The interesting part of this article I have copied below:
"The six London councils where the party with the largest
share of the vote did not win were Haringey, Kingston, Islington,
Camden, Brent and Hounslow."
I gather that Hounslow is now Tory run - which I find amazing!
It appears the elections really were a get out of jail for the Lib Dems in Kingston. Still with a one seat majority I am yet to be convinced that proportional representation would be the way forward. Seems to me that the move, in 2002, to all 3 seat wards was a retrograde step that helps to distort this affect.
Still, as ever, I am willing to to keep an open mind and listen to the case for PR.
12 comments:
I've always had three deep concerns regarding PR. First, there is too much of an implication that when someone is elected through gaining, for example, 10 per cent of the vote, that that person is only there to represent that 10%. The remaining 90% can go jump.
Second, the idea that PR makes every vote count is, in my opinion, rather simplistic. Should parties run on joint platforms at election time then fine, but they don't - meaning that when they form the inevitable coalitions there is so much compromise that NO ONE ends up getting what they voted for.
Lastly, and what is one of the most oft repeated arguments, is that PR gives unprecedented power to small parties. In specific regard to the local elections I think (and I admit I haven't made all the calculations to know for sure) that PR would allow parties such as the BNP to have a firmer hold of political positions - without doubt this would be distasteful to the vast majority of people in this country. Is PR worth that?
That said, the Conservatives should be running the Council - the Lib Dems just got very very lucky indeed.
The Tories WOULD have been running the Council in Kingston had they not spent the last few years attacking each other. I fear their substantial climb back to power will evade them for years to come because they seem unwilling to heal the wounds that keep ever-festering.
When and if the Tories have the courage to do so, we may see a force to be reckoned with - one that doesn't just follow the national backlash against Labour but one that stands proudly on its own achievements having once again gained the respect of local people.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the LD's will have no hesitation in making the most of this continued division within the Tories in Kingston should there be a by-election in the meantime - or if the Tories still haven't sorted out their differences in 3 years time. I bet Kevin never thought it would have an effect on him in Berrylands - a warning for the future.
What divisions? It was the best Conservative campaign for a very long time.
As for your explanation of the loss in Berrylands I am afraid all that you do is prove how out of touch with Kingston politics you are. Berrylands was never a safe Tory ward because Berrylands may have the name but the area changed significantly in 2002 when the boundaries changed. In addition, the planting of Davey's office in the middle of the Alpha Road Estate inevitably had an effect - as it did in St. Mark's when he was there.
As for the Consrevatives fighting Conservatives; well there has not been much of that for some time. In any case the small band of fellows of which you speak lost their court case after the will of the overwhelming majority of the association decided to act. That is called democracy, as is losing in Berrylands.
Well if we're talking divisions the Lib Dems are hardly innocent of that charge! The amount of arguing and bitterness that has gone on there is astonishing - the difference is that the Lib Dems are much harsher than the Conservatives in applying the whip and making it sting.
Just as at National Level where the Lib Dems are imploding, at local level they are just as bad but have a far less investigative media to contend with.
"Berrylands was never a safe Tory ward..."? I think you delude yourself sir.
Berrylands has never been anything but Tory and the only reason Kevin was voted out was because of the disquiet amongst voters about his local party spending £0000's on legal fees against its own members. And your excuse that it was the "Davey" effect that was also to blame doesn't hold tight - Davey clearly had no effect in Berrylands in 2002 having already moved his offices there - and the Tories certainly didn't gain anything in 2002 or this year from Davey moving out of St. Mark's.
Davey did not move his office until after the local elections. The planning application for the change of use did not go through until 2003.
Still doesn't explain Kevin why the Tories weren't able to regain St. Mark's once Davey moved his offices from there. Surely with the town centre deteriorating, one Councillor doing not much as Mayor and another too busy getting pregnant, the Tories should have at least substantially reduced the Lib-DEm majority? Seems to me, the Tories in Surbiton were too busy attacking each other rather than presenting a united front to the voters.
There no Tries attacking Tories in Surbiton.
St. Mark's had the third largest swing in the Borough to the Conservatives - 14.2%. That is a very large swing. Only Old Malden (16.5%) and Chessington North (23%) had bigger swings.
We will win Chessington North and take the third seat in Old Malden next time. St. Mark's we shall see about. The candidates we had are staying to fight on and we shall therefore see where things go.
I hope you're right Kevin with your optimistic goals - St. Mark's had the biggest swing ever I think to the Tories in 1998 and look what you did with that achievement. I would though reserve judgment on your recent candidates in St. Mark's - you have over 3 years to do better but please can we hear from them every few months rather than just at election times, albeit you have a much reduced organisation than you once enjoyed? What do these people do the rest of the year?
Don't think that is right on the swing in 1998 in St. mark's - but really cannot recall off hand. My recollection is we won by a hundred odd. To be frank the loss of St. Mark's was as much to do with the sitting Councillors as it was to do with anything else. Local elections do throw up odd results!
I agree, at least the LibDems bother to keep in touch throughout the year even in wards they do not control, whereas the nearest the Tories get to it is simply calling their newsletter "In Touch" - and then don't do so until they want my vote.
I am afarid that is plain rubbish and a myth. I hear this rubbish so many times, even from people whose houses I personally put a leaflet through a few days before we canvass.
The Lib Dems did hardly anything in Alexandra prior to the election, and even then they did very little. The same is true in Old Malden except they were very active during the election. Ian McDonald (surprisingly for him) dissapeared for a couple of years of the last council.
The Lib Dems lost in Canbury because they were not good at keeping In Touch and the same could be said of Coombe Vale.
I am not sure we have ever seen a Lib Dem leaflet in Coombe Hill, except during elections, and in Berrylands the only activity we had seen was at the last general election and work on the Alpha Road estate and Surbiton Hill Park.
The only ward where their are regular Lib Dem leaflets delivered are Tolworth & Hook Rise and St. Mark's.
Even the Chairman of the Standard's Board complained about Derek Osbourne in beverley because he never returned his calls, even when he got to speak to him.
Post a Comment