Forum Topic

"I also received the highest vote of any ICG candidate in my own ward."Phil,Have you ever heard of "Name Order Effect"?It's the effect by which candidates in multi-member wards tend to perform better than their party colleagues if their name is towards the top of the alphabetical list on the ballot sheet. (This may be partly because some people think they have only one vote, and will tend to use it for the first candidate of their chosen party that they come across when reading down the list).Caroline Andrews polled better than either of her two ICG colleagues in Syon; likewise, Patricia Doran performed better than the other ICG candidates in Hounslow South; and, indeed, John Connelly out-polled the other HIA candidates in Hounslow Heath.True, the ordering of the names on the ballot is not the only factor which determines a candidate's personal vote. Their address (which is printed on the ballot) can make a difference; as can the ethnicity implied by their name (with Asian names tending, sadly, to be a vote loser). True, the reputation of the candidate (and possibly his or her length of incumbency) may also have an impact. It it also possible that some people marked their sole cross against your name because they specifically associate the ICG with you.I'm honestly not trying to prick your ego here, but if you consider that in fourteen of the twenty wards in the Hounslow borough the Labour candidate who was listed first on the ballot sheet out-polled both of his/her colleagues (thirteen out of twenty in the case of the Tories) you will understand the primary reason why you have always done better than other ICG candidates in Isleworth Ward.(Dons tin hat and ducks for cover).

Robin Taylor ● 5832d

VanessaI guess we will never know for certain whether you are or are not correct, but as I have said previously the raw data does not bear out your theory.  Not only did other independents fair far worse than the ICG (and John Connelly in particular could hardly be described as an unknown), but I also received the highest vote of any ICG candidate in my own ward.  This wasn't right and it wasn't fair - on performance over the past four years Paul Fisher should have had that honour - but it doesn't exactly support the theory that voters were reacting against me personally (one of the Labour leaflets claimed that I owned a holiday home abroad, which obviously is something I will need to take some advice about as it amounts to an accusation that I have falsified my tenancy application).  I honestly do believe that this level of personal attack has the opposite effect to that intended, which in retrospect could also have accounted for Ann Keen's relatively decent performance at the general election.The simple fact is that I received nearly 1000 votes more than I did when first winning a council seat in Isleworth South.  In my view it is mere wishful thinking to look beyond the freak conditions caused by the general election being held on the same day for the reasons behind the result.  There may of course have been individual voters who reacted against me personally, but the figures do not suggest that this was a major cause of the outcome.My regrets over the coalition are not down to the fact that we entered into it.  As I've previously indicated I think we owed it to our voters to seize our opportunity to try to make a difference.  Rather my failing was that I didn't do more to try to persuade my Group to reconsider our position when it had become clear to us that officers were being allowed (encouraged?) to obstruct our own efforts.  On the one occasion when there was a clear conflict between our position and that of our partners (Mogden) Hounslow Matters magazine was quite blatantly mobilised to undermine us and it is at that point that we should have walked, or at least threatened to do so unless the matter was quickly resolved to our satisfaction.  The irony is that had I still been on the Executive myself I would have felt more comfortable about suggesting such a course of action, but as I had handed over my role to somebody else I feared it would be unfair to my colleagues to have done so.  Instead I simply asked the Chief Executive to investigate, which he didn't (and probably couldn't if the instruction had come from him in the first place) and I quietly resolved to get the election out of the way - which I didn't believe the Conservatives could win outright and didn't think for a second that Labour would - and then to present substantially more robust terms for any new coalition agreement.The reason I am relatively cool at this point about the outcome of the local election is that, towards the end of the last council, there were signs that Labour itself was beginning to buy the Community Engagement idea.  The Labour Group supported my second motion to Borough Council on the subject.  This may have been tactical, and I still realise of course that Labour has a default instinct for control rather than co-operation, but bearing in mind our own failure to get this past the Conservatives in any meaningful way beyond ward level (where I think we scored some very considerable successes) I see no reason for not giving the new administration a chance.If it fails, there are other ways on pursuing the agenda.  David Giles' ungracious and sneering remarks a few days after the election about how his party now intends to try to shaft us in Isleworth and Syon (a mere dream but a telling indication of his party's thinking) makes it clear to me that the option previously pursued is now firmly closed, but other doors open.Thanks to the new government we already know that the next time a local election will coincide with a general election is likely to be in May 2030.  It will be a brave person who tries to speculate as to what the local political map will look like by then, but I can assure you that I won't be involved.

Phil Andrews ● 5832d

VanessaWith respect it isn't cobblers - what Simon says is true, I have a copy and there are many people who will confirm that they received it.The leaflet does indeed contravene electoral law as it carries no agent's imprint.  The gentleman who signed it in his own name was an active member of Labour's campaign team throughout the campaign and represented them at the election count both on Thursday night and again on Friday afternoon.The leaflet itself was semi-literate and I would doubt very much whether it contributed in any way towards the eventual outcome.  Speaking personally I am not concerned about whether it included the agent's imprint, however the contents themselves are of concern to me.In particular, they contained an allegation that the distributor, when a member of the ICG's Committee, attended a meeting at which our members discussed in favourable terms the possibility of selling off the local authority's  housing stock.  This is simply an outright lie, no such discussion ever took place and the ICG is absolutely opposed to selling off our housing stock.  Had we not been it in all likelihood would have happened during the last administration, and ironically cannot be ruled out under the current one.What I would be keen to know, in the spirit of reconciliation, is whether said leaflet was authorised or encouraged by Labour's campaign organisers or whether the individual distributed it off his own back.  Knowing both party and individual as I do either is entirely possible.Possibly somebody from the Labour Party can kindly clarify this for me in response to this post as the Return of Expenses is due to be submitted by June 11th.  If this leaflet was unauthorised then its author could probably plead ignorance of the law.  If it was authorised then, bearing in mind the malicious nature of the content, we will obviously be wishing to take this matter further notwithstanding our desire to enjoy a good constructive relationship with the new councillors.

Phil Andrews ● 5834d

These Labour promises are obviously complete nonsense and were made in desperation as the Labour Council will be unable to deliver on any of them.The Community and other Independent candidates were faced with a big problem as soon as the decision was made to hold the Borough Elections on the same day as the General Election. That led to a high turnout and people voting for the main national parties rather than for Community or Independent candidates.Labour obviously targetted the ICG to get revenge for their previous defeats. There was very little Labour activity in the 3 Chiswick wards- all Labour "Resources" apperaed to have been switched to Brentford -to defeat the Lib Dems - and to Isleworth to defeat the Community candidates.The arithmetic is quite simple.In Syon Ward, the 3 Labour candidates totalled 5,357 votes.The 3 Community candidates totalled 3,937 votes.The 3 Conservatives totalled 3,758. Community plus Conservatives totalled 7,699.In Isleworth Ward, the  3 Labour candidates totalled 5,605. The 3 Community candidates totalled 4,323. The 3 Conservatives totalled 3,575. Community plus Conservatives totalled 7,898.It would have been interesting to see how the voting would have gone if voting had been held under the Alternative Vote system (now being discussed in Westminster) which would probably have resulted in many Conservative votes transferring to the Community candidates and Labour being defeated.The Conservatives polled well in Isleworth, Syon and Brentford and next time around may mount a really credible challenge to Labour in all 3 wards.

David Giles ● 5835d

RobinLeaflets were put out in each of 20 wards stating very specifically that "100 police officers" would be put onto the streets "in this area", and naming one of the candidates in each instance as being the person who would bring this about.It is also reasonable to assume the promised officers to be new ones - it would not be much of an achievement for any administration to put police officers onto the streets who were already on the streets, would it? Promises of rehousing "within six months" in the event of a Labour victory were made to several Somali residents on Ivybridge.  I have some of their names and addresses and they, and I, are expecting the promises made to them to be honoured.Expecting promises to be kept is not being ungracious, neither is it in any way an expression of my intent to oppose or undermine the new administration.  On Friday I offered one of the new councillors the benefit (?) of my advice and assistance should it ever be considered helpful, as one who has done the job for the last twelve years, and I was thanked for the offer and told it would be taken up if required.I certainly will be getting a job of some kind or another and am very much look forwarding to enjoying a break from councillor duties, for at least four years and hopefully long beyond. Like I say my sincere hope is that the new councillors succeed and I will not allow your unsolicited aggression to provoke me into a position of hostility to them until or unless I see some evidence that your attitude is one that is shared by them.  You don't, after all, have a seat to lose and for all I know your agenda and theirs may not be the same.  For that reason I will not be responding to any more postings from you of this nature, although I'm always happy to engage in reasoned debate should the muse ever take you.

Phil Andrews ● 5837d

RobinThat was a silly comment, and completely unnecessary as it must be obvious to anybody reading this forum that far from being bitter my view at the moment is that the new councillors should be given a chance to show what they can do before anybody should think about criticising them.On the night of the count I had the opportunity to speak to one of the candidates who replaced us in Isleworth and was moved by his real sincerity, eagerness to succeed and general likability.  It is true that his colleagues have not come across to me in the same way but I accept that it takes two to make an argument and I honestly do want to see them achieve for my community because if they do there is no argument, is there?Yes, I do consider it unlikely that the new administration will be able to honour its promises because they are so clearly proposterous. A hundred new police officers in each ward, for instance, amounts to a total of 2000 throughout the borough and even at the lower end of the salary scale this would add some £50 million per year to the council's budget.  As each administration traditionally has to perform a delicate juggling act to find £10m per year just to keep the Council Tax increase to zero I am at a loss to see how Labour is going to add £50m and still cut the tax, but that is not my problem.  A Labour official whom I challenged on this assures me it has all been costed, and the honourable course of action for any potential critic would be to wait and see.It seems to me that you only operate in one gear and spoil for a fight whether others wish to engage in one or not.  I now know from personal experience that one can lose council seats as well as win them when circumstances change, sometimes outside of our own control, and whilst I can understand and excuse your ungracious triumphalism at this moment in time I really hope that your approach is not indicative of a similar attitude on the part of your new councillors in Isleworth and Syon, as well as elsewhere on the local authority.

Phil Andrews ● 5837d