Re-elected & Newham Council Local Elections Count 2018

I was delighted to be re-elected yesterday as a Labour (and also now Co-operative) Councillor in London Borough of Newham for a 3rd term with Cllr John Whitworth & Cllr Charlene McLean.

We have 3 Councillors per ward and this time I had the highest personal vote. In the past my retiring colleague Cllr Freda Bourne always had the highest personal vote. I used to put that down to her name appearing first on the ballot paper. Now that my surname comes first, it is surely due to my hard work and personal following?

Seriously though, the Labour vote in our ward is humbling, we got about 5x the support of the nearest Conservative opponent. All 60 seats in Newham are Labour with similar massive majorities. Whilst I recognise that the "first past the post" system is outdated and needs reform, this result demonstrates the historic and ongoing support of the people of Newham for Labour. We must not take this for granted and must deliver despite the savage Tory cuts.

I was also really pleased that Rokhsana Fiaz was elected Labour Executive Mayor with a staggering 73% of the vote (note under a transferable vote system). She has increased the Labour Mayoral vote by 12% since 2014. A fantastic mandate for change in Newham. Rokhsana is the first directly elected black female mayor in the UK (and possibly Europe?) and has I think the highest percentage vote of any Executive Mayor.

When I recover I will blog further. Many thanks to our Agent, Carl Morris and all the Labour Party activists who worked their socks off for us (including my good lady wife, Gillian)

Revealed: the true cost of the House of Lords

The Electoral Reform Society have released a devastating analysis of the state of the House of Lords in 2017 – revealing the ‘democratic crisis’ at the heart of the Lords. The Audit coincides with a key Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday calling for reform of the upper house [1] – It follows a report from the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House [2] suggested moving to a still-unelected, 600-member house by 2028. ERS polling found that 88% of people believe the Lords should be smaller than 600 members [3]. The findings have spurred the ERS to call for substantive reform of a ‘crumbling, crony-packed chamber’, with The High Cost of Small Change: The House of Lords Audit revealing: Lords-a-claiming: 455 Lords claimed more than the average take home pay of full-time employees during the 2016/17 session – despite the house sitting for just 141 days. 33 inactive peers picked up £462,510 in tax-free expenses [4] – claiming an average of £746 per vote Daily allowance and travel costs for the 2016-17 session came to over £19 million. Couch-potato peers: Nearly 1 in 10 of the peers eligible to vote throughout 2016/17 (9.2% - 72 of the 779) are inactive when it comes to scrutinising the government’s work on committees, in the chamber, or through written questions – vital roles for the revising chamber A noisy minority: The top 300 voting peers account for over 64% of all votes in divisions during the 2016/17 session – suggesting much of the work of the Lords is done by a minority of peers Not so independent: Despite claims that the Lords is less partisan than the Commons, 78% of Conservative peers failed to vote against the government once in 2016/17, while the average Labour Peer voted against the government in 90% of votes Meanwhile, Crossbench peers vote far less than partisan Lords – 41% voted fewer than ten times in 2016/17 (compared to 14% for Labour and 7% for the Conservatives) An ageing upper chamber: Nearly one in five peers (18%) are over the age of 80 – compared to just 6.6% of the over-21 population (only over-21s can sit in the upper house) House of Has-Beens? The House hosts 184 ex-MPs, 26 ex-MEPs, 11 ex-MSPs, 8 ex-Welsh AMs, 6 ex-London AMs, 11 ex-MLAs and 39 current or ex-council leaders, as of April 2017.

See report on the House of Lords below by the ERS. I do believe in having "checks and balances" on the House of Commons and much good work is done in the Lord's currently but it is currently an undemocratic and expensive mess that needs urgent reform.

"72 peers failed to speak in the chamber, table a written question or serve on a committee at all in the whole of 2016/17. 33 of them claimed a huge £462,510 (an average of £14,015 each).

New analysis shows the 33 expenses-claiming ‘couch potato peers’ took part in just 24% of votes – meaning they claimed an average of £746 per vote.

Recent analysis by the ERS shows 109 peers made no spoken contributions - with 63 of these claiming a total of £1,095,701 in expenses.

The ERS is calling for a proportionally-elected upper house of 300 members.

In 2015, the ERS launched House of Lords: Fact vs Fiction [5], showing that in the 2010-2015, £360,000 was claimed by peers in years they failed to vote once. Yet the problem of inactive peers appears to have worsened significantly.

Darren Hughes, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said:

“Despite some minor reforms, the problems of Britain’s broken upper house continue to fester. With nearly one in ten unelected peers failing to contribute in key ways – despite many of them picking up large sums – we have a democratic crisis in our second chamber.

“The vast majority of party-affiliated peers toe the line, while many Crossbench peers simply don’t turn up. The so-called ‘independent’ chamber is packed full of party loyalists.

“The past few years have seen one expenses scandal after another, with peers turning up to claim without substantially contributing. We have seen a barrage of appointments based on patronage. And we’ve seen Peers themselves admit they treat our upper house as a retirement home, a private members’ club. This is no fit state for the Mother of all Parliaments.

“This report lays bare the rotten state of this unelected second chamber – from couch-potato peers to lobby-fodder lords. We need real reform now – not tinkering around the edges.

“Politicians must now meet the challenge before this crumbling, crony-stuffed house declines even further. Voters want real change. It’s time for both MPs and peers to embrace it.”

The report concludes:

“The second chamber is demonstrably in need of serious reform. Whether it is the thousands claimed by inactive peers or the dominance of defeated politicians, it is clear that until we let the light in, the rot within the Mother of all Parliaments will only get worse.

“We must see parties commit to a far smaller, proportionally-elected upper house. At a time of significant constitutional, economic and political change, the need for an effective House of Peers or Senate is overwhelming.

“Whatever the final details [of an elected upper house], the principle remains: those who vote on our laws should be accountable to those affected by those laws. As we have shown, that is a matter both of principle and pragmatism.

“Now is no time for minor tinkering; the public call for a real overhaul is loud and clear. Let’s get on with meeting our democratic duty - and give voters the revising chamber Britain needs.”

ENDS

A copy of the report available to view here: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HoL-2017-Audit.pdf

68% of votes wasted in General Election

(NB. Below is why our election system in this country is nuts). Picture BBC 68% of votes had no impact on election result: Electoral Reform Society publish definitive report on June vote EMBARGOED: ‘The 2017 General Election: Volatile Voting – Random Results’ report also shows 6.5m estimated to have voted tactically, and models result under different voting systems using YouGov survey of 13,000+ voters Strictly embargoed for Monday 21st August 2017, 00:01 Final report here: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf For more information or to arrange and interview with a spokesperson, contact mediaoffice@electoral-reform.org.uk or 020 3714 4079 The instability of Westminster’s supposedly ‘strong and stable’ voting system has been laid bare, according to extensive new research by the Electoral Reform Society. The Society’s landmark General Election report, ‘The 2017 General Election: Volatile Voting, Random Results’, reveals: Volatile voting: This election saw the second highest electoral volatility (the movement of votes between parties) since 1931. People are switching sides and shopping around at ‘astonishing’ levels Wasted votes: 68% of votes had no impact on the result – 22 million votes were wasted this election [1] Tiny margins: 0.0016% of voters choosing differently would have given the Conservatives a majority, while the election saw rise in very marginal seats: eleven seats were won by fewer than 100 votes  The ‘hold your nose’ election: ERS estimate 6.5 million people voted tactically, alongside surge in smaller parties standing aside  A divisive system: First Past the Post is exaggerating divisions in the UK – Labour secured 29% of South East vote but got just 10% of seats, while Conservatives won 34% of the North East vote but got just 9% of seats. Meanwhile, the SNP continue to be over-represented in Scotland, as is Labour in Wales, while Northern Ireland voters are forced into two camps  Seats not matching votes: The Conservatives largely benefited from the discrepancy between votes and seats, winning 56% of English seats on 46% of the vote – while losing out significantly in Wales. The voting system is struggling to keep up with huge changes in partisan alignment [2] The results under PR: Labour would have emerged as largest party under Scotland and Northern Ireland’s Single Transferable Vote system, according to huge YouGov survey of voters’ party preferences [3] Darren Hughes, newly-appointed Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said: “For the third time in a row, Westminster’s voting system has failed to do what it says on the tin – produce a ‘strong and stable’ government. “June’s election has shown First Past the Post is unable to cope with people’s changing voting habits – forcing citizens and parties to try and game the system. With an estimated 6.5 million people ‘holding their nose’ at the ballot box, voters have been denied real choice and representation. “This surge in tactical voting – double the rate of 2015 – meant voters shifted their party allegiances at unprecedented rates, with the second highest level of voter volatility since the inter-war years. A system designed for two parties cannot accommodate these complex electoral swings. “In the nations and regions of the UK, elections now feel more like lottery than a real choice. As we’ve shown, tiny shifts in the vote result in drastically different outcomes. Having results hinge on a few hundred voters is no way to run a modern democracy. “The vast majority of votes are going to waste, with millions still stuck in the electoral black hole of winner-takes-all. A diverse and shifting public having to work around a broken two-party system. The result is volatile voting, and random results in the different parts of the UK. “There are a wide range of systems where votes are not thrown on the electoral scrapheap. We need to move towards a means of electing our MPs where all voices are heard and where people don’t feel forced to hold their nose at the ballot box. “2017 was the third strike for First Past the Post. It’s out.” Embargoed report link: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf Read the ERS’ 2015 General Election report here: https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2015-UK-General-Election.pdf [1] Number of wasted votes by region  [2] Seats don't match votes (Conservatives in blue, Labour in red) [3] The results projected under different voting systems (based on YouGov survey of 13,000 voters)   Party FPTP AV AMS STV Conservative 317 303 273 283 Labour 262 286 260 297 Liberal Democrats 12 11 39 29 UKIP 0 0 11 1 Green Party 1 1 7 1 SNP 35 27 21 18 Plaid Cymru 4 2 4 3

One-Party Councils, Accountability & Corruption

Below is an email that I have sent to Katie Ghose, Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) in response to a recent report she circulated to I believe all local Councillors in England. The report is called "The Cost of One-Party Councils: Lack of Electoral Accountability and public procurement corruption" by Cambridge academic, Dr Mihály Fazekas, who believes that one-party Councils cost some £2.5 billion per year in excess costs for defective contracts. The ERS believe that this report supports their call for proportional representation in Council elections and have asked for responses.

"Dear Katie

Thank you for sending me a copy of this hard hitting and provocative report. As a Labour Councillor in the London Borough of Newham which has no elected opposition and has been controlled by my Party for over 100 years, I was of course interested in its findings. I also sit on my authorities' scrutiny commissions and was myself, a former officer, employed by another Council for many years.

Firstly, I note that although you say in your covering email that there are many one-party councils "which are models of local government excellence and efficiency" the report by Dr Fazekas does not seem to support this. I am also puzzled that London Councils are omitted from this analysis since "due to the two-tier government structure and London’s special economic position within England". There are two-tier structures in non London authorities and such procurement issues are surely similar in London and the rest of England?

I also see that the London Borough of Newham is also mentioned in the main report (page 2) and used to illustrate "governance weaknesses and mismanagement of public funds such as the
London Borough of Newham‘s East Ham Campus project (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2015)". A number of London boroughs are also listed in Table 4 as being one-party dominated.

I am not a statistician so I freely admit to have struggled to fully understand and evaluate all the empirical "big data" evidence that support the report's conclusions on the link between one party control and corruption.  I feel though that it is somewhat stating the obvious that having such control and dominance leads to a real risk of inefficiency and corruption. However, I don't necessarily think that it is always inevitable as long as the necessary checks and balances are in place.

The justification about the"red flags" dangers for corruption risks - such as there being only a single bid, not publicising tenders in the official procurement journal, too short times between adverts and submission of bid,  rigged assessment procedures etc are persuasive and well made. All Councillors should be aware of this. I suspect that there is insufficent vigour in scrutiny in many one-Party Councils and money is wasted. However, I can see that a local authority may for various valid reasons include non competitive requirements in any contract such as wanting an in-house team or a Living wage for a contracted out workforce. This does not always mean that they are corrupt or wasteful.

In my time in local government I am aware that corruption has taken place but at the risk of appearing naive, I do not believe it to be epidemic and widespread. By and large we are well served by our local government officers, although there are rotten apples and some very poor practises. Having a full competitive tendering process can be a very complex, lengthy, bureaucratic and expensive. It may well be more effective and efficient not to always have such processes. This must always be fully justified.

While I am actually a long standing supporter of proportional representation in national and local elections I do not think it is a panacea for all ills. I read the main report while on a visit to Rome, Italy (see picture above). Which is a beautiful and historic place but it is not exactly a model of good governance and anti-corruption, despite having proportional representation for their elections for many years. "First past the post" is plainly wrong and fatally flawed but often in one-party councils, opposition parties are ineffective since they are disorganised and do not receive the support needed from their national organisations who concentrate resources in marginal election areas.

I also have my doubts about the single transfer vote system since I think Party "top up" lists are inherently dangerous and risky since they give too much power to the Party machine.

Finally, I think just as important as electoral reform, local government needs structural and legislative reform. Such as making the role of scrutiny committees much more robust and truly independent of the Executive; beefing up Standard Boards; time limits on Council leaders; stopping backbench Councillors being refused information by Chief officers for no substantiated reasons; being open and transparent and stop restricting information to the public or press unless absolutely necessary; making officers' hospitality register a public document; better guidance from national political organisations on the role of elected members as being champions of their constituents and holding the Executive to account. Last but not least, we should reintroduce powers to surcharge individual Councillors who act without due care or legal authority with public money.

Yours sincerely

John Gray

(this is of course in a personal capacity and not be seen as representing the views of anyone but myself)

Update: I think I have confused the STV system for electing local Councillors with that used to elect the devolved government. It is confusing. Hat tip Tim R-P. 

How could the House of Commons work better? Lisa Nandy MP & Katie Ghose Electoral Reform Society

This should be yet another interesting debate organised by Newham Compass and Fabians on Tuesday 10 December 2013 at 8pm in West Ham Supporter's Club, Castle St, London E6 1PP.

FAIL! New campaign video - Vote YES for fairer votes on May 5

This morning I've sent off my postal ballot and voted "Yes".   This new campaign video by Yes2AV makes the case in a short and effective way on why AV just makes sense. 

I have responded to comments made on my previous post that if we had AV last year we could have had a Labour Lib Dem Government with this updated quotation “the worst day of a Labour led  Government is better than the best day of a Tory one”.

Remember there is a progressive majority in this country.  Why else are the Tories opposed?

ps don't forget the Alternative Vote Debate at UEL Stratford, E15

"The Labour Party AV Debate is taking place on Thursday 28th April between John Denham MP for YES and Margaret Beckett MP for NO. It is being held at the University of East London Stratford Campus, Room CC101, Computer and Conference Building, The Green (off Water Lane), London E15 4LZ. Doors are open at 7pm for a 7.30 start. The venue is about 15 minutes from Stratford tube station, 5 minutes from Maryland station and can be accessed by a number of buses along Romford Road. The event is being organised by West Ham CLP and Lyn Brown MP.  It is sponsored by UNISON Labour Link. All Labour Party members and affiliates are welcome".