How to get growth

National governments are rightly focused on reducing the deficits that are causing massive threats to their economies. But the resulting austerity leaves little scope for schemes to stimulate economic growth. And growth would increase tax revenues, thus helping to eliminate the deficits and reduce debts. So what's to be done?

Socialists believe that more can be spent on stimulating growth, while maintaining spending on public services, by taxing the rich more. Deficit hawks believe less should be spent on public services and on growth schemes, while increasing taxes across the board. Neo-classical liberals also believe in spending less, but that reducing taxes can stimulate growth.

I don't know that any of these views are right. I'm not an economist, and the arguments on all sides fail to convince. But who knows?

However, in the UK I think there's something that might help, whatever your economic view: empowering local engines for growth.

Different parts of the country should be able to take advantage of their own particular local strengths to encourage growth. This requires central government loosening its fevered grip just a little on taxation and expenditure, and letting strong councils take advantage of local conditions.

I want to draw attention to two important aspects of this form of localism: (i) local decision-making about big developments; and (ii) local decision-making about public services.

Local decision-making about big developments

Developments can get stalled at an early stage by emotionally charged battles between enthusiastic proponents of stimulus schemes (house-building, wind farms, engineering projects, and the like) and wary residents fighting damage to their neighbourhoods.

Both sides think the system is weighted against them. The reality is that if local people rather than ministers are the ultimate arbiter of proposals, proposals will have to be designed to unarguably benefit local communities rather than to align with well-meaning but amorphous national policies.

This is not simply a case of transferring decision-making from ministers to councillors. Councillors do need to play an important role in this: referring back proposals that clearly contribute insufficiently; ensuring stakeholders are involved in the discussions; commissioning research comparing alternative options; and proposing conditions such as a local tax, an inspection regime, modified plans or new community facilities. But local electronic plebiscites make the final decision.

Good developments are more likely to succeed quickly under this form of localism, because developers will need to design proposals that make it easy for locals to judge that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. And bad developments will no longer be able to rely on multiple appeals, inattentive councillors, vague planning policies and ministers with nothing to lose in the locality.

At the same time, developers will not be faced with the knee-jerk local opposition that comes from justified scepticism and sense of powerlessness about the planning system. Constructive engagement is more likely.

Local decision-making about public services

A second way in which local engines for growth can be enabled is through liberalising public services.

Rather than the State controlling public services centrally, like some totalitarian regime, councils would be free to pursue their own preferred ways of delivering particular services, whether that's in-house, through contracts with companies, or in conjunction with other organisations or councils. At the same time, power to vary taxes enables those with different ideas about what works to put those ideas to the test.

Those councils that want to stop the cuts get to stop the cuts, but they will need to borrow the money or raise taxes. Those councils that want a balanced budget will be able to cut spending and increase taxes. Those councils that want to reduce taxes get to do that. But more importantly, councils are free to decide on the priorities for schools, hospitals, police, post offices and so on that make sense for local people, taking account of local needs and opportunities.

Through this encouragement of innovation, the country does not put all its eggs in one basket, but is able to pilot different ways of stimulating growth and dealing with debt, within broad but sensible constraints set by central government.

What works in one part of the country does not automatically work elsewhere, but by evaluating the factors affecting success in every part of the country, the Government will see good ideas being taken up across the country, and bad ideas being quietly dropped with no loss of face to central government.

More autonomy allows ideas to be put to the test. Of course it's true that councils might choose to go for the monorail rather than more frequent buses; they might choose to build the casino rather than the theatre; the nuclear power station rather than the wind farm. But councils must be allowed to make mistakes, so long as there is complete transparency and accountability to local voters.

Why won't this happen?

This "localism-plus" means that good developments are more likely to succeed quickly, and that public services can innovate under democratic local control rather than stagnate under monolithic central control. These are strong engines for growth.

I've outlined the key objections to this proposal. But the main reason this kind of thing is unlikely to happen is not because of potential costs, uncertainties or fragmentation; nor even (at a philosophical level) fears of privatisation or of localism. It is that battle-lines are already being drawn for the next election, and that for all but a few liberal-minded politicians, the dream of enforcing one's own prescription for success across the whole country overrides all other considerations.

Acknowledgements

• "N30" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Flickr user churchofpunk.
• "Piggy bank" [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by Flickr user Teresa Gibbison.
• Photo of Sir Stuart Rose [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0] by the CBI.
• "Local government gears" by LonWon. [CC BY-SA 3.0]

Communication difficulties for the LibDems

Simon Rix has a good opinion piece over at Lib Dem Voice about the Liberal Democrats' difficulties in government. He argues that "whilst it's way too early to say our time in government has been a failure, it's not too early to say our communications have failed to hit the mark."

yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap
by Neil Wykes (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

He urges...

• We must start rebutting all significant attacks on us, quickly and effectively.
• We must be much more persuasive with our communications, by testing different ways of communicating our ideas.
• We must do much better in projecting our messages, including being open and clear about where we disagree with the Conservatives.

As I wrote in a comment on the article, I think this is very sensible and timely advice.

However I have a few problems with Simon's point that...

"our polling… only dropped to the low teens when the narrative of 'Lib Dem broken promises' got traction in the autumn of 2010. The lesson from this is that pretending we agree with 100% of government policy is bad communications and counter productive."

Firstly, the challenge for effective communications is worse than having to counter "LibDem broken promises".

Without getting into too much detail on old arguments, it's clear that going back on individual signed personal pledges appeared to many of the public as worse than going back on manifesto commitments, regardless of the rights or wrongs of tuition fee policy. This fed into Labour's "LibDems are propping up Tories to get ministerial cars" charge. What made this even worse was that HQ had made "No more broken promises" as the central theme of the election campaign. It wasn't just breaking a promise; it was breaking a promise to end broken promises.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but even world-leading communication geniuses would struggle to come back from that one, whatever the quality of rebuttal, persuasion and projection of new policies.

Secondly, I'm not sure that the public believe we are "pretending we agree with 100% of government policy". Obviously collective Cabinet responsibility means it is more difficult to shout about clear dividing lines; but actually I think Nick, Vince and other ministers have done a good job in making clear many differences in priority and emphasis; and Tim Farron, Simon Hughes, Adrian Sanders, Andrew George and other backbenchers are making good use of their greater freedom to assert disagreements. I suspect the perception problem is less about pretending to agree and more about failing to stop Conservative proposals; and such a perception is simply an inevitable consequence of coalition.

Thirdly, an alternative lesson that might be drawn from the tuition fees episode is how it actually reinforces Simon's "rebut, persuade, project" points very well. LibDem ministers did a poor job at rebutting wild claims about what was being proposed; they failed to persuade the public about either the necessity of the tuition fee hike or the merits of the new fees system; and they decided not to project a vision for what a future LibDem-led government might want to do about this issue.

And similar considerations apply to the AV referendum, the Welfare Reform Act and the Health and Social Care Act.

The question then is not just about policy; but also how to get better at rebutting, persuading and projecting.

See also:

• LibDems: We must do better than this
• The LibDem local election campaign was not LibDem, local or a campaign
• Political Narrative Battlegrounds for 2015 (the May 2012 Crystal Ball)

Political Narrative Battlegrounds for 2015 (the May 2012 Crystal Ball)

It's obviously far too early to be predicting the narrative battlegrounds on which the expected 2015 general election will be fought. So here goes...!

I think it's plausible that both the Coalition parties will have a similar top-level narrative:

The economy is on the right path again, but the task is not finished.

The country was in a terrible state five years ago. Britain was being dragged down by a dreadful deficit. The banks had got away with massive profligacy because of an unhealthy bonus culture. There was no money left to secure the future of our vital public services.

So when we took charge, we stopped the rot of Labour overspending, we clamped down on the banks, and we reduced taxes for hard-working people. Tackling the deficit needed tough, unpopular decisions. The country would be far worse off if we hadn't taken those  decisions.

Now, we need to finish the job. Get Britain working again. Use the solid foundations we have put in place to build a strong and lasting prosperity. Labour would put the recovery at risk. But we can make Britain the envy of the world once again.

Labour, of course, will be saying the opposite:

This incompetent government has unnecessarily damaged Britain's public services and created mass unemployment; if you let them get back in, they will slash-and-burn all that we hold dear.

Five years ago, the world was faced with an unprecedented international economic crisis, caused by bankers who only cared about their bonuses. But the Labour Government led the way in preventing a global meltdown, and put Britain on the path to recovery.

But this Tory-led government dealt with the world economic crisis in the worst possible way. It cut spending too far, too fast. It created an entirely unnecessary double-dip recession. Britain would have recovered years ago, if it hadn't been for this mismanagement. The Tories cut taxes for their rich cronies, while the rest of the country suffered unemployment and cuts to schools, hospitals and other public services. Trebling tuition fees. The Granny Tax. The Pasty Tax. Picking on the disabled. Privatising the NHS. The Liberals were complicit in all this.

Now, what about the next five years? The Tories don't believe in public services. They want to cut and cut until there's nothing left. Don't let them finish the job.

This is over-simplifying things a bit, but then political narratives need to be simple.

But come down a level of abstraction, and the narratives are murkier at this stage in the parliament.

Conservatives

The Conservative Party is torn between, on the one hand, traditional fiscal prudence (reducing government over-spending, and slightly increasing taxes to pay off debt); and, on the other hand, free-market libertarianism that says that a radical pruning of the state can set wealth creators free and thus benefit everyone. Critics say that belt tightening can slide into stagnation and diminished public services. Meanwhile, radical pruning is a gamble that might result in mass unemployment and inadequate safety nets for the most vulnerable.

It could change, but currently the prudence chaps dominate the pruning brigade.

The likely Conservative narratives, one level down, would therefore be along the lines of:

After the turmoil of the Labour years, the firm grip of the Conservative-led Government was absolutely the right thing for the country. Now we need stability and steady growth. We need to nurture the recovery; we mustn't imperil it again with Labour's wild spending.

We've put the economy on a firm footing, so now it's time for us to sort out other socialist legacies: Fight back against the EU's invasion into our affairs. End profligate subsidies for inefficient energy generation. Reduce taxes on enterprise and hard work. Cut bureaucracy in social services. Allow museums and hospitals to charge foreign visitors. Renew Trident. Fund our armed forces properly. Give schools back the right to select pupils... etc. etc.

Labour

Meanwhile Labour is torn between, on the one hand, the New Labour vision that public services deliver targets best when they are given as much freedom as possible from state regulation and are funded by partnerships with the private sector; and, on the other hand, the socialist ideal of the state looking after everyone in society, and spending money to keep the economy going. But critics say that New Labourism helped to create a situation in which irresponsible banks plunged the country into economic crisis; and in which hospitals and schools ended up lacking democratic accountability for their decisions. And the socialist ideal can easily slip, they say, into spending beyond our means and into weakening enterprise by sucking more and more of the nation's wealth into central government.

It's not clear to me how this tussle between New Labourism and neo-socialism will play out. Ed Balls was thoroughly implicated in New Labourism but Ed Miliband is (probably rightly) keeping his policy options open for now. My guess is that nearer the election there will be some kind of public catharsis: "It was Gordon Brown who wanted PFI. And the CBI was pushing for less regulation. We've learned from those mistakes."

It will be tempting, I think, to just stay on the attack:

Inhumane cuts. Ideological economics. Out of touch. Incompetent. etc. etc.

But journalists will press for firm plans, and the public don't like politicians who are resolutely negative without getting into detail about how they would do things differently. So a possible positive Labour narrative, one level down, would be:

We need government to offer alternative models to uncaring capitalism: Address our housing crisis using cooperative and mutual models. Give tax breaks to businesses that fund apprenticeships. Give energy consumers, hospital patients and parents the power to call managers to account. etc. etc.

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems have a number of narratives that don't offer alternative futures to each other, but compete for attention. For example, one narrative is about being in coalition in the first place:

The national interest demanded we help repair the economy while doing our damnedest to protect public services. We sacrificed our popularity to help the country overcome Labour's economic crisis.

A parallel narrative is a defence of the things the Conservatives were able to do because the LibDems weren't sitting on the Opposition benches:

Would you have wanted an unfettered Conservative Government? Or right-wing Conservatives in league with the New Labour zealots who got us into this mess? We helped tame the worst excesses of the Right, although you have to box clever when your Coalition partner is five times the size of you.

There's an obvious risk of a LibDem general election campaign consisting entirely of re-runs of the arguments about tuition fees, the Welfare Reform Act, the Health and Social Care Act, the so-called Granny Tax, etc.: the arguments that failed to convince the first time round.

Another narrative is:

Look at all the liberal stuff we managed to deliver, despite our under-representation in Parliament: shifting taxes from low and middle earners to the richest; getting extra money to schools to help poorer children; creating more new apprenticeships than Britain has ever had before; creating the world's first Green Investment Bank; restoring the link between pensions and earnings; setting up proper regulation of the banks; restoring many of the civil liberties thrown away by Labour; increasing social housing for the first time in 30 years; halting Labour's post office closures; and so on.

Unfortunately lists don't make for great narratives. It's also not easy to explain concisely what makes this good stuff "liberal" in the same way that Conservatives and Labour stances are easily grasped.

All of these LibDem narratives are also too rooted in the past: they don't impel you through to an obvious LibDem future. I'm sure the manifesto will be packed full of good ideas, costed and crafted as usual. But, again as usual, it will somehow lack a coherent narrative to string it together. Some random slogan combining "free", "fair" and "opportunity" won't cut it.

Another problem with these LibDem narratives is that they don't offer congruencies with both possible future coalition partners.

An alternative plan might be to piggy-back on a less antagonistic version of the first half of the Conservatives' message...

After the turmoil of the economic crisis, it was absolutely right for the Conservatives and LibDems to come together for the good of the country. Now we need stability and steady growth. We need to nurture the recovery.

... and then build a distinctively LibDem narrative:

We've got the economy under control, but what's to stop the crisis happening again? If big business is unaccountable to its employees, customers and shareholders, it will simply repeat the same risky behaviour. Meanwhile, if public services and quangos are unaccountable to the people they are supposed to serve, their spending of your taxes will again rocket out of control. We need to encourage  democratic principles and innovative models of mutualism and cooperatives, and not just unconvincing "consultations". We need to navigate a narrow path between cold hard capitalism on one side, and overweight statism on the other.

And we also need to make central government more accountable by devolving more powers to our cities and counties to kickstart local economies, to sort out endemic housing issues, to take advantage of green opportunities, to support your hospitals and schools...

And most importantly, if we don't take greater action on climate change fast, the global economy will be threatened by a crisis that will make the last few years pale into insignificance. We need a massive programme to build more renewable energy capacity; to increase home insulation; to encourage businesses that tackle their carbon pollution responsibly; and to enhance the Green Investment Bank. These measures will help prevent climate change wrecking our economy, but they will also help stimulate our industry and create jobs right now.

Concluding remarks

Crystal ball gazing is a notoriously unreliable practice in politics. And I have a lousy reputation for accuracy. But although the details may change rapidly, I suspect that many of the overriding concerns of Conservatives, Labour folk and LibDems are quite slow to change.

Narratives need to capture those concerns, to fix in voters' minds afresh what these parties stand for.

And narrative building takes years.

Acknowledgements

• The three battle pictures [1, 2, 3] are by Flickr user Dave Pearson, and are CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
• The cats were adapted by me from Microsoft Clip Art [license terms]

Exeter Elections, May 2012 - Post hoc analysis

Labour's win in this election was well deserved (results here). They had a strong message of anger about Government cuts, a positive local manifesto, friendly and committed candidates and activists who engaged strongly both online and on the streets, and a well-managed campaign.

Personally, I would rather the council had remained in minority control, but that was never a likely outcome, given that only two seats were needed for Labour to win majority control.

Whether this control will be maintained once the Labour council has to begin cutting services is not clear. However, they will be able to push the message that the cuts are being imposed by the government.

As elsewhere in the country, the Liberal Democrats did badly. On the other hand, their results were much the same as in the last two local elections in Exeter. The seats lost this year were won at the height of Labour's unpopularity in 2008. So a bad result, but not entirely unexpected.

I have made my own criticisms of the LibDems' local election strategy. National Labour strategists were able to offer a strong message for local parties to take forward. National LibDem strategists failed to do so. However, you could argue that the LibDems would have done badly whatever the strategy: the mid-terms of a government engaged in austerity measures are never likely to be pretty.

Locally, it is easy to say that there should have been a LibDem manifesto, more engagement online and in St. David's and Pennsylvania, and a stronger squeeze on the Conservatives and UKIP in Alphington. But the LibDems do not have the resources of Labour or the Conservatives; and many LibDem supporters who might naturally step up to help are finding it extremely difficult to cope with the change from the LibDems' traditional oppositional, protest politics to being on the receiving end of anger against the Government.

A LibDem resurgence and a higher turnout would leave Labour vulnerable in Alphington, St. David's, St. James and St. Thomas, and would leave the Conservatives vulnerable in Pennsylvania. i.e. the wards of the five remaining LibDem councillors. Conversely, unless this resurgence occurs, there's a chance of being wiped out.

Although there was no net change in the number of Conservative councillors, there are danger signs for the Conservatives, whose vote has been declining in recent years. On the other hand, the result in Pennsylvania, winning the seat from the LibDems, shows that active campaigning can yield results. Nevertheless, overall, the vibrant Conservative campaigning shown at the General Election has not been sustained. Their manifesto will have struck a chord with many, but those same people are also likely to be attracted to UKIP, and that is a potentially huge problem in several close wards. In the near future the Conservatives will likely be targeting Cowick, Heavitree, Pennsylvania, Pinhoe and Polsloe.

For all parties, the low turnout is disturbing. Encouraging greater engagement has to be a priority. Admittedly the strong student vote that was much in evidence at the General Election is harder to captivate in local elections; but younger voters more generally also need to be persuaded of the importance of political engagement. More initiatives like that of the Bike Shed Theatre hustings would be very welcome.

The headline though is that Exeter looks to Labour to steer the city through troubled times. There is no doubt they represent the most dynamic local team. The biggest danger will be losing touch with the concerns of ordinary folk. So well done. Good luck. And keep in touch...

Update 10 May 2012

Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw has a good article in today's Express & Echo with his thoughts on the local election results. He also mentions recent major events for Exeter, including last week's visit by the Queen, the 70th anniversary of the worst night of the Exeter Blitz, and the University joining the elite Russell Group of universities. And he concludes with an excellent point about local democratic accountability.

The LibDem local election campaign was not LibDem, local or a campaign

NB I wrote this post a month ago, but decided not to publish it before the local elections, to avoid undermining candidates.

What are the LibDems campaigning for in the local elections?

The party website highlights the following key points...

• A £3.5bn tax cut for working people
• Biggest single ever uplift in tax threshold
• 21 million people getting an extra £220 tax cut

Are these three different things or different facets of the same thing? Not sure. Either way, they're not a campaign.

OK, maybe the party website is still trying to promote the Budget rather than looking ahead to the local elections.

So let's turn to Andrew Stunell MP, Communities Minister and Chair of the Liberal Democrats Local Election Campaign Team.

Andrew tells us that the Liberal Democrat local election campaign has already launched. Oh well.

According to Andrew, the big messages are:

1. Your local record of service

"all year round, not just at election time. Lib Dem councillors across the country work hard for local people. We listen to our communities and try to give them a voice in decisions made that affect them. In power we work to protect the services people most value, and to protect the most vulnerable in society."

2. Putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking people

"On the local front, this year every single Lib Dem-run council has frozen their council tax bills... Nationally, from this Friday, Liberal Democrats will deliver another £130 income tax cut to every basic rate taxpayer. That's 25 million people getting a tax cut and 1 million people lifted out of paying Income Tax altogether thanks to us. ... The second year of record rises to Pensions, with pensioners set to benefit from a rise of £5.30 a week this year, on top of the £4.50 rise last year."

3. Making the rich pay

Including increased capital gains tax, an annual banker’s levy, VAT on private jets, caps on tax reliefs and an extra £900m to tackle tax evasion.

4. The Pupil Premium

An extra £1.25bn, targeted at the most disadvantaged pupils.

5. Encouraging employment

"We’re creating jobs, and supporting young people in the difficult path back into work by driving a record expansion of apprenticeships to over half a million, and the Youth Contract, announced yesterday, designed to get over 400,000 young people earning or learning."

6. Giving power to communities

"... we’re giving real power and control back to local areas, particularly over planning... Planning is set to become a bottom-up community-driven process, not the top-down imposition it’s been for far too long."

What's wrong with that?

(i) It's not a campaign

So this, all of this, is about actions that have already been taken or that are already underway. There's no sense of actually campaigning to do something.

Maybe that's not entirely fair: More of this kind of thing is implicitly the pitch. But it's very implicit.

And, again to be fair, there is an invitation:

"Lib Dems across the country should be getting out on the doorstep and canvassing their communities to see what they want in their local plan. What kind of development do they want to see and where? It’s a huge campaigning opportunity for the party, and is just the kind of 'community politics' we’ve championed for decades."

But asking people on the doorstop what they want is not much use in this election if you're not explicitly proposing to do it. Or proposing anything.

This is not a campaign.


(ii) It's not about local issues

The first message is effectively "Fill in your local stuff here". The rest of the messages are entirely about things the Government has done: the Budget, the Pupil Premium, the Youth Contract, the Localism Act. There's nothing about what councils want to do in relation to social housing, energy efficiency, energy generation, recycling, transport, education, health, fire, police...

To be fair, it's often been remarked that maybe the concept of a "national" local campaign doesn't make sense. The whole point of localism is that different areas need different things, and it shouldn't be up to a central authority to dictate what those things are. Far from being a single national campaign, this is 184 separate local campaigns. In which case, a key point to get across is exactly what it is that makes Liberal Democrat councils distinctive. And that's the third big failing.


(iii) There's no Liberal Democrat narrative

Let's look at the overarching message for these elections: effectively We've done good stuff.

In relation to "your local record of service", I'm unconvinced that Liberal Democrat councillors are automatically harder working or wiser than other councillors; and I'm sure all candidates say they care about protecting the vulnerable. But I do think that giving people "a voice in decisions made that affect them" is a distinctive aspect of Liberal Democrat philosophy.

And nationally, I happen to agree that it is good stuff, although even that is being questioned by respected organisations such the IFS. And let's leave aside for the moment the desperate need for an explicit liberal narrative linking all this good stuff together.

But shouting about good stuff that's happened can trigger people to recall the bad stuff (the voters' cost-benefit calculation). They will be prompted by Labour to remember...

• tuition fees (not just breaking a promise but breaking a promise to end broken promises);
• the new sickness benefit tests and the Welfare Reform Bill (appearing to penalise the vulnerable)
• the Health and Social Care Bill (appearing to muck up the NHS)
• the alleged Granny Tax, Pasty Tax, and Tory tax cuts for the richest

So how does the "campaign" deal with these claims? It doesn't. And, after all, you wouldn't expect politicians to emphasise opponents' talking points. But Tories have a powerful narrative that explains these actions (Cutting a bloated state and encouraging private enterprise). Liberal Democrats at best would be offering a response along the lines of It's not as bad as it would be if we weren't in Government and There are some good things in these measures and The bad things aren't as bad as Labour says. There's no powerful counter-narrative.

As an aside, I'd also question how likely it is that on-the-ground activists will be passionately motivated to celebrate the good stuff, when memories are still raw about...

• the dismal AV campaign (ending chances of electoral reform for a generation);
• the ludicrously poorly thought-out and explained Welfare Reform Bill;
• the universally acknowledged turd-fest that was the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill;
• and now the way in which the leadership seemed cluelessly oblivious to how the Government's surveillance proposals ran completely counter to fundamental Liberal Democrat principles.

(iv) It's counter to the key narrative of the Coalition

More even than not being a campaign, not being about local councils and not having a Liberal Democrat narrative, though, the message being pumped out now by every LibDem politician, activist, website and leaflet is essentially: Unless you're rich, we're giving you more money.

What the arsing hell does this You've never had it so good complacency do to the core justification for being in the Coalition in the first place? The key narrative is that Liberal Democrats accepted the offer of coalition so as to sort out the national economic crisis. Nowhere, NOWHERE, in any of this local messaging is it clearly explained why giving people more money helps this core mission of the Coalition.

I can imagine a number of ways in which this is the case, but I'll be damned if I can find it given equal prominence with all the "putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking people" messages.

So, to sum up...

(i) It's not a campaign.

(ii) It's not about local issues.

(iii) It doesn't have a LibDem narrative.

(iv) It serves to undermine the rationale for LibDems being in government in the first place.

Please feel free to tell me it's actually a brilliant LibDem local election campaign.

Exeter Elections, May 2012 - the results

So, the results are in. Labour has won overall control of Exeter City Council.

The council is now:

• Labour: 24
• Conservative: 11
• Liberal Democrats: 5

Net results

Of the 14 seats being contested, Labour won 10, the Conservatives won 4, the LibDems none.

When those seats were contested in 2008, Labour won 3, the Conservatives 4, the LibDems 6 and the Liberals 1. Two of those LibDem councillors subsequently defected to Labour, and the longstanding Liberal councillor retired.

So overall:

• Labour are up 5 on the status quo (gaining 3 from the LibDems, 2 from the Conservatives)
• the Conservatives are no change overall (gaining one from the LibDems, one from the Liberals, but losing 2 to Labour)
• the LibDems are down 4 (losing 3 to Labour, 1 to the Conservatives)
• the Liberals are down 1

Image: Exeter count by BBC News

Significant vote shares

The best result for the Greens was in St. David's, with 20% of the vote, achieving third place, and pushing the Conservatives into last place. The Greens also pushed the Conservatives into last place in St. David's and St. Thomas.And the Greens pushed the LibDems into last place in Exwick, Newtown, Polsloe, Priory, St. Leonard's and Topsham. Overall, the Greens got 8% of the vote, much the same as in 2011 and 2010, but up from 3% in 2008 when these particular council seats were contested.

The best result for UKIP was in Whipton Barton, with 17% of the vote. UKIP also achieved third place in Exwick, Pinhoe, and St. Thomas. St. Thomas was rather astonishing in that the Conservatives came last, below both UKIP and the Greens. (Thanks to Cllr Paul Bull for drawing my attention to that remarkable result!) Overall, UKIP got 6% of the vote, which is the highest vote share it has achieved in Exeter.

The LibDems got 14% of the vote overall, about the same as in 2011 and 2010, but down from 27% in 2008 when these particular council seats were contested. The LibDems were unable to poll above a third of the vote in any ward (the highest was 34%, in St. Thomas). The LibDems saw a decrease in share of 14% in St. David's and 13% in Pennsylvania.

The Conservatives received 27% of the vote, down from 32% in 2011, 33% in 2010, and 35% in 2008 when these particular council seats were contested. The largest share was 60% in Topsham. The worst result was 6% in St. Thomas.

Labour achieved 44% of the vote overall, up from 38% in 2011 and 2010, and up from 27% in 2008 when these particular council seats were contested. The largest share was 69% in Newtown. This is an increase in share of 20% from when elections were last held in Newtown, in 2010.

Individual ward results

Alphington: Labour gain from the LibDems, with councillor Vanessa Newcombe losing her seat, and Rob Crew joining the council. Labour benefited from a split in the opposition vote: Lab 37%, LibDem 27%, Con 19%, UKIP 12%, Green 6%. A similar result occurred in Alphington in 2011.

Exwick: Labour hold (Adrian Hannaford won the seat for the LibDems in 2008 but subsequently defected to Labour), with Ollie Pearson joining the council. Labour won with 54% of the vote, so the split between the Conservatives (18%) and UKIP (13%) did not affect the result. UKIP did not stand a candidate in this ward in 2011; the effect of doing so was to take vote share from both Conservatives and LibDems. The turnout was low (28%).

Newtown: Labour hold (Richard Branston), with 69% of the vote. This is an increase of 20% from when elections were last held in Newtown, in 2010. Out of an electorate of almost 4000, just 45 people voted for the LibDem candidate in this ward, the lowest polling of any candidate in these elections.

Pennsylvania: Conservative gain from the Liberal Democrats, by just 21 votes. Jake Donovan joins the council. LibDem Sheila Hobden, who won this ward by 5% in 2008, stood down at this election. However the election in this ward in May 2010 (at the same time as the General Election) had seen a comfortable LibDem majority over the Conservatives, so this result was a slight surprise. The turnout was high for this election (41%) so perhaps there is more going on here.

Pinhoe: Labour gain from the Conservatives, with Simon Bowkett joining the council. The result the last time there was an election in this ward (2010) was very close: Labour won by just 4 votes. This time the majority was 280 votes (13% of the votes cast). UKIP gained 11%, up from 5% in 2010. The turnout was the highest for these elections (43%).

Polsloe: Labour gain from the Conservatives, with councillor James Taghdissian losing his seat, and Rachel Lyons joining the council. This wasn't entirely expected. The Conservatives got 46% in this ward in 2010 and 44% in 2008. The vote of 31% this time shows a larger drop than typical in this election, suggesting there is more going on here.

Priory: Labour hold (Marcel Choules), with 54% of the vote. The Conservatives were second with 20% and the "Your Decision" candidate third on 16%. Labour has won comfortably here in the last three elections.

St. David's: A surprise Labour gain from the LibDems, with councillor Philip Brock losing his seat by just 32 votes, and Sarah Laws joining the council. Labour had not expected to win here and had not campaigned strongly in this ward. Philip Brock is also the Devon County Councillor for the electoral division of St. David's and St. James. The Conservatives were beaten into last place in St. David's by the Greens. The turnout was low (27%), and Labour won with just 34% of the vote: the LibDems got 31%, the Greens 20% and Conservatives 15%. However, the LibDems got 45% here in 2010 and 53% in 2008 when Philip Brock was elected.

St. James: Labour gain from the Liberal Democrats, with Keith Owen joining the council. Keith got 33% when he stood in St. James in 2011, and 45% this time, reflecting movement away from the Coalition parties. The LibDem candidate (who got 30%) also suffered from being new to Exeter and not living or working in the ward. On the other hand, it is likely that that 30% includes a high number of traditional Conservative voters. The turnout was the lowest of these elections (23%).

St. Leonard's: Conservative hold (Norman Shiel). Cllr Paul Bull has pointed out that if UKIP had stood a candidate in this ward this time, St. Leonard's might well have been another Labour gain, despite it being a safe Conservative seat in 2008. The Conservatives got 44%, to Labour's 38%. The Greens got 13%. This ward is the flipside of St. James: it is likely that that 44% includes a high number of traditional LibDem voters.

St. Loye's: Conservative gain from the Liberals, with Andrew Leadbetter joining the city council (he is already Devon County Councillor for the electoral division of St. Loye's and Topsham. Longstanding Liberal councillor Joan Morrish had retired before the election. The Liberals being an anti-EU party, it is likely that a UKIP candidate would have split the Conservative vote, leading to a Labour win. The turnout was low (27%).

St. Thomas: Labour hold. Rob Hannaford won the seat for the LibDems in 2008 but subsequently defected to Labour. He has now held the seat for Labour, with a vote of 47%, to the LibDems' 34%. This election was hard fought, with the LibDems putting out 8 leaflets, and many Labour activists on the ground. The Conservatives came fifth in St. Thomas, beaten by both UKIP and the Greens, suggesting a major squeeze. The LibDem leader won here in 2011 with 40% of the vote, to Labour's 36%.

Topsham: Conservative hold (Margaret Baldwin), with 60% of the vote. The LibDem vote has steadily declined here over the years, as Labour has risen.

Whipton Barton: Labour hold (Tony Wardle), with the largest majority of the elections (767 votes). The opposition was split evenly between Conservatives and UKIP, but their combined total would still have failed to beat Labour. Tony's vote share rose from 39% in 2008 to 57% this year.

Turnout

Overall turnout was 33.6%. The highest turnout was in Pinhoe (43.3%), the lowest in St. James (23.3%). The 2011 turnout was 42.6%. The 2010 turnout was 28.4%.

Further analysis

I've blogged my reflections on what these results mean in a subsequent post.

Brief thoughts on Exeter's local election

There are elections for Exeter City Council today (details here).

As someone wrote on Twitter just now, "Over the years many men and women fought hard and gave up their lives so that you can vote. Please honour them today by voting."

If you don't know what hangs on these elections, take a look at this summary of what the parties are proposing. The result is not going to change the world, but it does affect who makes the decisions on your behalf about our city. If you don't vote you can't complain. Simple as that.

My thoughts? Well I'm a member of the Liberal Democrats, so I'm hardly unbiased! But I tend to look for those candidates who are prepared to stand up to protect people from bullies, whether those bullies are councils, companies, polluters, developers, criminals or whatever. I also look for good ideas for making our city an even better place to live in.

All the Exeter parties have a number of good ideas. I like councils in which different parties have to come together and negotiate what to do. It helps to stop the arrogant dominance of one party enforcing its will; to filter out the nutty ideas; and to improve the proposals that get implemented.

So I would be happy for Exeter City Council to stay in minority control. That's unlikely to happen. My prediction is that Labour will gain three seats from the status quo, giving it majority control. I like many of the Labour folks. They're good people. I like their thinking on housing and renewable energy, and they've done many good things while running the council. But they don't have a monopoly on truth. I'd rather they didn't have absolute power.

A number of Exeter issues particularly concern me at the moment. (Some are within the remit of the County Council rather than the City Council, but the City Council has an important role to play in representing residents' views on these issues.)

1. Recycling: The Conservatives describe Exeter's recycling record as "good", while Labour describes its record as "excellent". Yet the latest figures in fact show that Exeter's recycling rate is worse than the national average, and far worse than Devon as a whole. Devon could be the best in the country if it weren't for Exeter. Increasing recycling rates can help generate energy and income, and this issue needs urgent attention, alongside other local energy saving and generation.

2. Traffic: The scheme to route cross-city traffic through residential areas is an expensive mistake. All credit to the St James candidates Ditch Townsend (Liberal Democrat) and Keith Owen (Labour) who have explained their principled opposition to this scheme. But it is now going ahead because of a failure of proper scrutiny by existing city councillors.

3. Democracy: Voting en bloc for planning and other proposals, as Exeter Labour regularly does, is (in my view) a dreadful dereliction of duty. Each councillor should be weighing up the pros and cons for themselves, and explaining the decision to the people they represent.

4. Library spending: At a time when money is tight, and when libraries round the country are under threat, spending £4m revamping Exeter Central Library cannot be justified. I use this library a lot. It's not perfect, and it would be nice to spruce it up, but it's good enough. In my view, a 1000-seater theatre, safer cycling routes or support for the ECFC ground would do far more to enhance the quality of Exeter life and promote economic growth.


But these are my concerns. Decide for yourself.

Acknowledgements

• "Rescue workers in Exeter's blitz" from Exeter Memories.

Some Exeter Lib Dem candidates

The Exeter City Council elections are tomorrow. And, as mentioned previously, the Labour and Conservative candidates provide brief biographies on their respective websites (here and here). So I thought it might be handy to have something similar for Exeter's Liberal Democrat candidates. Here are a few of the candidates.

St James: Ditch Townsend

Despite medical training, Ditch prefers his community development work in Somerset, and enabling individuals and communities to find their own solutions. With parents and grandparents once doctors or teaching in Asia (where he was born), Ditch embraced his 14 years working in Asia and Africa, increasing inclusion of economically and socially marginalised people, particularly those affected by HIV or leprosy. Ditch passionately believes that everyone has potential and should be enabled to authentically participate in society. With family trained or already living in Exeter, resettling here in 2009 proved ideal, with children attending St Peter's school and Exeter College.

Pennsylvania: Nigel Williams

Nigel Williams has lived in Exeter for the last 25 years working both in the city and east Devon as a teacher. He has lived in the Pennsylvania ward for the past 18 years where he has lived with his family. His children have attended the local schools and the local college. Besides teaching Nigel has experience of trade union work as an accredited caseworker and is experienced in representing the views of the individual as well as collective issues with employers. He is a school governor of a church primary school in the city. Nigel would like to represent the Pennsylvania Ward and believes he can represent the community fairly and seek what is best overall for the city.

St David's: Phil Brock

Phil Brock is seeking re-election to St. David's Ward having represented the area since 2000. He moved to Exeter in 1970 and at that time was employed by Royal Mail. In 1979 he became self employed and still remains in the retail trade. He was first elected to the city council in 1994 for St Leonard's ward and during his 18 years of service has served on most committee's within the council. He currently sits on the planning committee and two sub-planning committees and on the Standard Board.
Phil says "It has been a privilege to serve this city for so many years, from the moment I moved here with my wife from North Cornwall we have always felt at ease and at home in Exeter."

Other wards

Alphington - Vanessa Newcombe
Exwick - Alasdair Wood
Newtown - John Ashton
Pinhoe - Christine Fullam
Polsloe - David Lockwood
Priory - Ben Noble
St. Leonard's - Paddy Richmond
St. Loye's - Sally Wilcox
St. Thomas - Graeme Holloway
Topsham - Caroline Nottle
Whipton Barton - Pamela Thickett

Exeter Elections, May 2012 - Accessibility

Mags L Halliday has reviewed the accessibility of the parties' local manifestos, and has kindly allowed me to post a summary her findings here. (For completeness, I've storified the relevant tweets below.)

In ascending order of scores, the results are...

... drumroll ...

In joint last place, Exeter Conservatives, with a score of -1, for an unreadable PDF that returned an error about font sizes and refused to load an image. [It was fine for me, incidentally; but failing to open for some people clearly means it's not very accessible!]. Mags also notes that the document is "a print PDF hosted online, as the colours, fonts etc are not accessible for the visually impaired".

Also in last place, Exeter LibDems, for lacking local pledges. Their website is "at least fully accessible, but the last local news update was Feb 2011". [There's also a problem with the South West manifesto hosted on the national website, in that it's actually for the North West...]

UKIP also scores -1 for lacking a manifesto specific to Exeter.

In second place, with 0 points, Exeter Labour. It gets 1 point for its manifesto being html rather than PDF, but minus 1 point "for a gray font on a gray background... and the font is also serif and in italics".

And in first place, with an unassailable 1 point, Exeter Greens: "only @exetergreens have local pledges up and easily read by people with disabilities, but they don't have a biog of my candidate"

P.S. Mags warns that she wasn't able to check accessibility with a screen reader. I've sent the links to a blind friend, who has just replied to say that they found the Greens' pdf to be unreadable. So I don't think any of the parties come out of this well!

Exeter Elections, May 2012 - the issues

There are elections for Exeter City Council on 3 May (details here). So what are the main issues between the parties?

The current Exeter City Council

Labour

Exeter has been under Labour control for most of the last 30 years. Currently, Labour holds 19 out of the 40 seats, and so has minority control of the council. This means that it needs the support of councillors from other parties to pass controversial measures.

Labour is clearly pushing hard to gain majority control. It has a strong and increasing doorstep presence in the run-up to the election. Its website is simple but effective and contains full details of all its candidates. On Twitter it is well organised and nicely engaging. It is assisted by Exeter's eloquent MP Ben Bradshaw. And already Labour's leader Ed Miliband and deputy leader Harriet Harman have paid visits to Exeter.

Exeter Labour's priorities include:

• more social housing, using cooperative and mutual models of home ownership
• installing solar panels on council houses
• redeveloping the Bus Station site to include a swimming pool and open spaces
• setting up an Exeter City Council Apprenticeship Scheme
• supporting the Devon Metro initiative
• improving play facilities in the parks

Simon Bowkett, who is standing in Pinhoe for Labour, is keeping a blog of his campaign. Well worth a look.

Conservatives

Meanwhile, Exeter Conservative Party currently has 11 councillors. Their local election manifesto emphasises recycling and refuse collection because these services are "very often all people can physically see for their Council Tax".

Exeter Conservatives' priorities include:

• setting up a ‘cash for recycling’ scheme
• investigating restoring weekly collections in some areas
• cutting the number of city councillors
• scrapping councillor pensions
• merging the council's newsletter with that of Devon County Council
• reducing expectations about social housing and reprioritising the housing list

See also the Exeter Conservatives' website and Twitter. And Jake Donovan is active for Exeter Conservatives on Twitter.

LibDems

Exeter Liberal Democrat Party currently has 9 councillors. It has not issued a citywide manifesto, preferring to emphasise the hard work that individual councillors put into representing local people.

For example in my ward (St James), the most recent leaflet discusses the scheme to re-route traffic from outside the new John Lewis to Blackall Road and York Road. "Labour members of the City Council have ignored the concerns of local residents and have relentlessly pushed through these changes."

Concerns about bins, parking, HMOs (Houses in Multiple Occupation) and unwelcome planning applications are common.

Meanwhile, the leader of the LibDem group has condemned Labour's excessive borrowing while running Exeter City Council. The party notes that no LibDem-run council in England has raised Council Tax. And LibDem councils are also most likely to be giving the lowest-paid council workers a pay rise.


See also the Exeter LibDems' website, Twitter and "Local elections 2012: delivering for the South West".

Greens

Exeter Green Party has no councillors, despite 8% of the vote in last year's local elections. A proportional voting system would have seen them get one of the 13 seats up for election in 2011. Instead, Labour took 54% of the councillors on 38% of the vote.

Their local election manifesto says that "too often a fixation on economic growth results in the loss of or damage to our valuable green spaces, deterioration in air quality, or the loss of small local businesses pushed out by large corporations".

Green priorities include:

• raising parking charges, to tackle poor air quality and encourage alternatives to the car
• generating more renewable energy and increasing home insulation, to cut costs and increase income
• introducing weekly food waste collections, to increase recycling rates and generate energy and income
• using this additional income to mitigate government cuts to local services
• resisting planning proposals which reduce the quality of life in Exeter
• increasing social housing and compulsory purchase powers on empty homes
• redeveloping the Bus Station site into a new market square for local farmers and businesses

See also the Exeter Green Party website.

UKIP

The UK Independence Party got 4% of the vote in last year's local elections. There is no specific manifesto for Exeter. Instead, their manifesto for the local government elections says that "councillors should put their communities, not party politics, first. Important local issues should be put to binding local referendums"

UKIP priorities include:

• halting all cuts to front-line council services, cutting councillors’ allowances and expenses, limiting numbers of highly paid council employees, and abolishing "non-essential and ‘politically-correct’ services"
• requiring referendums on major planning schemes like supermarkets, wind farms, large housing developments and major transport schemes; with no right of appeal for developers
• introducing elections for county health, education and police boards
• leaving the EU to provide more money for local services
• cutting immigration and withholding all state benefits and free NHS services from immigrants and citizens of other countries
• ending all funding for renewable energy, banning new wind farms, and building new power plants
• building more prisons and increasing prison terms
• reintroducing selection by ability into schools

See also UKIP's national website.

Other candidates

There's only one candidate who is not from the above parties: a candidate standing in Priory Ward.

Incidentally, St Loye's councillor Joan Morrish is standing down this year, at the age of 85, having served the city for 20 years. She is currently the only Liberal on the council, and no member of the Liberal Party is standing this year. The Echo also notes that her husband David Morrish was involved in local politics for 50 years both as a city and county councillor before retiring last year. Even political opponents pay tribute to the sterling public service that Joan and David Morrish have given to their community.

Note

If you represent one of these parties locally, and you would like to clarify or correct anything here, please feel free to comment below. :-)

 

Exeter Elections, May 2012 - the basics

There's an election?!

In Exeter on 3 May we have elections for the City Council. This blogpost is for those who haven't voted in a local election before, or who are new to Exeter.

"Why should I care?"

Well, Exeter has two councils: Devon County Council and Exeter City Council.

Among other things, Devon County Council looks after education, social services, transport, fire and police.

But the May elections are for the City Council, which makes decisions on planning applications, housing, car parks, waste collection, shops, parks, and anything that helps make Exeter an attractive place to live and work.

"Sounds worthy, but voting doesn't change anything"

My cats run the city

Perhaps. Often less than 40% of people vote. Sometimes it's less than a quarter.

If you don't vote, you're letting others choose councillors for you. Do you really want to let obsessives and crackpots choose the decision-makers?!

"OK. What's the choice?"

It depends what ward you are in. There are 18 wards in Exeter, but on 3 May only 14 wards have a councillor to elect:

Alphington, Exwick, Newtown, Pennsylvania, Pinhoe, Polsloe, Priory, St. David's, St. James, St. Leonard's, St. Loye's, St. Thomas, Topsham, and Whipton Barton

It'll be your turn next time Duryard, Cowick, Mincinglake, and Heavitree!

Each ward contains 5000-10,000 people. Each ward has two or three councillors. There are 40 councillors altogether. Only councillor in each ward is up for election on 3 May.

If you're not sure which ward you're in, enter your postcode on the Exeter City Council website, and it will tell you.

(There's also other useful information about your home at that website, such as dates of bin collections and street cleaning, your councillors, your polling station, nearby planning applications, a heat loss map, your council tax band, residents parking zones, your nearest GP and more!)

You can see who's standing to be your councillor in this document (pdf).

"How do I choose who to vote for?"

Most Exeter voters have a choice between candidates associated with the familiar parties from recent General Elections: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green and UKIP...

"Wait. What the hell? What have these political goons got to do with judging planning applications or designing our parks?"

Hmm, yes, some voters find this odd: Why should decisions your councillor makes about the city have much to do with what national politicians are doing? Is there a distinctively Labour way of collecting bins? Is there a philosophically different UKIP way of judging planning applications? Does what Liberal Democrats say about the Syrian crisis have much to do with housing policy in Alphington? How do Conservative attitudes to European integration relate to the number of car parks we should have in Topsham?

Cats are individualists

It's a good point. We could of course have no local parties at all, just independents. And across the country there are indeed many councillors unaffiliated with these national parties. Nothing wrong with that.

But I'd suggest it's generally preferable for us to have a choice of a small number of manifestos offered across the city, than for us to end up with a council full of completely independent individuals with no clear common platform for the future of the city.

That's not to say there shouldn't be independent councillors; but a small number of distinct groupings within a council can be helpful. At the same time, rigid party-based decision-making that leaves no room for independent thought would obviously be wrong.

So parties are probably a good idea, but voters also need to take into account the record and plans of individual candidates.

"Yes. But why these parties?"

True, the parties competing to run councils needn't be the same parties competing to run the country.

Freeeeedooooom!

We could have different groupings: The Populist Party and The Socialist Party, for example; or The Low Council Tax Party, The High Equality Party and The Centre Party; or The Federal UK Party, the Neo-Fascist Party and the Exeter Independence Party.

But there we go. It's the national parties which tend to be most well-known and the best organised. And in our weird British voting system it's hard for new parties to break through.

It might seem at times that the things that national politicians care about - income tax, the NHS, foreign affairs, and so on - don't have an awful lot to do with potholes in Pinhoe, parking in Polsloe, students in St James, speeding in St Leonard's, and so on.

On the other hand, there might in principle be philosophical differences between parties that lead to very different local plans. For example, one could imagine a radically free market approach to council services would differ substantially from an ardent socialist approach. Whether there are significant differences in practice I'm not so sure, but there are clearly broadly distinctive emphases, values and positions between these national parties that might influence different local choices in small ways.

"OK, so I just vote for the same party I'm voting for in the next General Election?"

Sure, some people decide which candidate to vote for entirely on the basis of the national parties.

But choosing your local councillor on the basis of what national politicians are doing is a little like choosing which train to catch on the basis of what you think of your Internet Service Provider.

And if you imagine that the generally hard-working folk who put their heads above the parapet to offer to help their communities as councillors have much to do with slick national politicians, you'd mostly be wrong. Candidates might broadly support the national parties, but disagree strongly with significant aspects. Ask them.

"Yes, but I want to send a message..."

Some people use their vote in local elections to "send a message". Usually the message is that they don't like what the Government is doing. Sometimes the message is to the Opposition that they need to switch tack. Sometimes the message is that all the main parties are useless.

It's tempting.

Exeter expects...

But I would suggest this is a bad way to select a councillor.

National politicians can see the opinion polls. They can read the papers, internet comments, the emails, the petitions. They can hear the vox pops, the focus groups, the booing on Question Time. They're acutely aware every day when people are unhappy with their performance. They don't need some kind of ballot box semaphore to receive a message.

The councillor you vote for will be representing your neighbourhood in all the decisions directly affecting your city. National politicians don't get "punished" if you vote for another party at the local election. The only person getting punished is yourself, because you're not focusing on selecting the councillor who best represents you.

If you want to punish national politicians who aren't doing what you want, just don't vote for them at the general election.

"Yeah, but they're all the same. Incompetent. Spineless. Meddling. Just in it for the expenses."

Devil councillor

Really?

That's not my experience.

And it has to be asked: If the decisions are so easy to get right and the expenses so lucrative, why don't you put yourself up for election?

Because I can imagine many more lucrative ways of spending my time than reading reams of council papers, sitting in a whole load of interminable meetings, and getting abuse from the Exeter Express and Echo letter pages, all for quite measly sums of money.

Let's see you put yourself on the line then.

"Oooh. Touched a nerve, eh?"

Sorry. Got a bit carried away there!

But the basic point is that we need more people willing to stand as councillors. A cross-section of society. Bright, thoughtful, hard-working, caring, conscientious people. We don't encourage people by hurling abuse and assuming the worst possible motives.

"OK. They're not all the same. Party A is useless. Party B works for you all year round. Party C politicians are just in it for their pals. Party D is always lying..."

Hmm... Yes, having said that councillors are not all the same, I wouldn't want to imply the truth of these kinds of generalisations, often bandied around in leaflets and on doorsteps.

I find it difficult to believe, for the main parties anyway, that one party's candidates are innately more untrustworthy than another's. Or automatically more useless. Or generally more hard-working, just by virtue of membership of a particular party.

Cat fight!

There are good councillors and bad councillors. And all varieties in-between. And I'm not sure any one party has a monopoly on either virtue or sin. These things vary depending on the place, and over time. And people can get better or worse.

So I don't think there are easy truisms here.

"Indigo Party can't win here..."

Beware the dodgy bar charts!

As I noted earlier, we have a slightly crazy voting system, which means that you can't just vote for the candidate you most want: you also have to take into account how others might vote.

Let's say past experience suggests the fight is basically between Candidate A and Candidate B. You like Candidate E, who (sadly) isn't going to attract many votes. Do you vote for who you want, or do you vote for whoever is better out of Candidates A and B? Tough choice.

"OK. Enough of the 'Local Elections 101'. What are the issues for 3 May?"

To be continued in the next blog post...!

Acknowledgements

• "Surprise!" by Michelle Tribe (Flickr user greencolander) [CC BY 2.0]
• "Crazy cat woman" by Flickr user Threthny [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]
• "Beach cats in Malaga" by Flickr user Thera T [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]
• "Freedom" based on "Flags" by Flickr user Joe Shlabotnik [CC BY 2.0]
• "Exeter expects..." and "Devil councillor" by Lon Won [CC BY-SA 3.0]
• "Cat fight" by LLewleyn Williams a.k.a. SCUD (Flickr user privatenobby) [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]