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 778/795/831
2006 - Tory, maj 1280
2007 - Tory, maj 1001
2008 - Tory, maj 1082
Safe Tory. The Lib Dems overtook Labour to come second (the only ward in 2008 where the Lib Dem vote was more than the Labour total), and the only reason that I can see for the slip in the Tory majority is lower turnout, which is natural such a safe seat.
Pound Hill S and Worth
2004 - 3 Tory, maj 707/760/828
2006 - Tory, maj 1210
2007 - Tory, maj 1072
2008 - Tory, maj 1189
Safe Tory. The Lib Dems were in second in 2006, but Labour overtook them last year and maintained second place. The BNP stood here for the first time and came last - the only place where the Lib Dems beat them.
Southgate
2004 - 3 Labour, maj 3/50/51
2006 - Tory, maj 198
2007 - Tory, maj 179
2007 - Tory, maj 254
Marginal but getting safer for the Tories. The Tories won this seat in 2003 by 3 votes, probably helped by the Greens standing. The BNP and Greens used to stand here but didn't this time. The Labour vote went up, but the Tory vote went up faster. The Lib Dems gained votes (probably from ex-Green voters).
Three Bridges
2004 - 1 Labour , 1 Tory
2007 - Tory, maj 356
2008 - Tory, maj 297
The Tory vote did fall slightly, and the Labour vote went up slightly, but from being a knife-edge seat is firmly Tory for now. Last year there was an English Democrat and a Green, but they were absent this time. The Lib Dems did pick up votes (from the Greens again?)
Tilgate
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 84/87
2007 - Tory, maj 355
2008 - Tory, maj 97
Like Three Bridges, a major gain for the Tories last year. However, unlike Three Bridges, Labour came much closer to holding a seat as the Tories dropped 180 votes. The BNP beat the Lib Dems to third, both gaining a few votes.
West Green
2004 - 2 Labour, maj 147/274
2006 - Labour, maj 117
2008 - Labour, maj 180
Usually safe Labour. The winner this year was Bert Crane, who must be in contention for the longest serving councillor in the country (over 50 years). The Tory vote did go up slightly, the BNP shed votes and unlike previous years, no others stood.
Tories
Overall, a fairly stable set of results. Where they have made gains in recent years these have been consolidated (except for Broadfield North which was unusual). The only bad spot was Tilgate, which was won with a very large swing in 2007 and was much closer this time around. Now have a majority of 15 on the Council.
Labour
Another bad year. Some glimmers of hope where the vote went up (despite the national trend), but could not hold on to the remaining seats in Tilgate, Southgate or Ifield.
Lib Dems
Overall, the trend is down again. Back down to two seats after Marcella Head (who was elected as a Tory) stood down and no replacement candidate was put up in Broadfield South. In some wards shed a third of even a half of their vote, and did well in few wards where they couldn't pick up Green votes.
Greens
First making an impact in 2003 (after a Labour Councillor defected in protest at the Iraq war), they tried to expand with several candidates across the town in later years. This time no Green candidates stood at all, apparently to avoid splitting the non-Tory vote.
BNP
Stood in six wards this year, more than ever before. In most places where they stand for the first time, they get between 10% and 20% of the vote, and thereafter the trend is slowly downwards. Ifield is their best ward, where they picked up some votes this year, but not as many as in 2004/5.
English Democrats
Came in last year, stood in two seats, did pretty badly and not a word of them since.
Far Left
No candidates from any of the left-of-Labour parties this year, as was the case last year.
Independents
After last year when several independent candidates stood, only Arshad Khan with his self-styled 'Justice Party' remained. He did actually pick up some votes this time.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Interesting Answer
Nearly a year ago I signed up to They Work For You's service which sends you an email every time your MP speaks in the House of Commons. It's really quite useful if you want to keep an eye on what an MP is saying.
Yesterday, Laura Moffatt asked the following question in the 'Business of the House' debate:
Well, clearly the MP shares suspicions that the Crawley Tories are planning to close Play Centres in Crawley (Northgate and Southgate have been suggested as targets), and are hoping to save money by doing so.
The answer, from Harriet Harman, was more interesting than the question though:
So, if there's more money available, why would Crawley Borough Council wish to reduce provision in the town? What is the idea?
Yesterday, Laura Moffatt asked the following question in the 'Business of the House' debate:
The issue of children has rightly come up already in business questions. Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider a debate on the importance of play? The excellent children's plan published earlier this month demonstrates that organised play for children is a key part of their development. I want this debate to put off local authorities that are short-sightedly thinking of closing play centres on financial grounds alone. I want the issues properly explored to stop them doing so.
Well, clearly the MP shares suspicions that the Crawley Tories are planning to close Play Centres in Crawley (Northgate and Southgate have been suggested as targets), and are hoping to save money by doing so.
The answer, from Harriet Harman, was more interesting than the question though:
No local authority should cut play services. The Government have put an extra £250 million into children's play services and I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion of children's services in Crawley. If the Conservative council in Crawley is cutting children's play services, it should not do so, and I suggest that my hon. Friend applies for an Adjournment debate.
So, if there's more money available, why would Crawley Borough Council wish to reduce provision in the town? What is the idea?
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Local Tories at Play
The local Tories, having gained control of the Borough Council, have certainly been revealing their true colours.
First they tried to sell tenants a bunch of lies (or were they just ridiculously awful calculations that no-one bothered to check?), but thanks to the tenants, local opposition, the Government of the South East, the Audit Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority they failed. Still, the people of Crawley in their wisdom returned even more Tory councillors last May.
Now they are going for the Play Service. Last year proposals came out to 'rationalise' the play areas, which appear to have been put into abeyance for a while. Maidenbower will get a new play area though (which is fine, no problem at all, although the developers should have put it in years ago, not the taxpayers).
Instead of shutting down play areas, looks like the Tories are instead going to close down Play Centres. These are the places that stay open after schools close so that children can play in a secure environment before parents pick them up. They are incredibly popular during school holidays, because parents can't all get time off in six week blocks.
The two centres that I know of being under the knife are Northgate and Southgate. Southgate has in the last two years voted for a Conservative councillor. In order, presumably, to avoid the risk that people around here see what the Tories are up to and vote accordingly, the decision has been postponed until June.
Typically, the Tories will tell you all about the 2% increase in Council Tax, but won't tell you which services will be cut as a result. The truth is that they will be hitting the children, and given that delinquency is linked to a lack of provision for kids, adding to the problems of youths hanging around with 'nothing to do' until they get into trouble. It's not just hugging hoodies, it's increasing the problems for and associated with youth.
Vote Tory - have more kids hanging on the street corners!
First they tried to sell tenants a bunch of lies (or were they just ridiculously awful calculations that no-one bothered to check?), but thanks to the tenants, local opposition, the Government of the South East, the Audit Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority they failed. Still, the people of Crawley in their wisdom returned even more Tory councillors last May.
Now they are going for the Play Service. Last year proposals came out to 'rationalise' the play areas, which appear to have been put into abeyance for a while. Maidenbower will get a new play area though (which is fine, no problem at all, although the developers should have put it in years ago, not the taxpayers).
Instead of shutting down play areas, looks like the Tories are instead going to close down Play Centres. These are the places that stay open after schools close so that children can play in a secure environment before parents pick them up. They are incredibly popular during school holidays, because parents can't all get time off in six week blocks.
The two centres that I know of being under the knife are Northgate and Southgate. Southgate has in the last two years voted for a Conservative councillor. In order, presumably, to avoid the risk that people around here see what the Tories are up to and vote accordingly, the decision has been postponed until June.
Typically, the Tories will tell you all about the 2% increase in Council Tax, but won't tell you which services will be cut as a result. The truth is that they will be hitting the children, and given that delinquency is linked to a lack of provision for kids, adding to the problems of youths hanging around with 'nothing to do' until they get into trouble. It's not just hugging hoodies, it's increasing the problems for and associated with youth.
Vote Tory - have more kids hanging on the street corners!
Monday, January 07, 2008
Cheers mate!
Skuds has dedicated a recent post to me, all about a subject which has already appeared on RMF a couple of times - the odd relationship between the media and the sex industry.
Not only is the Crawley News still advertising adult services (albeit with a 'disclaimer', which I like to think was a result of this humble blog's attention) near the back pages while reporting the case of a woman trafficked into the country and forced to have sex in a local brothel, but there was an outcry when the South Wales Echo did the same thing late last year.
As a result of a meeting with the government in November, it would seem that the Newspaper Society will be revisiting their guidelines on acceptable advertising. It would be good to know what those guidelines are, but they are available to NS members only. I can't even find how much it would cost to get the 'PERA' membership required to look at the 'Ad Points' section of the website, so I suspect it's not something I'll be buying. If a friendly journo / advertising editor happens by and can let me know what these guideline are?
Only I'm pretty sure that they already suggest that adverts for massage or escort services clearly suggest that 'extras' are also on offer, or if the publication could reasonable expect that to be the case. I'm not sure if the ads in the back of the News cross the line, but they are pretty close.
Not only is the Crawley News still advertising adult services (albeit with a 'disclaimer', which I like to think was a result of this humble blog's attention) near the back pages while reporting the case of a woman trafficked into the country and forced to have sex in a local brothel, but there was an outcry when the South Wales Echo did the same thing late last year.
As a result of a meeting with the government in November, it would seem that the Newspaper Society will be revisiting their guidelines on acceptable advertising. It would be good to know what those guidelines are, but they are available to NS members only. I can't even find how much it would cost to get the 'PERA' membership required to look at the 'Ad Points' section of the website, so I suspect it's not something I'll be buying. If a friendly journo / advertising editor happens by and can let me know what these guideline are?
Only I'm pretty sure that they already suggest that adverts for massage or escort services clearly suggest that 'extras' are also on offer, or if the publication could reasonable expect that to be the case. I'm not sure if the ads in the back of the News cross the line, but they are pretty close.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Is this value for money?
The Crawley News reports that the Tory leader of Crawley Borough Council went on a 3 day training course in South Africa, partly funded out of the Council budget.
Obviously, Lanzer will justify the cost of the trip, as he learnt a lot and was fired up on his return. The CBC payment only amounted to about £675, which is not a huge amount. The rest was from grants, which may or may not be funded by the national taxpayer.
The course involved looking at 'law and order' issues. The thing about this is that the Borough Council doesn't have a great deal of responsiblity for these. The Police Authority is a seperate body, with delegates from local authorities, but from West Sussex, not Crawley. So Bob Lanzer isn't on it. He might be on Police Liaison, but that's not really a 'leadership' position.
Of course, councillors do need to be trained up, and they should be exposed to external practices, otherwise they risk being too ingrained in parochialism. However, it appears that there will be some raised eyebrows at this particular item. Especially as the News has put it on their front page this week.
Obviously, Lanzer will justify the cost of the trip, as he learnt a lot and was fired up on his return. The CBC payment only amounted to about £675, which is not a huge amount. The rest was from grants, which may or may not be funded by the national taxpayer.
The course involved looking at 'law and order' issues. The thing about this is that the Borough Council doesn't have a great deal of responsiblity for these. The Police Authority is a seperate body, with delegates from local authorities, but from West Sussex, not Crawley. So Bob Lanzer isn't on it. He might be on Police Liaison, but that's not really a 'leadership' position.
Of course, councillors do need to be trained up, and they should be exposed to external practices, otherwise they risk being too ingrained in parochialism. However, it appears that there will be some raised eyebrows at this particular item. Especially as the News has put it on their front page this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
