I was in Thailand on holiday for Mr NY Brit Expat’s birthday. While we were there, there were local elections in England (yes, we did postal votes). Trying to find out what was happening as I was using wifi to follow both The Guardian and the BBC as they do an in-depth reporting of elections where you can pull up each council’s results and, for people like me that have a bizarre love of data and an insatiable curiosity to look for changes over time, these are the obvious places to go. When you follow election results, clearly there is not only a reporting of the elections but, of course, spin is put on it.
Inevitably, smaller more rural and suburban areas are reported first, so of course the Tories looked to be having a better night than expected. What made things more difficult was that both the BBC and The Guardian were looking at the results from the perspective of “Labour failed” rather than reporting the results; so if there was a Labour target area which they failed to take (many of which were based on unreasonable expectations), this was how it was reported. The fact that Labour gained seats in the area was deemed far less important than the failure to take seats or increase the vote in that area; this was the case in local council elections like Westminster (Labour picked up 4 seats from the Tories) and Wandsworth (where Labour picked up 6 seats from the Tories).
Labour’s success at winning Plymouth council was noted but the fact that it had been ages that they had held it was less interesting. I missed the declaration of the Kirklees results (the last time Labour won there was in 1999). Both Mr NY Brit Expat and I were getting concerned especially when we heard of the loss (this happened early in the night) of Nuneaton and Bedworth council and Derby council from Labour to No Overall Control; were these losses due to a specific local issue or were these indications of a wider problem? It seems that in Derby there was an issue with the number of cuts put in by the Labour council and that Labour lost 3 seats to the Tories (the mayor was one of the losses) and 1 to UKIP which happened to be the leader of the council (like these would stop cuts?).
Mr NY Brit Expat was convinced that Labour did very poorly — all this was in the absence of reporting on London and larger cities which are normal Labour strongholds. So you are sitting in a hotel room on your mobile phones waiting and waiting for information; those that know me can imagine my frustration (see bizarre and, if I am being honest, obsessive interest in election data mentioned above). Moreover, we were 6 hours later so finding out why these changes happened was not happening until the morning. I went to bed after the Plymouth victory where Labour won control over the council was reported (with Labour gaining one seat from the Tories and 3 from UKIP) -- with him pointing out that I was being obsessive which is amazing to me as I always spend election nights in both Britain and the US looking to see the results as they come in; how could he not have noticed this little obsession of mine? Hmmm ... weirdly, I normally never go to bed on a high note; the last time I did that, Gore won Florida and I woke up to George W Bush as President … (fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me … thank you Star Trek for that one ...)
Perhaps the strangest thing, was how what was clearly a Labour Party victory was spun into a failure, a defeat for Corbyn, that Corbynism had reached its peak, while the Tories that lost seats were argued to have had a great election result; this was particularly bizarre (although not as bizarre as the mainstream media response on the night of the general election where they expected the Tories to win and were faced with a hung Parliament and they had no other story to tell; now that was fun!).
There were several points that I was curious about
- The impact of Brexit on election results if any (via the Lib Dems and the Tories and then Labour and the Tories);
- The impact of the accusations of “antisemitism” against Labour by the Board of Deputies and other groups which was being used by Tory and Labour MPs (on the right of the party) as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left;
- The impact of the Grenfell Towers fire and the Windrush Scandal (in other words, racism in the Tory party);
- And finally, how bad will the Tories do in London and also whether Labour would consolidate its position and how far it would advance nationally. I was not expecting massive losses for Labour, the question was how much it would grow rather than lose.
Moreover, there are always local circumstances that will impact voting for local councils. A corruption scandal, a fight over regeneration, cuts to services, privatisation of services, and the state of the roads. When I was canvassing in Waltham Forest and Redbridge, there were 2 issues that were being brought up: congestion fees, the new buildings in Walthamstow centre (the Mall), regeneration schemes by the local (Labour) council in Waltham Forest and then in Redbridge, parking fees in Wanstead. Additional issues with respect to Labour were getting people to vote for Blairite councillors in areas where the left was stronger or in control over the Constituency LP; they may not vote against Labour in those areas, but they may not come out to vote. There are also national issues that may be relevant at the local level which might impact upon voting.
It is hard to get people to be excited about voting in local elections: 1) part of this has to do with the fact that powers of local councils have been undercut substantially by national governments and change will require a change in the national government; 2) LP candidates are chosen by the Local Campaign Forums (LCF) which are still in the hands of Blairites in large part which means that they do not reflect why people have joined the Labour Party in the last few years and the candidates (often the same that have been running the councils that have overseen privatisation, closure of libraries and talk about “affordable housing” rather than social housing) are part of the problem; and 3) the cuts to services at the local level (see national government) have been implemented by local councillors and their impact has been devastating for many. These should have an impact on both national and local elections as it has been the Tories that have forced the cuts through at the local level, but in many places it has been Labour that has carried them out.
So when you are canvassing and campaigning (door knocking) you are often asking people to vote for people that you don’t support, also that makes it difficult to get newer LP activists to help with campaigning. My contribution in canvassing was small; I had the flu and then an ear infection. I decided that what little I could do, I would do in Chingford, part of Iain Duncan Smith’s (IDS) constituency as my area was pretty safe (even though a new ward was seen as a “marginal” – all 3 seats were won by Labour due to excellent campaigning by local Labour activists). So, winning seats in the various Chingford wards would be amazing (there were even 3 good women Labour lefties that were running in Chingford Hatch which added some excitement). However, what would be more important for me was to make a dent in IDS’s constituency; he was the head of the Department of Work and Pensions whose cuts were so severe and the attack on benefits so strong that projected levels of child impoverishment were actually exceeded, the incomes of and services for disabled people were deeply undermined; he is also the architect of Universal Credit which is being rolled out in Britain and which will impact women and the disabled badly. So cutting his lead (which was much smaller at the last general election) would be a serious pleasure.
Brexit
The impact of Brexit on the one hand would be easier to ascertain especially in London where there are large numbers of Tory remain supporters; the results in Richmond-upon-Thames, Kingston-upon Thames (an increase from 14 to 39 in the former and 18 to 39 in the latter) can be explained by this. The same holds for South Cambridgeshire (with a reduced number of councillors and a boundary change) where the Lib Dems seized control over this council was not surprising and a gain of 16 seats in South Cambridgeshire while the Tories lost 25). Brexit seems to have impacted the LP vote far less than the Tory vote.
The other issue with respect to Brexit relates to UKIP councillors; in the general election, the vast majority went to the Tories with a smaller number going to Labour. Given the shift in the Tory party to the right under Theresa May to eliminate the need for UKIP; UKIP is essentially redundant and lost 123 seats (but retained 3) with the Tories being the main beneficiaries of UKIP’s collapse. This is very important, even when picking up most of the UKIP vote (about 2/3 as compared to Labour’s 1/3), the Tories still lost seats overall.
The Antisemitism Row
There have been some really ugly accusations against Labour which I have reported here (see Antisemitisim, Anti-Zionism and the Row in the Labour Party in 2016, and more recently, Antisemitism in the British Labour Party). During the period leading up to the local elections, the accusations intensified led by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Unfortunately as well, some members of the right in the Labour Party, like Chuka Umunna, Wes Streeting and John Woodcock, also seized upon these accusations as a stick to beat Jeremy Corbyn during the election period. This reinforced my belief that they would rather lose an election than to win under a Corbyn leadership. Before the final results were in, Umunna called for an inquiry into the local elections; honestly, I think that would be a great idea especially if the impact of Corbyn critics and their behaviour during the local elections is examined. How many votes did they cost Labour, inquiring minds want to know?
The election results for Barnet local council has been taken as evidence of the concern of British Jews with antisemitism in the Labour Party due to the large number of Jews in the area. In fact, some of those running for the local council in Barnet from Labour repeated the claim that Labour has an antisemitism problem throughout the election. They then asked people in Barnet to vote for them in a wonderful hoisted on their own petard moment; needless to say, it didn’t happen. An important issue that is relevant to votes in Barnet relates to the large amount of privatisation of services by the local council which is something that Labour should have campaigned on; another important issue relates to the Barnet LP manifesto used in the election which did advocate building 800 council homes and cracking down on rogue landlords, but never discussed privatisation nor raising council tax (that is a local tax to cover services based on the value of property you inhabit) to cover desperately needed services in an area where they have been vitiated.
So strong was the belief by the mainstream media and local council candidates that the antisemitism in the LP was responsible for Labour not taking the council that somehow it was forgotten that Jews live in many areas in London, like Redbridge where Labour won 15 seats (12 from the Tories and 3 from the Lib Dems) leaving Labour with 51 councillors to 12 for the Tories; MP Wes Streeting from Redbridge (Ilford North) tweeted that “Labour’s Jewish vote” collapsed in Redbridge.” Given the excellent results in an area where there are large numbers of Jews, I really would like to see the figures that justify his tweet. In Greater Manchester, areas with a high Jewish population increased their votes for Labour by 15%. One point that needs to be made yet again is that Jews differ politically, religiously and are from different classes; how they vote will reflect those issues. Is there a “Jewish” vote? Are we a monolith? We can ask people in different areas that identify as Jews how they voted and why … that would be far more useful to get an idea of differences among those that identify as Jews than anything else.
Racism in the Tory Party
Labour winning the council in Kensington and Chelsea had as much chance as a snowball in hell as that is an area where class, race and ethnicity divisions are very broad. In Notting Dale (the ward in which Grenfell Towers were located) in Kensington and Chelsea, the only party that did worse than the Tories were the Lib Dems.
An additional issue that must be addressed are the trials of voter ID that were held; like in the US, those that would not necessarily have IDs are the elderly, those with lower incomes who do not drive (no drivers’ licences), do not travel overseas (no passports) and those with no fixed abode. The Windrush scandal itself addressed the inability for those that came to Britain from former British colonies (and their descendants) to rebuild Britain after WWII to access British citizenship, healthcare and identification to which they were entitled. The Windrush generation not only physically rebuilt Britain, they also work(ed) in the NHS, social services, and civil service. Overwhelmingly people of colour from British colonies and the Commonwealth they would have been British citizens when they came. As such their citizenship should never had been in dispute, but due to the these countries no longer being colonies and their landing papers being “lost” they and their children were literally lost in a black hole where their rights were lost; many faced deportation due to increasingly stringent policies on immigration from the Home Office. How does one get ID if there is no proof of when you came to Britain because it has been destroyed by political decisions of the Tories; especially when the current Prime Minister is responsible for the policy and its implementation? I am by no means mourning Amber Rudd, but she fell on the sword to save Theresa May. An election for a new Tory leader when there are no obvious candidates and a general election is something that the Tories want to avoid for as long as possible.
The fact is, racism in the Tory party is not new; it is the nature of the beast. Overwhelmingly people of colour vote Labour especially Afro-Caribbean and British Muslim voters; the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has always been a strong anti-racist campaigner will, if nothing else, strengthen the votes of people of colour. That said, this section is a stop-gap waiting for further data to become available. The use of IDs will (as in the US) affect those with lower incomes and people of colour. The importance of race and ethnicity is an essential issue which will impact the general elections and given the Windrush Scandal we must note the impact of racism on British elections.
The Final Vote Results
As I said above, listening to the results come in and the analysis of the BBC and The Guardian and waiting for local results from councils had led me to believe that the election was going to give a poor result for Labour.
Needless to say, I was extremely curious if the hard work from LP activists bore fruit. Instead concentration on changes in the councils overall, the lack of information initially about changes in votes as compared to previous elections was rather confusing. Especially after word started coming on voting in Redbridge, Croydon, Ealing, and Waltham Forest where not only seats were being won, but the number of votes for Labour also increased even when they didn’t win seats and council control didn’t change hands. Luckily, I was able to get links from people in England to see the results from the local councils themselves. Eliminating the last blue bastion in Greater Manchester (Trafford) was a serious victory and the result of a lot of hard work. So, let’s look at the results.
Contrary to what I was expecting hearing the initial results coming in, Labour has increased the number of councillors; in fact, it has over a thousand more than the Tories, their numbers increased by 79, while the Tories were down 35 even though it won the majority of UKIP seats that were held after the 2014 election (this was possibly part of the reason for the Nuneaton result); they lost seats to both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Interestingly, the Greens picked up some seats as did the Liberal Democrats especially in areas where there were Remain voters.
There is a graphic summation for the results in The Guardian which shows the changes clearly and breaks down what happened in each council in England if you enjoy looking at data. Labour continues to dominate London. I think that the possibility of Labour winning Wandsworth and Westminister were minimal, but the hard work done by LP members bore fruit and not only did their vote increase, they actually had increased the numbers of councillors in those areas which have been controlled by the Tories. While by no means a landslide, what has happened is consolidation of LP gains and a victory (even if not a major one) rather than “peak Corbyn” which was argued by members of the Tory party and The Telegraph.
Election 2018 results
Number of councillors
After 150 of 150 councils declared
1. Labour, 2350 councillors, +79
2. Conservative, 1332 councillors, -35
3. Liberal Democrat, 536 councillors, +75
4. Green, 39 councillors, +8
5. UKIP, 3 councillors, -123
6. Others, 144, - 4
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cz3nmp2eyxgt/england-local-elections-2018)
So, what are the lessons learned? Can we trust the mainstream media to report just the facts? If the analysis offered by the MSM literally shifts the way that the vote has gone as an initial interpretation, how does that impact upon how people view a result even if corrected later? If a meme takes hold, then sometimes facts do not shift it. Those that worked so hard to gain votes and get out the vote probably will feel disheartened and this could impact on whether they view this important work as worthwhile. Others may be inspired when the meme is gone. But we are looking a low point for journalism where the MSM tries to create the news rather than reporting it.