Sean Fear’s Friday slot
November 24th, 2006-
Can the Liberal Democrats Pull Off a Triple Triumph in North London?
The Liberal Democrats have seen their support growing steadily, across Brent, Camden, Haringey and (until recently) Islington. Currently, they hold two seats in these boroughs, Hornsey & Wood Green, and Brent East, which is due to be abolished.
The Liberal Democrats will be aiming to take win Islington South, together with the new seats of Brent Central and Hampstead & Kilburn, in each case, from Labour.
Notwithstanding that Sarah Teather will be fighting Brent Central, I consider that that seat is out of reach. Labour achieved one of their best results in London, in the wards which make up this seat, in May, winning 40% of the vote, compared to 29% for the Liberal Democrats. Sarah Teather is a formidable campaigner, but I can’t see her winning a safe Labour seat, which has one of London’s highest proportion of black voters, a constituency which is very loyal to Labour.
Islington South, on the face of it, looks much better for the Liberal Democrats. This had a Labour majority of just 484 at the last general election. However, unusually, this seat actually showed a swing to Labour in May, who took 32% to 33% for the Liberal Democrats. Both the Conservatives and the Greens polled quite well in this seat, with 15% and 14% respectively. The result may come down to which of the two main parties here can persuade Conservative and Green voters to vote tactically.
Hampstead & Kilburn will probably be the most interesting contest, a genuine three- way marginal, particularly now that Glenda Jackson has said she will be stepping down. The Liberal Democrats led in this seat in May, taking 36% of the vote, compared to 29% for the Conservatives, and 21% for Labour. However, historically, wards where the Liberal Democrats have done well locally, such as Fortune Green, and West Hampstead, have voted Labour at Parliamentary level.
The fact that Sarah Teather will not be standing in this seat may also lead to the wards that come in from Brent East reverting to their old allegiances – to Labour in the case of Kilburn and Queens Park, and to the Conservatives in the case of Brondesbury Park.
Last night saw no change in the four seats that were contested.
Huntingdonshire DC - St Neots and Eaton Ford: Conservative 658, Lib Dem 577. Conservative hold. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat vote shares hardly altered.
Surrey CC - Englefield Green: Conservative 664, Lib Dem 317, UKIP 281, Labour 150, Monster Raving Loony Party 34. Conservative hold. Although there was no real shift between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, UKIP saw their vote share rise strongly.
Torridge DC - Northam: Conservative 556, Green 414. Conservative hold. In fact, the Conservatives didn’t fight this seat in 2003, when it was won by the Community Alliance. However, the retiring councillor switched from the Community Alliance to the Conservatives.
Walsall Borough - Aldridge North and Walsall Wood: Conservative 1157, UKIP 309, Labour 222, BNP 160, Lib Dem 132. Conservative hold. Unlike most recent contests, the BNP performed very badly here, dropping from second to fourth, while UKIP performed well, getting into second place.
Sean Fear is a London Tory activist
MessageSpace Advertising
It would be interesting to know what lay behind the BNP failure in Walsall. Would it simply be that disaffected voters preferred UKIP as a way of delivering their protest?
Sean, I live in Islington South, as a leftie journalist and it’s actually illegal for me to live anywhere else, and I wonder about the Lid Dems’ chances here. When they had a huge majority on the council, they let a private company take over the traffic wardens and it proceeded to squeeze every last penny out of innocent and guilty motorists alike. People round here are still furious about what they did. I know we should care more about Iraq, STV and wither the EU. But alas for the Lib Dems, we’re not as high-minded as we like to pretend.
“Hampstead & Kilburn will probably be the most interesting contest, a genuine three- way marginal, particularly now that Glenda Jackson has said she will be stepping down.”
When did she say it? Is it official?
I think you are wrong about Brent Central. My understnding is that Lib Dem private polling shows it to be winnable and I wouldn’t expect the ambitious Sarah Teather to take this step without knowing she has a decent chance of winning.
Islington is more interesting and probably innacurate to say there was a swing back to Labour in May. There was a swing away from Lib Dems to Greens and Tories - possibly due to size of the previous Lib Dem adminstration’s majority giving the impression they were safe. If you look at the ward by ward results the Labour vote hardly moves from 2002 - now the Council is marginal again I’d expect the squeeze to be on again and the anti-Labour forces to coalesce around the Lib Dems.
Having said all that the first defence is nearly always easier than taking over from a long term incumbent and Emily Thornberry may be able to increase her majority against the trend. But 10,000 Labour majorities in either Islington seat are clearly a thing of the past.
Afternoon all :). Hard to read much into this week’s contests with only 16.2% turnout in Englefield Green. On the one hand, you could say that in a safe Tory seat there was no incentive for Conservatives to go out and vote.
On the other hand, the low number of Tory voters doesn’t suggest real enthausiasm for the party while the strong UKIP vote shows a potential protest vote to be exploited. Indeed, while the Tories hedl all four seats, it looks to me to be a good week for UKIP.
1 I think there’s something in that.
2 I think you’re right. I think you were probably the only journalist who predicted the Lib Dems would lose control of Islington.
6: Doesnt that actually make hime wrong in his prediction?
Whilst good in % terms I think the UKIP performance is overstated by them being able to get out their vote in very low turnout elections . The BNP performance in Walsall was surprisingly poor . Next week’s bumper crop of elections should tell us more hopefully turnout will not be quite so low .
If sheer hard work counts for anything (well, for 2k or so votes), Emiliy T should get credit in islington South. I’d also argue that it’s the sort of seat that could see both a Cameron based tory upsurge (lots of nice, socially liberal wealthy types) and a “back to Labour” movement if people think cameron really could win. The letter points are purely speculative though.
I’m confused as to why Teather would go for what seems the harder seat in Brent/Hampstead. She’ll also be up against Dawn Butler, who is no mean campaigner- young, energetic and smart.
Actually both of labour’s MPs in those seats are known as local campaigners. Be interesting to see if they stand up to LD targetting better than others have.
4.”Islington is more interesting and probably innacurate to say there was a swing back to Labour in May. There was a swing away from Lib Dems to Greens and Tories - possibly due to size of the previous Lib Dem adminstration’s majority giving the impression they were safe. If you look at the ward by ward results the Labour vote hardly moves from 2002″
I don’t think your post is 100% accurate. Labour total vote has risen in almost all Islington South wards. Then it’s true that the tories and the Greens have made substantial gains too.
Barnsbury
2006: 1072/986/973 2002: 600/600/561
Bunhill
2006: 644/643/563 2002: 430/337/355
Caledonian
2006: 1025/1022/937 2002: 897/876/822
Canonbury
2006: 740/682/632 2002: 514/497/481
Clerkenwell
2006: 753/662/647 2002: 409/367/334
Holloway
2006: 934/921/911 2002: 632/630/585
St Mary’s
2006: 836*/758/718 2002: 724/697/682
St Peter’s
2006: 849/823/817 2002: 549/456/435
* former LD IIRC
Overall Labour % has gone up from around 27% to 32%.
Another thing is that Labour didn’t have any councillor in Islington South in the run up of 2005 GE, next time they’ll have a decent council base
7 Actually, not. The Lib Dems lost overall control, but they do have the Mayor’s casting vote.
Nice to see Nick Cohen here again - hope he’ll post more often. Dan, I hate to be sceptical, but are you really saying the LibDems have conducted a constituency opinion poll in Brent? They must be absolutely rolling in money if they can afford that sort of thing 3-4 years out from an election. I bet it’s just some canvass returns.
Half the Englefield Green County Division is the Englefield East ward of Runnymede Borough Council - which has over 50% student voters - many of whom have moved since registration and new students would not be on the roll. Hence the abysmal 16% poll yesterday.
This week’s results confirm November as Labour’s worst month since May, with their average vote share down around 4.5%, compared to average rises of around 4% for the Tories and 3% for the Lib Dems.
12. No doubt as accurate as voodoo poll we got in Moray.
& 12. As a general rule, anyway, treat all single constituency opinion polls with the utmost scepticism. Robert Waller has posted here many times on how difficult it is for a pollster to get a proper sample.
We all remember, too, the NOP poll that said that Labour were going to regain easily the Gwent seat in the by-election in June. I won a little bit of money on that one.
PS - that is Sarah Teather’s hand holding up the poster in the picture strip.
4: I suspect that there would have been private polling along those lines: but, even so, I don’t see Teather doing well enough to win. There are pockets of LD support, but Labour still maintained a lead, IIRC, in Brent Central wards in May, and the LDs would find it hard territory to break down. Furthermore, the more resources they devote to trying to gain Teather converts in Harlesden and Stonebridge, the fewer they have to use in Hampstead and Kilburn.
Whilst we’re talking about the North London area, do you think the Libdems can add another target in the area (maybe Holborn and St Pancrass where they get a good result last time) or should they just concentrate on those 3 seats without risking to spread their resources too much?
In these out of season by-election you get a higher proportion of people with an axe to grind coming out. Most balanced people stay at home in the warm.
Hence the UKIP vote looks like it goes up.
19 There was a big swing to the Lib Dems in Holborn & St. Pancras (old boundaries) in 2005, but the Labour vote held up quite well in May - they led the Lib Dems by 35% to 24%. The Tories also did well, gaining five seats in the constituency. I think Labour are probably fairly safe here for one more election, at least.
21. I was thinking about the decent Con (and Green) vote to squeeze.
What about Islington North? Do the Libdems have any intention to target Corbyn too? (actually I suppose they can’t target anyone! In that part of London they’ve many targets+ “outside” chances” but it would be risky to go after all of them)
Re Nick Cohen (2)
Surely the Islington Lib Dems have seen some sense about the parking problem and it will be less of an issue by the next general election.
I notice Nick Ciohen cant spell his own name, is looking for a tansfer to The Observer’s sister paper? I quite like his column but he is beastly about the Lib Dems sometimes.
Damn, sorry, I’m meant to be working but am reading the blogs as a distraction. Next I’ll start rearranging the pens and dusting the book cases.
It will be interesting to see how easy it will be to squeeze the Tory vote anywhere next time if their national share is on the up and up. If it is squeezed it will surely be by the LDs not Labour. I wonder whether there isn’t scope for a very limited LD/Green deal next time. LDs stand down in one or two seats where local council results suggest that the Greens might be competitive in such circumstances in return for the Greens not putting up candidates in LD held seats/LD marginals. Last time the Greens cost the LDs at least one or two seats; Guildford springs to mind; but the Greens had no chance of capturing the seats themselves.
The Lib Dems are going to be pretty busy defending what they have in London. In Sutton & Cheam and Carshalton & Wallington they are under severe pressure and I can imagine that both sitting MPs will be trying to pull in whatever resource they can to defend their seats.
The Lib Dem Council arent helping them either. They are in desperate straights and about to embark on a fire sale of any Borough assets they can sell; they are going to build on some meadows in the south of the Borough; and look likely to put through a big Council Tax increase again next year.
The Lib Dem group is also riven with factions and splits. Some of their Cllrs are now actively briefing our Cllrs against individuals on their own side! A recent LD group meeting led to so much shouting and name calling in their meeting room that the microphones had to be switched off to prevent outiders hearing what was going on.
They still dont seem to know what has hit them after their set back in the local elections this May!
Andrea at 10 - thanks - I hadn’t realised quite how much the Labour vote had increased (numerically at least).
My overall point still stands though that in 2006 the Tories and Greens increased their share at the expense of the Lib Dems and let Labour in.
Take Barnsbury ward:
In 2002 the non-Labour vote was roughly 1,450 (Lib Dems 1,050, Green 220, Tory 180) in 2006 it rose to 1,600. Labour added around 350 votes over the same period from roughly 600 to 950. If the anti Labour majority had backed the Lib Dems again Labour would have lost, but because they experimented with the Greens and Tories Labour sneaked through (Lib Dem 800, Green 400, Tory 400).
This trend was apparent across the Borough.
12 & 16 Obviously the Lib Dems can’t afford to be doing constituency polls, and even if they did they wouldn’t be any use.
Obviously they couldn’t afford to do one at the start of the Bromley by-election campaign, and even if they had been able to it wouldn’t have told them that the ‘3 Jobs Bob’ line and the fact that Bob lived in Tower Hamlets would swing the most Tory votes.
19. Alternatively, Sean, you could say: Labour collapsed, losing 8 seats to LDs, 5 to Cons and 2 to Greens. Despite Cons gains, the Tory share of the vote was barely changed on 2002.
It all depends which facts you choose to select.
26 Rik - I think you mean ‘desperate straits’.
Which is presumably what you were in after getting over-excited last time round?
27. Dan, I suppose the fact that you were in power at council level can (at least partly) explain it. Last time there could have been some sort of tactical vote to oust Labour. Now you’re in power and it’s easier to upset people and the tactical unwind starts.
Alexander Litvinenko’s murder demonstrates 3 things
1) Assassins benefit from UK’s open borders
2) UK Political Asylum is a meaningless concept/loophole see item 1)
3) Dont get sick in the UK
re my 29. Sorry, I was commenting on Sean at 21, not 19.
27. Ah, Barnsbury…I see it was Bridget Fox’s ward. According to the local paper, she was in tears during the count. Mouna Hamitouche (one of the newly elected Lab councillor) told the local paper that they didn’t expect to win.
32. No one had heard of this guy before the attack. It is obviously a warning - otherwise he would have been in an “accident”
23
Being beastly about the LibDems is a symptom of ex-leftiness; bit like Peter Hain y’know.
Police have launched a new investigation into Labour sleaze after a whistleblower revealed the party is creaming off at least £2m a year of taxpayers’ money directly into party coffers.
Documents obtained by the Daily Mail show that, in October, Labour bosses sent a memo to every council group in England ordering them to “establish a levy on councillors for group funds, preferably collected through the council’s payroll deduction scheme”. All councillors were then ordered to sign an authorisation slip to deduct the money from their allowances at source.
Labour officials in Westminster are demanding that councillors hand over 10 per cent of their allowances and those in Gateshead are demanding six per cent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=418259&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
Does our resident Labour MP have any comments? Do you think the whole of the NUC and every Labour Councillor in the country should “wait until they are cleared” before resigning?
32 Thanks for pointing that out, Toby.
Are you doing so as a private individual or do you represent some organisation which assists people too feeble-minded to draw such inferences for themselves?
37. I can’t see where the problem is. I think in other countries there’re parties that require their councillor and MPs to give part of their allowances to the party.
If they would spend that 10% to buy some porno instead of giving it to the party, would the Daily Mail be happier?
Two more Lib Dems are off to jail:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6178224.stm
Does our resident Labour MP have any comments? Do you think the whole of the NUC and every Labour Councillor in the country should “wait until they are cleared” before resigning?
by Mystic Moon November 24th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
I apologise, make that the NEC!
37 I can’t see anything particularly sinister about that.
In light of Marcus’s posts yesterday about MP’s perks this is quite a nice insight into the difficult life of an EU Commissioner:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6166750.stm
Your heart almost goes out to poor old Mandy and the problems he must have affording his £2.4m house!
I can only think Sarah Teather must know more than most. She is too ambitious to be a sacrificial lamb I think.
19. Why no one mention Islington North. Similar majority to Islington South IIRC.
26. They will ship seats to you pretty inevitably I think. All the more reason then wouldn’t you agree for them to shift resources to more eminently winnable contests V Labour.
25. Should be pretty easy as with Labour in 1997-2001 V the Tories. The longer a main party is out the easier it becomes to persuade their supporters in hope less seats to vote tactically to hurt their main opponents. Besides the Tories will be heavily targeting resources given the unabalance and will in no position to devote much tim, effort and most importantly money to seats where they are not in contention.
44. Islington North is a 21% majority, whilst Islington South a 1.6%. Not quite similar, I would say!
43. Is BBC still banned from saying Mandelson is gay? I see they describe him as “single man”.
37. I can’t see where the problem is. I think in other countries there’re parties that require their councillor and MPs to give part of their allowances to the party.
If they would spend that 10% to buy some porno instead of giving it to the party, would the Daily Mail be happier?
by Andrea November 24th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
You can’t see a problem? They are using allowances that are supposed to be for expenses and without telling the people they are using in for political puposes. This is MY money and YOUR money, not theirs, the little theiving slimy creatures that they are. Council Tax has doubled under Labour and they are pilfering it for their own political advantage. This is a disgrace. Where are any decent standards?
Think Sean you underplay the Conservative win at Aldridge. Big increase in their % share and contrary to other recent contests where they were defending in Urban areas, holding very well. Suggests there is still a wide gulf between their pretty good perception in Midlands as against the North West and other northern areas.
Rik identifies a very important point. Clearly if the Lib Dems target more seats in North London, Paul Burstow will clearly be deprived of all those activists who took 2 tubes and a train ride down to protect their majority down in Sutton.
For similar reasons, I suspect Julia Goldsworthy is rather worried about defending her seat in Camborne as a result of the Lib Dems decision to target more seats in Edinburgh.
48. Oxonian. You can laugh at Rik as much as you like, but I think he raised a good point. There’re potential targets in South London (like Lewisham West, Streatham- where you had awful local elections)
Oxonian - you clearly dont understand how a party like the Lib Dems with limited resources works!
The Lib Dems are successful where they can target selected areas with everything they have. One of the problems of the Lib Dems in recent years has been that their electoral success has overstretched their organisational resources. They have thus become vulnerable in a good number of seats, particularly in the South, to a resurgent Conservative party.
A sensible strategist would concentrate resource to effectively defend what they have and maybe target one or two extras, especially where Labour is vulnerable.
But hey, do I care if they expend what money and resource they have in North London????? Am I bovvered? lol
42 “I can’t see anything particularly sinister about that.”
If there is nothing sinister about it and there are no secrets, then let all Labour councilliors here and any Labour MPs reading this tell us how much money in their council or their constituency area will be going from the pockets of the council tax payers straight into the pocket of the Labour Party. Because we have a right to know and there is no point in discussing election results and opinion polls if this is a dictatorship where the people are deceived and there own money is taken from them for political purposes without their knowledge. So step forward and tell us.
Andrea, when you say “You can laugh at Rik as much as you like”, I don’t think that’s technically true. There does come a point at which my sides will split and I will be incapable of further hilaroty
I think your point is much better than Rik’s, incidentally, albeit that the impact of ‘travelling activists’ is rather over-estimated. We tend to target seats not on % majority alone - much depends on whether there is the local infrastructure there / capable to be built.
Lewisham, for example, had fantastic local election results. Even Streatham wasn’t that bad (the worst results were in the Vauxhall part of Lambeth).
“Oxonian - you clearly dont understand how a party like the Lib Dems with limited resources works!”
You’d be surprised
Perhaps I should confine my comments to how a party like the Tories works then??
32 Gerald Batten UKIP MEP had been banging on about him and links to Prodi in Brussels all year.
Oxonian and you had appalling results in Sutton!
I dont over-estimate the impact of “travelling activists”. I know many will not travel outside their own patch in any party, but when it comes to central effort and assistance you cannot afford to have too many targets. With your biggest donor in jail, next time this could be even more of an acute problem!
Nick P (re Brent Central) “I bet it’s just some canvass returns. ”
I bet it’s not! Unlike many Labour MPs Lib Dems are notoriously well-prepared to conduct these sort of activities, especially when spending a thousand can help determine whether hundreds of thousands will come each year in a few years’ time. Apart from the odd passing mad expatriate, Lib Dems don’t have the facility for gaining these types of sums from taxing councillors in Sunderland and donations (SORRY I mean ‘loans’) from lurking Lords-a-waiting.
51 Councillors can spend their allowances as they see fit (they aren’t expenses). Of course, one can make a perfectly reasonable argument that councillors shouldn’t be paid so much in allowances.
52. yes, I know you got a very good result in Lewisham. That’s why I think Jim Dowd will have a real fight in his hands next time (Bob Marshall Andrews unlikely to pop up for a visit to help him
Even if Vauxhall was worse (maybe there’s a big concentration of local fox hunters always ready to support Kate Hoey’s Labour Party
), Stretham wasn’t very good either (not that Labour has gone up very much- just a couple of points- but you seem to have lost many votes to greens and co)
But Rik - what makes you think there was any “central effort” in Sutton last time?
And how much “central effort” did you get?
Must dash right now but look forward to your thinking when I return next week …
Rik W @ 40 re vote fraud.
Is there a Betfair market on whether the government closes the loophole, as urged by the Judge?
It would be interesting to know what lay behind the BNP failure in Walsall. Would it simply be that disaffected voters preferred UKIP as a way of delivering their protest?
by peter the punter November 24th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
It appears that the Walsall result is wrong. The BNP beat UKIP. The corrected result can be found at:
http://www.walsall.gov.uk/declaration_form.pdf
61. Who will be most disappointed I wonder - Sean or the Lib Dems?
Re: 50 - I have this picture of Rik deep in a cellar under Tory HQ in front of his laptop which beeps every time a website story involving the LDs appears. Then, with the speed of a gazelle, he reaches out to alert the world - or pb.com
61 one feels a certain nostalgia for the days when one only disbelieved opinion polls. Now it seems even “results” are open to doubt.
24. Try NOT parking illegally. whine whine whine.
50 & 55 - Rik - while respecting your credibility as an expert on how the Lib Dems choose to deploy their limited resources I am delighted that you see the result in Sutton - where, correct me if I’m wrong, they won 32 seats to your 22 - as an example of Toryism triumphant!
Obviously the Lib Dems would be daft to try and make three gains from Labour in close proximity in north London.
Obviously they were equally daft when they targeted five seats in south west London against the Tories in 1997.
And when they targeted three neighbouring councils in south west London earlier this year.
46 Councillor allowances are allowances not expenses. As such they are treated as taxable income. Once they have been paid to a councillor it is their money and completely up to them what they choose to do with it.
This really is a non issue, unlike the sale of peerages, hiding of loans, MIC etc. etc.
51 “Councillors can spend their allowances as they see fit (they aren’t expenses). Of course, one can make a perfectly reasonable argument that councillors shouldn’t be paid so much in allowances.”
Incorrect. Councillors have a duty to ensure that public money “is not used for the activities of a registered political party.” Now I can understand you not knowing this, but from any ethical or moral point of view I fail to see why you choose to defend pilfering public money to fund a political party.
Yes. Those Tories are so desperate. It really isn’t happening for them, is it?
By-Election Results: Thursday 23rd November 2006.
Bolingbroke PC
Ind 69 (43.1), Ind 67 (41.9), Ind 24 (15.0).
Majority 2. Turnout 37%. Ind hold x 2.
Huntingdonshire DC, St Neots Eaton Ford
Con 658 (53.3; +0.9), LD Derek Cooper 577 (46.7; +6.5), [Lab (0.0; -7.4)].
Majority 81. Turnout 23.4%. Con hold. Last fought 2004.
St Neots TC, St Neots Eaton Ford
Con 567 (54.8), LD Gordon Thorpe 467 (45.2).
Majority 100. Turnout 26.2%. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Surrey CC, Englefield Green
Con 664 (45.9; -3.1), LD Ian Heath 317 (21.9; -1.5), UKIP 281 (19.4; +13.8), Lab 150 (10.4; -9.2), Monster Raving Loony Party 34 (2.4; 0.0).
Majority 347. Turnout 16.2%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.
Torridge DC, Northam
Con 556 (57.3; +57.3), Green 414 (42.7; +42.7), [Lab (0.0; -16.9)], [Ind (0.0; -33.6)], [Community Alliance (0.0; -49.4)].
Majority 142. Turnout 21.6%. Con gain from Community Alliance. Last fought 2003.
Walsall MBC, Aldridge North and Walsall Wood
Con 1157 (58.4; +12.4), UKIP 309 (15.6; +5.1), BNP 222 (11.2; -3.9), Lab 160 (8.1; -10.7), LD Mark Robert Greveson 132 (6.7; -3.0).
Majority 848. Turnout 17%. Con hold. Last fought 2006.
Please note:
The figures for percentage change are based on the details of the results from the last time that there was an election in the ward by statute in the May (or sometimes June) elections, rather than by any by-election. We use the figures in The Local Elections Handbook by Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher.
The Party-defending seat is the party that the former Councillor (who has died, resigned or been disqualified) belonged to when she or he was elected not the one that she or he may have subsequently belonged to as a result of any defection.
67 We are talking about money, paid by direct debit from the council before it is taxed or before the Councillor gets it.
This certainly is not a “no-issue.” This is widespread corruption.
66 - Park Town Boy - I do see the Sutton result as an example of Toryism triumphant!
2002 result - Lib Dem 43; Cons 8; Lab 3
2006 result - Lib Dem 32(-11); Cons 22 (+14); Lab 0(-3)
Not a bad result in anyones book for the Tories!
When you consider that in Sutton and Cheam we won 14 seats to the Lib Dem’s 13, I am even happier (I would not of course mention that in S&C I was the agent for our candidates).
68 That’s just the point at which the Mail is wrong though isn’t it. It isn’t public money! Once an allowance has been paid to a Councillor it is taxed and is exactly the same as any other income. It is paid to compensate for part of the time provided as a public service, but it really is a salary, albeit a (rightly) meagre one. If I receive my Councillors allowance, and then pay £10 per month from my own bank account to my political party, am I spending tax payers money?
You have totally the wrong end of the stick on this, and the Mail is just wrong. Again.
37: Mystic Moon: before you go further into faux outrage mode, read the exchange with Marcus yesterday, which started with a criticism of the LibDems for a similar scheme. In fact, I think all parties ask their elected representatives to contribute to the parties that helped get them there, from their salaries. I think there’s some deliberate confusion being sown by use of the word ‘allowance’, which sounds as though it’s an expense account. It’s not - it is the pay that councillors get for giving up their time to local service, and parties take the view that in return for the help in getting elected they can reasonably be asked to chip in.
In the same way, I contribute 2% of my pay to the Labour Party. If you object to this, what other restrictions would you like to place on how I spend my salary?
61 Noted with thanks, Cromerty.
70 If it comes out before it is taxed that is illegal and HM Revenue and Customs would be interested. I doubt it is somehow. I think it much more likely it is a regular amount that is deducted at source from all Labour members. No Labour member is required to subscribe, but they are ‘recommended to’ and they have to sign an agreement to have the amount taken FROM ALLOWANCES THAT THEY WERE ALREADY DUE in order to allow Council officials to remove it from their BACS payment.
This really is a NON issue and you have not understood it.
73, Nick if your open to offers on how you spend your salary I’m sure we can think of some things… Maybe a contribution to your local NHS Trust to compensate for money lost by Brown’s NHS Cuts??? Lol!
Nick I think there is a difference between a levy imposed by the national party, which is deducted from all Cllrs, and a voluntary donation or a locally agreed contribution.
The imposed national levy smacks of a political party creaming off Council Tax payers funds to support its activities. This could then lead to Cllrs seeking to increase their “allowances” to offset the levy.
TobyHall at 32. Anyone can travel to anywhere in the world for a holiday. The security of the border doesn’t enter into it. Would you prefer that London was a closed city where visitors couldn’t come?
I’m sure no one would need to claim political asylum to spend half an hour in a sushi bar in Piccaddilly!!
66.”66.”Obviously they were equally daft when they targeted five seats in south west London against the Tories in 1997″
In 1997 there were a Labour Party rising big time and the tories collapsing. This opened a big opportunity for the Libdems to make big gains from the tories (IIRC 30 in the end) whilst at the same time not having many seats to defend from Labour (just Liz Lynne in Rochdale and the 4 way marginal of Inverness and co).
Next time it’s likely to have Labour going down and the tories going up. The Libdems should have opportunities to make gains from Labour, but the difference compared to 1997 is that they’ve quite a good number of LD/Con marginals to defend too.
So that’s why I find interesting to see how it’ll play out for them next time.
66.”And when they targeted three neighbouring councils in south west London earlier this year. ”
Which are those 3 councils? I suppose Richmond and then what?
73. Nick Palmer, you can do what you like with your own money, but let’s stick to the subject. Same out trick: change the subject. You can talk about “faux outrage” and what you can do with your own money, but let’s stick to the issue.
As for your definition of allowance, are you telling me that expenses are are never included in the allowances that we are talking about? That expenses are in addition to the allowance that is levied?
We are talking about:
Missappropriation of council funds by making this a COMPULSORY LEVY for Labour councillors. Are you claiming that the Lib Dems do the same?
Tax evasion by making the contribution direct from the council. Are you claiming that the Lib Dems do the same.
Breaching of the Councillor code of conduct and using public money for political purposes.
Go ahead. Defend that corruption which is probably only the tip of the iceberg as to what really does go on.
As Mr Sidaway, Labour supporter for 48 years, who resigned from Sunderland Council said: “It is shambolic and disgusting. The public are being deceived and betrayed by a government hell-bent on staying in power.”
Dear Rik, can you come to tea with me? I’m looking forward to your personal contribution towards my aim to end inequality.
Love Polly
Expenses:
Would it not be reasonable, at the very least, to expect MPs to produce receipts for expenses claimed from the public purse?
Party funding:
What do they do with these enormous amounts of money? It would be far better if some of the so-called policy advisers got proper jobs
80. The ‘Dad’s Place’ website is always fun if you fancy reading about corrupt practices.
Re: Sean F & Colin W
BNP beat UKIP in Walsall. Please correct mistake.
BB
Councillors Allowances are provided to ensure that people who may stand for election are not put off by the loss of earnings this sometimes causes. Being a councillor is still essentially a voluntary role, but there is an acceptance that the role of the elected member is getting much busier. For instance one of my colleagues on the County Council has 15 parishes, all with monthly meetings. She attends all of these, as well as various council events and council meetings. Most of our ‘frontline’ councillors are on at least two scrutiny committees and our Executive members are acknowledged to be effectively doing a full time job. As a ‘frontline’ member I worked an average of 25 hours a week as a Councillor, whilst also holding down a full time job. Now I am an assistant portfolio holder I work about 40 hours a week, and I have had to reduce the hours I put into my business. The allowances I receive from SCC allow me to take this decision.
Equally when SCC pay me the money it goes directly into my account. However I have agreed to give a regular monthly donation to our Group fund, which pays for our website amongst other things (in dire need of an upgrade so please don’t look at it…) and that money is taken out by payroll at source. However it is deducted AFTER TAX. I don’t know the details of Sunderland, but I think there must be some mistake if it was removed before tax.
The point of this quite long message is simply this - I can see nothing wrong in the way the Labour party have acted in this matter. This is not dishonest. How is this any different to what would happen if said councillor gave a regular donation to his party from his dole money or from his full time salary?
I would be extremely surprised if any Council Officer authorised a deduction from a Councillors allowance that was going directly to a political party if it was illegal. Council’s are subject to very close scrutiny and the Internal or External auditors would have had a fit over this if it were illegal.
Many thanks for the insightful article as ever Sean. Very interesting take on Sarah Tethers position as well.
Rik Why are you arguing with LDs who clearly have the inside knowledge about LD targeting. I know you will have a lot of experience from your battles with them from which you can make educated assumptions, but I would trust what they tell you. Unlike by elections the movement into target seats in GE is probably a lot more limited than you think!
RE 38 Peter,
So the Russian spy has died. And it was not Thalium, the traditional chosen poison of the Russian security forces. Of course, all the Russian dissidents in the UK were very quick to say it was Thalium and therefore Kremlin-ordered - but they would, wouldn’t they? They have axes to grind. And very few of them are blameless people. Gordievsky and his cronies certainly controlled the news agenda very effectively for a few days.
I don’t know who did it. My guess is that it was some sort of gangland killing, as I don’t think this sort of thing is Putin’s style.
Anyway, our thoughts are with his family.
RE 73, Nick there can be no objection to you being asked to contribute or indeed being told that if you don’t you may have the whip withdrawn. That is a party matter.
The issue I have is involving the council in collecting the money.
SBS @ 89 — not thallium but polonium. What gangland killings use polonium? Or any other radioactive metals come to that?
89 - SBS - if it was Polonium 210 as reported and not associated with the Russian state then someone has sources of very dangerous materials: BBCi “”To poison someone much larger amounts are required and this would have to be man-made, perhaps from particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor.”
Evening all ….
Beeb reporting that Conservative MP, Michael Mates, will stand down at the next election.
Come off it SBS This is exactly Putin’s style; first Yuschenko, then Anna Politovskaya now Litvinov. All the experts I heard said that this isotope could not have come from a non state actor. Motive? Simple. My reach is long and my vengeance is total. It will have no effect on EU/US relations so he gets away with it by brazening it out.
Ben, thank you for your post. I can see nothing wrong at all in what you are doing. You are a Conservative and therefore you have not been told that you MUST pay a levy. How would you feel if you were told you MUST pay 10%, for example?
You are right the allowances were intended to compensate for the voluntary hours put in by those who serve their communities as councillors. The allowances were not intended to fund the Labour Party.
What would you say to constituents who said they disapproved of their council tax going straight to the Labour Party on the say so of the Labour NEC? This is what the NEC agreed to, by making the Labour Party levy compulsory.
It is underhand and dishonest when it effectively becomes a tax paid by councillors for the Labour Party itself and the people are not informed of it. Under present laws, public money should not be used to fund political Parties.
If the Labour Party had not lost half of its membership by betraying its values, it wouldn’t be in the mess it is in. It should not be for the taxpayer to pick up the pieces of internal Labour Party financial mismanagement.
It is another betrayal of trust by New Labour who are effectively taking money from pensioners and hard working people to fund their next dishonest election campaign.
95 Mystic Moon, I really don’t know why I am defending Labour! But I do think that there is little difference between this and the Conservatives. Labour have merely said that their councillors must pay in order to be considered Labour Councillors. Equally the Conservatives have said we have to be members of the Conservative Councillors Association, and this payment of £25 a year is taken directly from our Members allowances at source.
I really don’t see it as you do. If the money wasn’t going to the Labour party, it isn’t as if it was going anywhere other than the councillors pocket - this is not an extra allowance but simply a part of the allowance they already receive.
66
Actually the LDs targetted only four seats in SW London in 1997. IIRC it was Carshalton that was won from ’starred’ status. At least if the fifth was upgraded it was very late in the day.
96 - In my Group, we pay individual personal cheques of £25, and not ask the Council deduct the amount. In outcome the result is identical, but actually process is important.
25. When turnout at the general election is 60%, you can’t really talk of UKIP or the Greens “costing” any-one a seat. Why doesn’t the party in 2nd place just get the equivalent number of abstainers out to vote?
80: That’s right, Mystic Moon - this is not about expenses at all, and they are separate from what we are talking about. Nor is it anything to do with tax evasion: people who make these contributions pay tax on their total income, regardless of whether they’ve given an instruction to pay some of it to the Labour Party or the LibDems (yes, they do it too) or the Church of Satan. As you’re being told by all sides, you’ve simply misunderstood the position and it would strength your credibility on other issues if you accepted it.
93. Evening Jack W!
He was quite old (but I think BBC story is making him older than it is…they seen 78, but I think he was born in 1934) and with a long service, so I suppose it’s not surprising
80-Mystic Moon
I certainly can see where you are coming from,long overdue that both councillors and MP’s in particular cleaned up their acts.
Naturally,at election time we never see any mention in manifesto’s of any increases in expenses and allowances that they will be awarding themselves.
I find it absurd that MP’s need in some cases 3 paid assistants to handle correspondence and some research,whereas the CEO’s / MD’s of major companies get by with a single PA.With the advent of PC’s, mobiles etc. most people working in the private sector long ago dispensed with PA’s,however, our MP’s need more support people not less.Just tune into the parliamentary channel and with the exception of PMQ’s and major debates the chamber is nearly almost always empty,yes some are attending select committees,and the rest?
I can quite understand how reject MP’s find it so difficult to find jobs in the real world.
I see the Greens have announced the result of the election of their joint principal speaker (the male one…the female one was elected unopposed at the conference).
Derek Wall defeated Keith Taylor (the incumbent and Pavilion candidate) 767 to 705 votes.
32. Toby I think it suggests someone wanted him dead….
Ben, I do not think any payments to political parties should be taken at source (made by the council).
However, there is a big difference between paying £25 a year that as you say you would have to pay anyway, and a levy, which is basically a special Labour councillor “tax” that goes straight to the Labour Party and would be hundreds of pounds and sometimes over a thousand per councillor, done in a way that evades tax and evades the people being made aware.
That is corruption in my book. It is totally unacceptable. I do not know why you would even try to defend it!
naughty naughty
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6181002.stm
101 Andrea. Never mind Mates being “quite old” I feel all of my 103 years having veiwed four houses that may best be described as microscopic rabbit-hutches for £1m plus !!!!!!! ….. a bloody cardboard box in SW1 might make a 100 grand.
Mind you, all the MPs in the area at least keep a break on prices …. would you want to live next door to Nick Soames with a pizza delivery every 5 minutes !!
100 - Step forward and be counted Mr Palmer, rather than evade the issue.
Tell us how much “special Labour Councillor tax” the Labour councillors of Broxtowe will be paying directly to the Labour Party over the next year. Be open, not underhand, and tell us how much if you have nothing to be ashamed about.
It is probably over £10,000 pounds a year I suggest based on 16 councillors if based on the Westminster 10% levy. No wonder you don’t want to talk about it. £10,000 of dirty money, taken from pensioners and hard working people to fund your political party.
Mystic Moon is being very silly. A mixture of utterly unsustainable grievances and angels-on-a-pinhead stuff.
67 Park Town Boy
Concur that Councils shouldn’t treat deductions as tax-deductable. Depending on what they are used for, it is a matter between the individual Councillor and the corresponding tax inspector. (I do myself pay an accountant to do my tax return now even though I did my own and other people’s, on a voluntary basis, for twenty years.)
79
Richmond, Kingston, Sutton
80
It can’t be a compulsory levy; there’s no law that allows it to be a compulsory levy. Anybody who is told it is compulsory could just say “Piss Off”.
Of course, it could be a breach of Group Standing Orders not to pay, but any disciplinary action arising is a matter between the member and the party. It’s nothing to do with Mystic Moon (or the Daily Mail for heaven’s sake).
90
There really is no marginal cost to the Council to make a computerised deduction and make a computerised BACS payment. Even readers of pb.com could do it.
77 and various
The question whether allowances are too high is a political question and one that has from time to time become an issue at elections.
The situation vsries widely from LA to LA. Allowances can be quite high in Mets, LBs and large Counties; they can be too small (IMO) in DCs.
The recipients vary. Some spend quite a lot on keeping in touch with their wards/divisions; others do damn all in this way.
High paid Tories don’t need allowances. Nor do people who already have big pensions. But people who have substantial caring duties have to cover their locum costs one way or another, (ie a specific carer’s allowance or a sufficiently high basic allowance. And we’re supposed to be attracting a range of Councillors to reflect the community, which includes young people who can lose out substantially on career progression (to name just one hidden cost) as members of a LA.
I know that I personally accepted that I was giving up career progression to be a Councillor. (In many ways I was myself lucky to have a CHC Chief Officer job, so I could at least have the career satisfaction even if I didn’t have the money, but many Councillors give up both.)
Personally, I don’t need all the money coming in at present. So I give some away. (No, not to you, laddie.) In a way that’s voluntary extra taxation, I suppose.
Anyway. That’s gone on a bit. But to get back to the core message, Mystic Moon is being very silly.
109.”79 Richmond, Kingston, Sutton”
Ah, thanks. I thought he meant 3 targets other than their defences. So that’s why I wasn’t able to find any other possible target in the area!
Martyn Smith. Do you pay the “special Labour Councillor tax” too?
Sigh…transferring Mystic Moon to the ‘I can’t be bothered with’ list. Meet seanT and the ghost of printz, MM.
O/T - Who remembers when Have I Got News For You used to be funny?
BB
111 11 posts on the same subject is 12 too many MM I think you should cease before you burst a blood vessel .
Of course you can’t be bothered Nick and Martyn Smith says it’s none of my business. Yes it is my business. I’m a council tax payer and so are most people I know. It’s only our money. Not yours.
How dare I expect any accountability as to how MY money is spent or as to how it goes straight to the Labour party?
I guess my estimate of £10,000 of dirty money in Broxtowe was spot on. £10,000 of pensioners money and money from families who are struggling to make ends meet, straight to the Labour Party.
No wonder you don’t want to talk about it.
113 - I prefer ‘Dont Watch that Watch this’ on BBC4.
116 marcia. Madness !
97 - no Carshalton was a target seat in 97 from a long way out.
Kingston and Surbiton (which had a notional 15,000 Tory majority) was not a target seat and was not upgraded - so help was even sent elsewhere - was the only non-target seat the Lib Dems won in 97.
113. The words “Angus”, “Bring Back” and “Deayton” spring to mind…
Hasn’t Don Quixote AKA Mystic Moon gone to bed yet? I remember when this “Disgusted of Tumbridge Wells” used to post under a different username and I remember making the same silly joke about “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”….
Anyway enough is enough already!!!!
115. MM, if people talk about it , are you prepared to listen?
When I worked in local government my union subs were deducted through the payroll, from MY AFTER-TAX salary. There was no extra payment, as you seem to be implying.
I suspect this is a similar arrangement - do you have any documented evidence otherwise?
I believe charities can get direct payments (G.A.Y.E) pre-tax.
115 MM. It is an allowance paid to councillors to partly cover time and expenses for the duties they perform. At that point it is no longer ‘your money’ but ‘theirs’ for them to do with as they see fit. If they donate it to the labour party that is up to them. It is certainly common practise for Lib Dem councillors to donate a percentage of their allowances and usually in an organised fashion.
106. The Scots seem to spend a lot of time worrying about very minor infringements. I remember when I was up there earlier in the year and the Scottish editions were full of stories about MSP’s using their surgeries improperly! I can’t remember who or what. Anyway it does speak well of them that they should be so scrupulous.
Talking about potential Libdem targets in North London…. Islington/Camden/Brent have been already mentioned, but do they have any intention to have a try in one of the 2 Lab Waltham Forest seats?
111
No, because I’m a Liberal Democrat
118
Ah yes; all those London seats look alike, sorry!
122-kjh
‘ At that point it is no longer ‘your money’ but ‘theirs’ for them to do with as they see fit. If they donate it to the labour party that is up to them.’
That’s just the point that was highlighted on newsnight,its not up to them,they are mandated to give the money,as in the example of Sunderland Labour party,there is no choice.
May I be allowed to highlight this quotation from our very own Tory Cllr Ben Redsell (96):
“Equally the Conservatives have said we have to be members of the Conservative Councillors Association, and this payment of £25 a year is taken directly from our Members allowances at source.”
It is a condition of the job - and I would assume it is therefore tax deductable. But apart from that, it is a condition of service (as a Tory councillor).
I think the Tories are taking things a bit far in that respect, but since they are staffed almost enirely by accountants and public relations wallahs, I suppose that is understandable.
Poor old Mystic Moon. On the point of emigrating to some unimpeachably uncorrupt country - I forget whether it was Italy or Iraq……
125.”Ah yes; all those London seats look alike, sorry! ”
At least they’ve different names and they’re not simply “X South East”, “X South West”, “X North East, “X Central”, “X North West and something (just to satisfy boundary commission creativity”
This money laundering scam orchestrated by this dodgy-dossier government is being investigated by the police.
Every Labour Councillor should decide now if he or she wants to be part of it. Do you want people to think you are bent or not?
I have seen a lot of excuses, a lot of evading of the truth, but I have not seen those involved coming forward and having the decency to let the public know about this scam.
Let the people decide, instead of pretending it is not happening.
That is why you are upset, because this secretive sleazy scam is coming out into the open for everyone to see.
Totally agree, Andrea (128). Many boundary commission names are - if not totally meaningless - very unromantic.
But I would challenge you, Andrea - yes, even you! If you look at a map with just the outlines of the constituencies, how many could you put a name to (without special outside help, of course)? Could you identify Hamptead and Kilburn, for example, without cheating? I couldn´t……… If they have their existing colours, that makes it a bit easier……….
Martyn Smith Darrien Don’t you mean ‘ One is a Liberal Democrat and licensed to be pompous’?
It looks like the cash-from-councillors scandal is esculating and will be all over the Sunday papers.
“Labour is facing the prospect of an inquiry by the public spending watchdog into claims that it is siphoning millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash into party funds.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=418486&in_page_id=1770
It’s like a man with a tin collecting for charity and giving some of the cash to the Labour Party. Nick Palmer refused to comment on how much the Broxtowe Labour Party would be taking.
131
No
OT, but just a bit.
There are reports coming out, from surveys, about just how unsympathetic the Foreign Office was to survivors and relatives of the tsunami disaster a year ago.
Is it any coincidence that many/most of our Foreign Office employees emerged from Oxbridge or from our famous Public Schools?
They are not precisely renowned for their empathy with lesser mortals, are they?
Is it not time to sack them from Foreign Office employ, and the current leadership of the Tory Party likewise?
Empathy? Bah!!!!!
127/134. Oh Sage you are getting desperate again franticly searching for anything that could spoil the image of the Conservative Party.
I can’t be bothered to read the whole thread as I’ve just got in from clubbing but either you are quoting Cllr Ben incorrectly or Cllr Ben’s local Conservative Group do it differently from most others. The £25 payment to the CCA is voluntary and usually collected by a tresurer or group leader. At CCHQ we often get a pile of cheques all sent together from one group and sometimes there is the odd tightarse who won’t pay. It is not chased up if someone doesn’t pay. It is not done at source, it is voluntary.
As for your post at 134… how silly.
Mystic Moon: Maybe you have been smoking crack tonight, but when the money is paid into someone’s salary, it is THEIR money, not yours. It is no more yours than the salary of people who work for Mars is yours just because you buy a Mars bar for lunch. But you keep trumpetting the Daily Mail non-story.
Perhaps you will tell us who you work for, so that we can go out and buy from that company and then tell you how to spend your salary?
Oh, DC……….. Time to stop just enjoying yourself, I think, and start working…… After all , the Tory Party is paying you (probably from the public purse, if all were known) for all this stuff you keep on putting out………
“I can’t be bothered to read the whole thread as I’ve just got in from clubbing”
My comment was only taking up what one of your Tory county councillors was reporting……. And here, in public, DC…….. And tomorrow he will be expelled from the party, no doubt….
Lib Dems, unlike others, do not go in for inventing things…….. We just use the evidence available.
You don´t seem to know what the Tory Party is all about, DC, if I may say so……….. Too busy dressing up in blue bikinis, probably……… And with half a dozen Tory battleaxes into the bargain…….. Ummmmmm…. Better to start working properly, DC.
As has been said MBoy, it is THEIR money, but they are being FORCED to pay part of it to the Labour Party.
The Labour Party NEC decided to make it COMPULSORY in September. Those that do not wish to take part in the scam are threatened it is claimed.
Therefore, it effectively becomes a “special Labour Councillor tax.”
Therefore, anyone who has a Labour councillor in their area, is paying directly into the Labour Party when they pay their council tax.
Therefore, when the public are not made aware of this, it is nothing less than an underhand way of syphoning council tax-payers money to the Labour Party.
It is money-laundering under another name. It is simply a dishonest process created to transfer council tax straight into the Labour Party account.
I wouldn’t call that a “non-story.” It is a major story that should be on the front page of every newspaper.