Very bad news for the Camden Conservatives, as the results show a significant swing from the Tories to the Lib Dems in battleground Hampstead Town seat.
On a turnout of 36.7% (around the borough average at the last election, but down from the ward's show-stealing 49% marker) the Conservatives appear to have gone down from around 47% in 2006 to 39.5% in 2008. Meanwhile the Lib Dems appear to have shot up from around 32% to 44%.
On the face of it that looks like a swing of around 10%.
This is despite the Conservatives having a superior candidate, and the somewhat wind with them - with the public discovery that a Lib Dem councillor in a nearby ward had moved to Arizona without telling his constituents.
Given that the Tories and the Lib Dems share power at the Town Hall and threw virutally everything at each other, this makes for unsettling times for Camden people as we approach 2010.
The ward is now 'split' with 'ultras' in both parties urging the leadership to take the fight to the other.
In good news for civil society, the hapless BNP candidate only got 29 votes - about 1%. So credit to the anti-fascist campaigners who came up and did leafleting.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Funny idea, Theo, that Stephen Phillips was a superior candidate to Linda Chung. Obviously the Hampstead electorate did not agree with you, and frankly, given the piss-awful negative campaign that Phillips allowed the Tories to run in his name (trying to pin everything on the assumption that to live in Hampstead you actually had to live within Hampstead Town ward boundaries i.e. on the right side of Holly Hill) I am not at all surprised. Of course you make think Mr Phillips is wonderful because of the success of his undoubtedly vigorous and uncompromising campaign in insisting that the Frank Barnes School for the Deaf could not possibly co-esist alongside the Blanche Nevile School for the Deaf in Haringey. But isn't it that adamant opposition to the scheme originally proposed by the Conservative executive member for schools, Andrew Mennear, which has led to the relocation of Frank Barnes school in Somers Town alongside Edith Neville primary school? I thought Labour (having, through Mike Katz, been loud cheerleaders for Mr Phillips in his anti-Haringey campaign) were against the Frank Barnes move to Somers Town. Do you admire, Mr Phillips, Theo, because he pulled the wool over Camden Labour's eyes, used them to his own end, and dumped on them when had got what he wanted? The man rang circles round you, and you think he's a good thing? How very altruistic you are, after all!
Er, being ignorant is a total art form for you, isn't it?
What you have just described is the attempt by a chair of governors Frank Barnes school to stop a totally ill-thought out policy by the Liberal Democrat and Tory-run council to move Frank Barnes in order to fit the academy in, in short timescales to fit John Bryant, the Lib Dems' and your political timetable.
FYI- it was Blanche Neville who did not want the co-location, despite Camden's spin to the contrary.
The Edith Neville option was your choice, despite better options and was supported by Lib Dems and Tories. You can't blame Frank Barnes for that, you need to question the policies your party puts up - sadly none of you do so on the evidence Linda Chung will be another Lib Dem backbench 'mushroom.'
Oh please - I may not know much but I do know that Stephen Phillips and Mike Katz as chair and vice-chair of Frank Barnes' governors vigorously and determinedly opposed the relocation to Haringey because I can read. They wrote letters to the papers, remember, making their opposition completely clear.
Anyway - enlighten me: why do you think Stephen Phillips was a better candidate than Linda Chung? You still haven't said.
And if you are right, why didn't Phillips win? Given that the Conservatives are (allegedly) 10 to 20 points ahead in the opinion polls and have two other councillors sitting on (apparently) comfortable majorities in Hampstead already, he surely should have finished in front, don't you think?
You say ignorance is my art form: I think your speciality seems to be denial - in particular denial that the Liberal Democrats on the council executive are doing a good job and the party is pretty popular with the Camden electorate as a result.
Best wishes. Cheer up! Remember - things can only get better (they said!)
How dare community activists stand up and fight their own corner? That is essentially the basis of your argument - thanks, useful material.
The Tories can fight their own battles, but at least their candidate achieved a result for his community before he stood - hence my comments.
Hilarious to see Linda Chung argue that 'Hampstead had been let down' when you run the council! If voters bought that then it is a credit your political machine.
For the record, I don't see the Lib Dems doing a good job on parking, schools, parks, libraries - turn your amazing powers of analysis to that - or are you too a Lib Dem mushroom?
I suppose Linda's eagerness to see Hampstead High Street rival Marylebone's, which you find hilarious, is just a case of a community activist fighting their corner. But you prefer Tory community activists to Lib Dem ones. of course. probably because you have more in common with them. See you in Kentish Town, perhaps?
Robin - get real, the Lib dems were in 4th place in the last poll - in 2008, hardly a total endorsement of local policies.
Do you realise how silly you sound when it is the Lib Dems hold power with the Tories in Camden?
When was the last time one of your councillors voted against the cuts programme?
It is of course, difficult as it is the same Tory/Lib Dem cuts programme you proposed!
A Camden Lib Dem cannot claim to be distant from the Conservatives in Camden. You are in power with them, you vote with them, your councillors support each other. You have also, together, cut vital services like youth clubs, hiked charges on meals on wheels and ended door-to-door-recylcling on estates.
Albert, Since taking over leadership of Camden Council in May 2006 the Lib Dems have gained two more seats from Labour (Kentish Town and Haverstock), and one from Conservative. They have also held one in Fortune Green and significantly increased their vote in the one Camden by-election they failed to win (Highgate - on May 1st this year). These were elections fought on local Camden issues. The May 1st elections for GLA and London Mayor, to which you evidently refer, were admittedly nowhere near so good, but they were not fought on the local Camden policies, but rather on the Ken v Boris slugfest in which Brian Paddick failed to get much of a look-in. The Lib Dems plainly have difficulty fighting elections in large electorates under supposedly "proportional representation" systems - which is odd for a party committed to PR. But we are quite handy, in Camden particularly, at winning "first past the post" elections in local wards where it is our own local council policies and performance that are put to the test. See you in Kentish Town too, perhaps?
Corrections:
1) the last Camden budget in which the amount spent on youth services across the borough was cut was in fact the last budget of Labour's administration
2) meals on wheels charges were only increased for those able to pay
3) door-to-door recycling collections on estates were funded by a special Labour Government grant for two years, which was not renewed. The collections were inefficient and costly. The whole business of recycling is as yet utterly unsatisfactory. With Mike Greene out of the way Lib Dems (especially Alexis Rowell, the eco-champion you deride as "Nut Roast") can hope to make much more progress on the whole sustainability front in future.
4) The Labour Government cut £10 million from Camden's funding at very, very short notice before finalisation of the last budget. But people see through Labour's trick of cutting local government funding and then blaming local government administrations for the economies they are obliged to make. According to you all cuts are "huge", affect services that are never less than "vital", and are never any fault of Labour's. Its a failing mythology, Theo. Better look for something else.
I would suggest the Camden electorate have a clearer understanding than you do of the relationship between the Conservatives as junior partners in the administration (two seats now lost since 2006) and the Liberal Democrats who lead (three seats up since 2006). No doubt, really, which is the coming force in Camden.
I did, by the way, try to send a reply to Albert Shanker's contribution, which confessed where Lib Dem weakness lay in recent elections (especially May 1st 2008)? Did it not reach you?
Nice spin - the Lib dems cut the CSF budget by £3 million in their first year. The first decisions made by the Lib Dems were cuts to youth services.
Meals on wheels services went up by 20% for everyone (ask Queen's crescent Community Asscoaition).
Recycling on estates was funded by the NRF fund, which has a provision about mainstreaming (i.e. funding picked up by the council). The money used by ending recycling on estates was then used to roll out an elite service in Hampstead. Arguments about value for money don't really stand up to scrutiny, especially when you've just spend £300,000 on an Eco-house. The council never bothered to ask how to make the service which was only marginally more expensive than other schemes more efficient, they just cut it.
The £10 million working neighbourhoods funding wasn't a 'cut' as that's not how the funding system works, it was a government error which they should have been taken to task over - instead the Lib dems decided to make it a political football and lost. Classic.
Oh Theo - you are dead but you won't lie down. Here are the figures on youth services I was referring to:
Youth Service Universal Funding expenditure 2005-06:£1.82m;
2006-07 £1.62m;
2007-08 £1.80m;
2008-09 £1.88m.
That is to say the funding was cut in Labour's last budget: increased in ther partnership administration's two.
I noticed that there was no mention of Youth Services in Labour's Budget amendment his year.
Specific instances of INCREASES in youth project funding this year include:
Universal Funding
- Gospel Oak Youth & Connexions Access point. £114,000 (up from £73k last year)
and in your own ward Surma Youth Project £93k (up from £88k last year)
As for targeted Funding (aimed at those most at risk of crime), while it is true that Haven's targetted funding was cut from £12k to £10k, one needs to remember that Queen's Crescent was awarded£12k compared to nothing previously, while the Samuel Lithgow Centre's targetted funding was doubled (£24k compared to £12k).
All this blather of yours about cuts to vital youth services is mythology, Theo. The figures are publicly available, so its no use making things up.
Local people will be very interested that Lib dem activists call this all a "myth."
I think you will find the figure was higher than that in 2006, all aspects considered. But don't let that bother your post-midnight analysis.
The figures you site are selective, which is to be expected from you. It's great that Surma got an inflationary rise but the Lithgow got a cut in universal work, undermining its future viability and staffing levels. This was at a time when they had raised nearly £1 million in capital works to rebuild a council building. QCCC also got a cut in youth provision, despite their concerns. In addition some of the money the council - via Lib dem leaflets in the Haverstock by election - said it had given appears not to have materialised.
The Lib Dems also effectively shut the excellent Fresh Juice Gym in Highgate New Town.
Labour's budget amendment featured youth services, so I don't know where you got that one from - maybe a bit hazy when you did your analysis.
The failure of the Liberal Democrat administration to factor in deprivation in youth funding has lead to protests from these groups, not just labour councillors. All the while your councillors and activists were silent - in Kentish Town as well as Camden Town.
Many people have protested against youth cuts, including Mukul Hira - who now hillariously tows your line.
It is thanks to our pressure, not your silence, the council has had to redesign its poor commissioning process so avoid errors like last year.
Corrections: "Site" should, in this context, be "cite" and "hillariously tows" should be "hilariously toes" (but then my late night typography isn't 100 per cent either).
I do think I should congratulate you on the very friendly and supportive leader in the Ham & High this morning (re spending the proceeds of parking fines). Much better than the put down I got from them for a letter supporting Phil Thompson last week.
A pity I remember you saying, when you were at daggers drawn with Geoff Martin, that no-one in the south of the borough reads the Ham & High.
I don't flatter myself that local people will be much interested in what I say in postings here, really. After all, I am not a councillor or a candidate or anything like that. Best wishes, ry.
Cheers.
Post a Comment