Burma notes

I'm learning bits and bobs about Burma that don't seem to fit in with the official story in the press. I don't pretend any particular knowledge of the area but there are some salient facts which might be useful to draw upon when listening to the news.

1. Burma is part of George W Bush's axis of evil.
2. Which in the last years has meant that they are under threat of military intervention.
3. The US government regards them as an enemy power.
4. The US is sending military hardware to the region.
5. The Burmese authorities are reluctant to let the military of an enemy power trample around in their territory.

OK. I don't think there's a flaw to that logic which shows, perhaps, that the Burmese authorities are not being simply mindless bastards. Just to add weight to this point I'd like to point to the fact that India and China are shipping in aid, equipment and personnel right now with no problems - but then they haven't spent the last seven years arguing for regime change in Burma.

In this context the Liberal Democrat argument that we should airdrop aid into the south against the will of the Burmese authorities is both unrealistic, untried and completely insensitive to the political context where Western aid is suspect not aid in general. What about assisting the Chinese and Indians to give assistance and turning the military hardware around so the Burmese authorities don't feel under threat?

Next point.

1. The devastating impact of this natural disaster has been felt largely in the South.
2. Southern Burma is home to the longest running insurgency on the planet.
3. The Karen National Union and Karen National Liberation Army have been fighting the Burmese government since 1948, based largely in Kayin State.
4. The Karens, who have resisted ethnic cleansing and repression for decades, have been enormously successful in resisting the attempts by the Chinese armed Burmese military to literally wipe them out.
5. To the West of this rebellion in Mon there has been an equally long movement for Mon independence with a military wing in the shape of the Mon National Liberation Front.
6. Although this movement has been largely crushed or bought off this does not negate the fact that it has been a home for political dissent since the 40's.
7. Both Kayin and Mon are two of the areas hardest hit by this disaster.
8. Perhaps it is in someone's interests not to allow aid and rescue packages to get into these areas efficiently.
9. This may be one of the reasons that the Burmese authorities okayed Western aid packages but wanted to determine where this aid went themselves.

I mean it may just be me being cynical but surely the undoubtedly repressive government of Burma may weigh up in their calculations whether it is in fact useful to them to have the two centres of most long standing dissent absolutely obliterated.

No one has mentioned this factor on the news - am I missing something?

The BNP really are crap, and other stories

1. The BNP did make net gains in the council elections last week, although these were extremely limited. Even more limited now as three, count them THREE, of their new North Wales councillors have resigned before attending even a single session of council. Apparently they aren't racists and one councillor incurred the wrath of the party by "helping fucking Pakis". Lancaster UAF takes up the story.
   
   
2. If you've seen any news in the last few days you'll have seen that the Lebanon is in the midsts of a crisis ostensibly provoked by the government attempting to dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure. My recommended reading in the coming weeks is blogger Marxist from Lebanon who has been posting from the war zone, because that's where he lives.
   
   
3. One excellent leftist publication in the US has an excellent article on the myth of the reactionary working class. What's interesting is that the arguments there mirror very closely the kind of arguments we face over here on the "white working class". Well worth a look.
   
   
4. Meanwhile Tesco's evil machinations have not ceased. This time their all seeing eye has turned towards Brighton, where a small band of rebels hope they can hold out against the monster. My own view is that until the last Tesco is a smoking heap of ash we will not have won.
   
   
5. Now is the time that Cardinals are being nice to atheists. Radio Four was particularly weird this morning before I left for work. So it's excellent timing that the Daily Mash have come out with Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell.
   
   
6. Lastly, the reaction to the Santa Cruz autonomy vote continues. The government crisis has reached the level that Morales has called for a vote of confidence in his rule. It's a risky business - but good luck!

Was it right to back Ken?

Interesting letter in The Independent today (in fact there are a number of them) which attacks the Green Party policy on backing Ken Livingstone with a second preference vote in the London Mayoral election. The letters goes;

Sian and Ken: the rainbow fades

Sir: Sian Berry could have at least doubled her 3.15 per cent of the vote as Green candidate for London mayor (Letters, 7 May) if she had not made a Faustian pact with Ken Livingstone.

By telling her supporters to vote "Sian 1, Ken 2", she confined herself to a left-wing ghetto, a green stripe in a fast-fading "rainbow coalition". Sian would have been better to appeal to voters of conservative and liberal disposition as much as to disillusioned left-wing voters. Many conservatives and liberals are active environmentalists and are profoundly worried by the consequences of unbridled economic expansionism.

Unfortunately, the Green leadership place their nostalgic commitment to the left before ecological principles.

Aidan Rankin

London EC1

So here is my response (we'll see if they print it);

Sir: Aidan Rankin writes (Letters, 9^th May) that the Green Mayoral candidate, Sian Berry, could have doubled her vote if she had not called for second preferences for Ken Livingstone. That might be true, but so what?

If votes were all that mattered then she should have stood for the Tories, but she didn't because Greens have principles and are willing to take positions that might (or might not) cost them votes sometimes. Livingstone has faults, but he has virtues too, including a track record on the environment so far beyond his rival that they would need binoculars to see each other.

Mr Rankin cites the undisputed fact that some Tories and Liberals are very concerned about the environment, but it's difficult to see how Boris Johnson, who opposed the Kyoto treaty and has had, shall we say, a robust approach to environmental measures fits into that picture. The Mayoral campaign itself pushed Johnson towards making concessions on the environment and moderate his worst excesses, but we shall see how long that lasts.

It's a sign of a mature political organisation when it's willing to back a rival despite their differences for the good of London, regardless of how that might effect their vote. In the end the Green assembly members were re-elected in very difficult circumstances, had Greens taken a blinkered 'neither Ken nor Boris' approach that may well have not been the case.

Jim Jepps, Cambridge

In fact, the more I think about it, the more important, in purely electoral terms, it was to take a position on the Ken and Boris show. Everyone who did not clearly back Livingstone (apart from Boris) performed worse than they expected at the ballot box, squeezed in this highly polarised election.

The Liberal Democrats vote sagged humiliatingly, the Left List vote was abysmal, and there but for the grace of Ken would have gone the Greens. Even the BNP, who did marginally increase their vote share by the smallest of margins, failed to capitalise on the collapsing UKIP vote which appears to have uniformly migrated to Johnson.

It's absolutely true that not all Green voters followed our advice - in fact not all Green members did. When speaking to people on the street it was clear that there was a great deal of resistance to doing anything that felt like support for Livingstone. It may well be that there were some voters who did not vote Green due to the position on Livingstone, but there were many people, mainly traditional Labour voters, that rewarded the Green's sensible approach by voting for them in the all important list vote.

At the end of the day it was right to call for a second preference for Ken simply on the basis that he's infinitely preferable to Johnson, but this was a difficult election for everyone and I'm more and more convinced that, where others saw their vote collapse because they were marginal to the outcome, the Greens positioned themselves bravely next to Ken and were able to increase the numbers voting for them, ensuring thier Assembly Members were re-elected. That outcome was by no means assured.

Update: No sooner do I post on this than Sian Berry writes a piece for the New Statesman on the very same topic.

A license to frame and shame

The new National Staff Dismissal Register is a web site that is about to be launched to enable employers to name and shame, or possibly frame and shame ex-employees. It aims to create a blacklist of potential workers that employers should avoid going well beyond the concrete facts that the Criminal Records Bureau might provide.

This site cannot be allowed to go ahead. Employers can take against employees for a whole number of reasons. Whilst some are legitimate there are a whole raft of others that are not. An employer may dislike someone because they refuse to work unpaid overtime, for being an effective trade unionist or because they are gay. An employer may resent someone who objects to being bullied and knows their legal rights, who holds different political views to them or who is simply better at their job than they are.

Every petty minded boss, and there are plenty of them, is to be given a license to smear ex-employees and potentially ruin their career with any old accusation that they might care to dream up. Even where an employee is sacked appropriately a public and permanent record, with no right of defense or appeal, will be completely disproportionate in the vast majority of cases.

If I'm caught stealing a tenner from the till I don't deserve to keep my job, but I don't deserve to be made permanently unemployed at the tax payers expense either. It isn't helpful and there are few non-criminal charges where this would be anything like a fair and reasonable response.

All this scheme does is to give further leverage to employers to make unreasonable demands of their workforce. One ex-employer's unsubstantiated whim should never be enough to blacken someone's name or ruin their livelihood, yet this is precisely the aim of this site. This system isn’t simply open to abuse – it’s designed for it.

Clinton: We're full steam ahead to the White House

I've just heard Hillary Clinton announce to cheering crowds that it is "full steam ahead to the White House". I doubt anyone has ever displayed such enthusiasm to go on one of those guided tours they do. I'd have thought it would particularly painful to wander round your old home knowing that a hated enemy who've you've spent months plotting against and smearing is about to move in.

It must be like a painful tooth - you know you should leave it alone but you just can't.

Obama is well ahead on delegates to the Democrats convention and he won a 14% lead in North Carolina, whilst Clinton won just 2% of a lead in Indiana. It's not enough thank God, but she feels its worth dragging it all out a little bit longer yet - after all it's not like they have the Republicans to beat is it?

Some people are still speculating that Obama and Clinton could run on a joint ticket but after the unpleasantness of the last few months this simply would not be credible. Anyway, why reward Clinton for her irresponsible behaviour?

The other question that people seem to be asking is whether the US is ready for a black President. Well, there's only one way to make them ready - and that's to elect one. There's no use pandering to the most backward elements in society, you need to just turn round and say "Come on, buck your ideas up" and press ahead.

Tearing at Bolivia until it breaks

You'll have seen the Bolivian Santa Cruz autonomy referendum in the news.

Politically Bolivia is divided between those areas that are dominated by indigenous peoples and those that are dominated by the whites, from whom the ruling elite has always been drawn. The East of the country is governed by the right wing Podemos (irritatingly represented as red on this map) and the West by MAS (the Movement Towards Socialism). Santa Cruz is firmly in the East of the country.

When Morales won the Presidential election two years ago it was both a shock to the elites and a relief. It meant an end to constant unrest as one after the other the people overthrew their Presidents until an election was called and Bolivia had its first first democratically elected indigenous leader. But having Morales as President meant making concessions to address the historic racism and economic injustices of Bolivian society.

Yes, enough reforms to keep the people quiet - but don't start making the whites pay their fair share of taxes or allow the "Indians" to feel they are somehow equal with their betters. It's been a painful process for the elites and one they have not taken with good grace. This is what lies at the heart of the autonomy rebellion.

Breaking away from their poor neighbours would mean avoiding having to fund social programs, health care, education programs and for the first time child benefit and the "dignity" pension for all those over sixty has been introduced. These are genuine shifts towards the poor, aimed at improving the lives of the most disenfranchised and impoverished of Bolivia's people.

This means the elites' wealth is at stake - despite the fact that a court ruled the referendum to be unconstitutional and illegal they pressed ahead with it - indigenous people and all those on the left rightly boycotted this sham. It's not a surprise that the result was a "yes" as hardly anyone seems to have taken part, Evo Morales has dismissed the vote as a charade.

The right, supported by the regional government, are determined to stall the progressive reforms that the Morales' government has been making - and to be honest they are succeeding. Land reform is currently impossible in the Podemos dominated areas of the country - the areas that most need it, with just handful of families owning the majority of fertile land. Those families are desperate to hold onto their wealth and will stop at nothing to do so, even forming fascist gangs, the Union Juvenil Cruceña who have publicly pasted up lists of MAS activists' names and have been involved in physical attacks not just on party members but anyone who looks like an uppity "Indian" (although they aren't from India you will not be surprised to learn).

They hope to spread protests and violence to other areas.

In Cochabamba on the other hand there has been an absolutely vast demonstration in favour of a "united Bolivia" or "one Bolivia for all". There are mass movements that will not be willing to take these moves lying down.

Who are the rich to take away their pensions? Who are the rich to threaten the social advances that they themselves had denied Bolivians for so long? The people are more than aware that a return to power of the ruling elites would lead to a wave of reaction such as they have seen too many times before.

What the new President of Paraguay said of his country equally applies to Bolivia; "In Paraguay there are only thieves and the victims of thieves."

Another day another death by cop

Today's Daily Mirror highlights the case of Frank Ogboru who was murdered by the police in 2006 and the courts have simply let them walk away.

What's clear from the report is that Ogboru was completely calm and presented no threat to the police. They only decided to arrest him when they said he had to leave the place he was temporarily staying on his visit to England, which had all of his things. He was sprayed with cs gas in order to handcuff him, despite the fact he does not seem to have resisted arrest and was then restrained by four police officers who held him face down. Caught on film one officer's knee is over Mr Ogboru's neck while his head hangs over the kerb. Despite his cries they continued to restrain this man who had committed no offence.

One witness said at the time “First there were two officers, then four, then more,” she said. “It was like they were squashing him. They were pinning him down and handcuffing him. I saw officers with their knees on him and their feet on him. He was just wailing - the kind of sound a dog would make if it was kicked. I thought there were too many of them on him.”

These officers will not face prosecution or disciplinary charges despite being caught on film and being seen by dozens of witnesses. Unfortunately this is not the first nor the last time that the Met police will kill unnecessarily. According to the Mirror there have been 501 deaths in custody in ten years - the number of prosecutions? Zero. That's right my friends, zero.

As the London Green Manifesto (pdf) states in its introduction to the policing section;

Fear of crime is common among Londoners today - and sometimes fear of terrorism. Recorded crime is declining, yet fear of crime remains high. Greens seek both to minimise risk and address the underlying causes of crime and violence. London’s extreme rich-poor divide and social exclusion may contribute to the conditions in which anti-social behaviour can prevail or serious lawlessness fester.

Police racism has not been properly addressed, leaving many Londoners suspicious of the police and poorly protected from crime. The police will only gain the trust of the community if they become representative, accountable and approachable.

They often say the police have rooted out much of their racism - and I want to believe them, I can't believe things are as bad as the seventies - but the evidence points to a very disturbing story of an unaccountable police force who can and do use lethal force without fear of having to properly account for their actions. There's a long way to go before we have truly accountable law enforcement agencies and with Sir Ian Blair still in charge of the Met, still complicit in shielding his men from the consequences of the deaths they cause, there is little hope that things are about to start changing anytime soon.

So will Boris Johnson's new "Deputy Mayor for policing" Kit Malthouse (welcoming us, right) address this situation? According to his publicity he thinks "We are all British, all Londoners, and all different, in that order" in a rant against multiculturalism - well actually it is not factually accurate to say we are all British is it? Some of us aren't British, just living in London doesn't miraculously mean you are British, but you should still be protected by the police rather than killed by them, as Ogboru was.

Kit's actually an interesting appointment because he thinks that "the roots of crime lie in childhood and particularly the early and teen years... The long-term solution lies in effective street based deterrent policing hand in hand with investment in our education system". Boris' top man on crime thinks it's all about schooling? Well, that's slightly better than the home secretary I suppose.

But as to making the police accountable for their actions - his position is less obvious. The "lines of accountability need to be made clear... [but] the police need a better deal from Politicians and the public."

I suspect this is not a man who'll take a strong line with the police when they "step out of line" (ie kill innocent people), after all he voted to defend Sir Ian over his handling of the shooting of Jean Charles - it's difficult to see quite what the police have to do in order to be brought to book.

hat tip The Void and Dave Hill

More third rate than Third Reich

So, the BNP have a foot hold on the London Assembly and made a net gain of ten council seats in all. This is well short of the three AMs and forty council seats that they predicted. A pretty disappointing showing for the master race, I expect the Jews rigged the ballot boxes or something. Perhaps it was asylum seeking space lizards.

In general areas where the BNP have made breakthroughs previously their share of the vote has been wilting year on year. They are worryingly able at making shock breakthroughs but the poor performance of their councillors means they often turn out to be all mouth and no trousers which leaves voters turning away.

Local authority	2006	2007	2008
Sandwell	33.0%	24.6%	17.4%
Dudley	26.5%	18.7%	14.7%
Kirklees	18.4%	16.5%	14.4%
Burnley	30.0%	25.1%	22.8%
Thurrock	26.7%	24.5%	21.4%
Broxbourne	N/A	20.0%	15.4%
Epping	N/A	18.5%	15.0%

source

You'd have thought with a failing Labour government the fascists would be making hay whilst the sun shines - but of course they've been having their own internal difficulties to worry about haven't they. Also they're mad. Sadly so are a good portion of the electorate (I'm allowed to say that because I don't stand for election).

In London the BNP polled a worrying 5.33% of the list vote - just sneaking in enough votes to get onto the assembly and a sliver of 0.6% more than they got at the 2004 elections. But of course this time the UKIP refused to do their patriotic duty to split the BNP vote widely enough to keep them out. In fact if you look at the enormous drop in UKIP's vote, a full on 6.3% (or three quarters of their total vote), it seems that support has almost entirely defected to Mr Johnson, you have to ask why were the BNP so incapable of capturing some of that reactionary spillage? Because they're rubbish? Possibly.

Unfortunately the white working class now have Richard Barnbrook, the ballet loving star of various college "art" films, as their representative. I hope they enjoy him, but the odds are he'll be as toothless and pointless as the two One London AMs who were so satisfyingly slaughtered on May 1st. He'll be sucking up the tax payers hard earned and doing his best to bollox about without actually doing anything. Calling for public buildings to fly the Union Jack doesn't butter any parsnips mate.

They've taken one small goose step forwards but they're a long way from parking their panzers on the lawn of Buckingham Palace.

But what to do? It was great to hear that Sian Berry, the Green Mayoral candidate, led the walk off stage after her speech, refusing to stand there and listen to Herr Barnbrook's vacuous tom foolery. I also hear that Love Music Hate Racism have called a demonstration outside City Hall tomorrow night (Tuesday) at 6pm to protest the BNP taking up their seat at the first London Assembly Meeting. Please go if you can, there will be groovy people there and all sorts of jack-a-napes no doubt.

But whilst demos and music festivals are lovely, I'm sure we all agree, what they do not do is address the problems that lead ordinary people to vote for these incoherent blockheads. They're angry, they're dissatisfied. They live in a country that doesn't seem right, hasn't fulfilled their expectations. We have to address that.

The real anti-fascist work is in creating social solidarity. To repair a society where we have communities with no sense of community. To present a positive alternative and to, put simply, make people happier. That means an economy that fulfills people's needs both in terms of giving them a decent standard of living but also allows them plenty of leisure time and when they are at work they feel more fulfilled.

We have to create a better society where social fungus like the BNP and the NF cannot take root. That means action at a grassroots level, at the ballot box and in the workplace. We need to fundamentally change society for the better. Anti-fascist leaflets make my heart sing with the light of a choir of angels, of course, but they are the bluntest of tools and we must not neglect that to rip out the roots of some problems we will have to dig down deep.

ps I am all for no platforming fascists - but you really should watch this hilarious St George's Day parade video - complete with knight on horse back and man in silly dragon suit. Is this really the best they got?

Guest Post: Guernsey elections

Thanks to John Angliss for this guest post on the heady politics of Guernsey.

On April 23rd this year, whilst the London Mayoral elections were beginning to hot up, a small island just off the north-west of France was holding its general elections. On May 9th, it will celebrate 63 years of freedom from Nazi rule. Guernsey has always been an anomaly, but it makes for interesting comparisons with the UK.

The electoral system is unicameral for all practical purposes, with 45 Guernsey members and two from the more northern isle of Alderney sitting in the 'States of Deliberation', which locals call "The States". There is a Chief Minister, elected by States members (or 'People's Deputies') from among themselves to represent the island abroad and heads the Policy Council, whose function is to 'steer' government and make sure that the long-term is taken into account. A Lieutenant-Governor, appointed by the Crown, rubber-stamps completed legislation in the Queen's place.

There are no political parties - instead all members stand as independents and none has to follow a party whip. Departments (roughly equivalent to Government Ministries in function) propose legislation and policies within their area of speciality, which can then be amended from the floor. Smaller Committees act as auditors and regulators of government, but are rather ineffective as they are run by politicians and subject to political pressures. Outside the States, there are 10 'Douzaines' which organise matters which are usually dealt with by parish councils in the UK, such as refuse collection.

For electoral purposes, the island is divided into 7 constituencies represented by either 6 or 7 deputies according to their population. Electors in 6-deputy constituencies are allowed to cast up to 6 votes, each of equal weighting (although all must be for different candidates); those in 7-deputy constituencies up to 7. The tally is then simple "first six-or-seven-past-the-post" once all the votes are counted.

This system has come in for increased criticism recently, and there is talk of replacing it with an island-wide voting system, or of electing the Ministers (Heads of Departments) and Chief Minister by some form of public vote.

The lack of political parties has also lead to some controversial outcomes. For example, for 13 years one Deputy was Tony Webber (right), a good constituency politician who had previously stood in two general elections in the UK for the National Front.

Anyway: what happened in the elections? Because an unusually large number of sitting deputies retired last time, there were 1) a large number of quality candidates looking to fill their places (88 people stood for 45 seats) and 2) a consequent electoral bias against incomers, since they split the anti-establishment in some places. Only two sitting deputies lost their seats, including one who had become unpopular by being the spokesperson for the introduction of Student Loans.

In the Chief Minister elections in the States, 6 deputies stood, but the two most likely candidates were Lyndon Trott, previously the Minister for Treasury and Resources (equivalent to Chancellor of the Exchequer), who was very much associated with the Zero-Ten corporate tax policy, by which companies based outside the island would pay no corporate tax, whilst those based inside the island would pay 10%. This was an attempt to circumvent new EU regulation (which the island does not have to follow, but does anyway in order to avoid financial blacklisting) on corporate tax exceptionalism, and both Jersey and the Isle of Man have followed suit with zero corporate tax policies of their own.

Challenging him was Charles Parkinson, formerly his Deputy Minister at Treasury and Resources, who was an adamant opponent of the plan. Trott won out and is now Chief Minister. This leaves the "right" in charge of the island, although one of the benefits of no-party rule is that a strong left-wing argument with popular support can become policy in a very short time: for example, the nationalisation of Aurigny, an airline serving the island, last year, which took fewer than two weeks from conception to completion.

Thanks Brown, now shove off

Gordon Brown is doomed. His choice now is whether he wants to take us all down with him or doing the honourable thing involving a backroom and a pearl handled revolver.

I suspect he thinks of himself as a man of principle. He's devoted years of his life to politics throughout years when he must have felt that he'd never have advanced to the high office of Prime Minister. But facts are facts and the whole country can see he is a liability - will his principles stretch to standing down in favour of someone who could make a better fist of it?

Of course not. He'll put his personal interests first.

Well, perhaps Labour MPs will have the courage to push him? It seems unlikely given their craven inability to allow a challenger to his ascendancy just a few months ago. People talk of Miliband as a potential challenger, or even John McDonnell - but there will have to be a stalking horse first frankly.

This could well be Charles Clarke (who let's face it will be beaten at the next general election so isn't going to be selected as leader himself) but it would be good to see someone like John Cruddas step up to the plate who has credibility in the Labour Party and a sound adherence to Social Democratic principle, now that would be a real renewal of the Labour Party, in fact he could even win the next General Election.

But I doubt Brown will be pushed. Labour MPs are not known for their stout hearts and moral convictions, unless it aids their careers that is.

The alternative could be to call a General Election now, let the Tories have the economic mess, take the blame and then get back in for years after they've been booted out again. They've not the vision nor the courage to do that either. So we'll peter on with a weak and stupid government who've squandered the wave of progressive feeling that elected them way back in 1997.

Two years of floundering. Two years of Brown trying to look strong and resolute and then backing down and apologising a couple of weeks later. Two years of saying he'll listen without changing tack in the slightest. Two years of headlines about how weak he is. Two years of allowing the Tories to build up more support, more momentum. Two years of cowardice.

Wonderful.

Roundups elsewhere

A few bits and bobs I've come across that might be of interest...

Caroline Lucas in the New Statesman on our prospects for our first MP in Norwich, which C4 News seem to be convinced of at least. There's also an interesting piece in the Guardian on the Greens.

Stuart Jeffrey talks about his experiences standing in the Maidstone elections here. We also have Green reactions from Leila (from Wales), Rupert Read on the election results at Open Democracy, Scott in Coventry, Sue recounts an amusing anecdote from polling day in Lewisham. Natalie looks on the brighter side from her part of London and 1820 us horrified at Boris Johnson, understandably, and Noel Lynch on not getting elected to the assembly.

Chase me ladies... says he supported Johnson "on the grounds that the sooner London burns down or crumbles into the sea the better." Harsh but fair.

Rumbold was impressed by Ken Livingstone's speech conceding defeat (as was I)

Duncan looks at the general results for the BNP whilst Mick Hall looks at the BNP victory near him in Essex.

Martin from Swindon looks at the Tory surge and Labour's denial

One Lib Dem whines about the weakness of the Paddick campaign, Luke Akehurst on Labour's losses, and in order to do all three here's a link to Tory Home's thoughts.

We also have blog reactions from supporters of the Left List, the Labour left, and Respect Renewal, and another Labour left Louise.

Oh, and I forgot this great post from Sunny on why Boris is not so bad. I was reminded of it when reading a very interesting post by Obsolete on why Ken lost.

A few more: Permanent Revolution has a piece on Livingstone out; Labour to follow?, readers may be interested in the new blog Boriswatch, and Janine thinks about the left's results in Who's sorry now.

And a few more: Goodbye Ken, Cold Comfort, Rachel from North London, Barkingside 21

And the last batch: Penny Red says "Oh God", Quaequam worries about spoilt ballot papers, Rupert looks Beyond Boris, Complex system of pipes looks at the BNP, and there's a piece on the convention of the left on their reaction to the whole thing. You'll also want to read Adrian's piece on Reading.

For the TV watchers you can see this report on the Green gains in the Eastern region from the BBC.

London Breakdowns

Updated

Not the emotional kind of course, more the statistical sort. According to my calculations these are the raw numbers for the total across London. Those in italics did not a geat a seat on the assembly.

Party	Vote	%
Conservative	835,535	34.68%
Labour	665,443	27.62%
Lib Dems	275,272	11.43%
Greens	203,465	8.44%
BNP	130,714	5.43%
Christian Choice	70,294	2.92%
Ab Con Charge	63,596	2.64%
Respect	59,721	2.48%
UKIP	46,617	1.93%
English Dems	25,569	1.06%
Left List	22,583	0.94%
Peace & Socialism	6,394	0.27%
Independent	4,107	0.17%
One London	3,297	0.14%

But let's look at that as a picture! (click the images to enlarge)

Although I think that's a little confusing with all the different parties knocking about so let's look at that with the parties merged into appropriate political blocs.

In a difficult election it's to the Greens credit that their vote has held up so well. When you consider that BNP were unable to capitalise on UKIP's collapse (Johnson's Tories were clearly the beneficiaries of that little phenomenon) getting only a tiny shade more than they did in '04 and the left's vote is down significantly from last time.

Of course there are internal reasons for that, as well as the external pressures. A split left vote (which was fairly united last time) and the Left List, with its electorally inexperienced leadership (although Christ knows they've all been in "frontline" politics since the seventies) and their inability to take advise from outside of the golden circle were given the burden of fighting the whole of London whilst others on the left took a more sensible, focused approach.

I think we're seeing an effect that was "off set" in '04 because the election was simultaneous with the Euro's and so UKIP made these enormous, pointless advances that could have been made then by the BNP and the Tories. Add to this the rightward drift in general across the country and we have very difficult circumstances.

Anyway, charts to come include a breakdown of the Green vote (and others) by area - let's see if there are any interesting correlations going on. (Feel free to suggest any data you'd like to see and if it's doable I'll have a go) - right off for some dinner!

More stats: Green vote by constituency

We can see from the following that the Greens increased their proportion of the vote in 11 consituencies and declined in just two - but unfortunately those increases were small advances, with only four areas seeing an advance of more than 1%.

Constituencies (with Labour victories):

Brent and Harrow: 10,129 (6.54%) (+1.03) (4th)
City and East: 11,478 (6.26) (+0.32) (6th)
North East: 25,845 (13.34) (+1.33) (4th)
Lamberth and Southwark: 18,011 (11.04) (4th)
Enfield and Haringey: 12,473 (7.88) (-0.42) (4th)
Greenwich and Lewisham: 15,607 (10.63) (+0.88) (4th)

Constituencies (Conservative victories):

Bexley and Bromley: 9,261 (4.63%) (-0.27%) (5th Place)
Ealing and Hillingdon: 12,606 (7.28) (+0.94) (4th)
Merton and Wandsworth: 14,124 (8.44) (+0.70) (4th)
Croydon and Sutton: 8,969 (5.17) (+0.83) (5th)
South West: 12,774 (6.78) (+0.41) (4th)
West Central: 16,874 (10.40) (+1.75) (3rd)
Barnet and Camden (16,782 (9.50) (+1.14) (4th)
Havering and Redbridge: 9,126 (5.53) (+1.13) (5th)

Also I noticed that the Green vote is actually pretty evenly spread with half the vote coming from across 5 of 14 constituencies (which is the same as the Left List, although in their case it is lack of strong areas, rather than lack of weak ones). This contrasts sharply with Respect for instance where 34.2% of the vote came from one area alone, City and East.

But what is going on in City and East though? It was the Greens third from bottom result but it was the strongest for Respect *and* the second highest for the BNP *and* the highest for Labour. It appears from the outside that this is the most politically polarised area in London, with fascists and the left doing well.

On to second preferences, click chart to enlarge.

One of the hidden Green successes of Thursday has been the second preferences Londoners gave the Mayoral candidates. As we know the race was decided on these votes, and although Livingstone had more second preferences than Johnson it was not enough to close the gap between them. But when we look at the figures we see something quite surprising, the top two candidates only received 3rd and 4th place in this section.

Now this partly reflects the increase in Tory and Labour vote share, and the fact that lots of people don't use their votes to full effect due to their uncertainty with the system. It also reflects the fact that many Londoners did not want Johnson, but were tired of Livingstone. The Greens, who had made it very clear that they supported a second preference vote for Livingstone, encountered voters time and again who were willing to vote Green but very resistant to "supporting" Ken. There was little more that the Greens could have done to mobilise second preference vote for Livingstone (who personally thanked the Greens in his speech conceding defeat) and I'd expect some of these votes to be from Labour supporters themselves anyway.

Sian Berry's extraordinary 13.5% of the second preference vote is as unexpected as it is heartening - that more than one in eight voters who did not vote Green first were willing to put Green somewhere on their ballot paper. That shows there is room for growth with a potential audience ready made just waiting to be convinced.

For the Greens to be the second second choice (if I can put it that way) is saying something that lies beneath the surface of the elections inside and outside of London where no such system exists to show up potential Green support. There are lots of things about this election that I've found mildly disappointing - this is certainly not one of them.

On the less successful end of the spectrum the Left List's Lindsey German received the least number of second preferences, below even that of Matt O'Connor - who had formally withdrawn from the race. To get 0.68% of the first preferences and then receive less second preference votes than a candidate who is no longer standing is probably not the most welcome thing to have happened in Lindsey German's life, it also indicates that there is no wider base of support for the Left List outside of their core support - and much of this decline since 2004 should not simply be put down to the objective political circumstances but also, crucially, the behaviour of those who were behind this bullishly sectarian electoral operation.

The chart below shows the distribution of Sian Berry's vote over the constituencies. So, for instance, in the North East constituency Sian achieve 4.94% of the total vote and what is shown here is the proportion of her total vote that came from this area, 12.65% of her first prefs and 11.07% of her second prefs.


What you should be able to see on this chart is that although second preference votes were generally consistent with first preferences (ie strong one area were also strong in the other) there are a number of places that slightly bucked the trend and pushd their second preferences up. This appears, at a glance, to be areas that were more hotly contested and therefore there was a tendency for those tempted to vote Green to push them down into the second preference.

These areas include Merton and Wandsworth, West Central and most notably Bexley and Bromley - whose lowish first preference vote was balanced by a better performance on second preferences.

More charts to come...

List Vote

The members of the Assembly elected from the list are as follows;

Party	Assembly member(s)
Liberal Democrats	Michael Tuffrey Dee Doocey Caroline Pidgeon
Green Party	Jenny Jones Darren Johnson
British National Party	Richard Barnbrook
The Labour Party	Nicky Gavron Murad Qureshi
Conservative Party	Andrew Boff Victoria Borwick Gareth Bacon

There were only small changes in the vote (less than one percent) for all parties elected, except the Lib Dems who lost 6% and the Tories who gained 3.5%

By voting Green on this list people directly contributed to ensuring the BNP got one rather two assembly seats - thanks to everyone who did that!

More info:
London Assembly Results
following the trend we've seen (below) the Tories and Labour have both increased their representation at the cost of the Lib Dems and UKIP/One London

Constituencies
Conservative: 8 (-1)
Labour: 6 (+1)

Total Seats
Conservative: 11 (+2)
Labour: 8 (+1)
Lib Dem: 3 (-2)
Green: 2 (=)
BNP: 1 (+1)
UKIP: 0 (-2)

Which looks like this;



It's got to hurt the Lib Dems to be just one seat up on the Greens - ouch!

Boris Johnson declared Mayor

Candidate name	Party	1st choice votes	1st choice %	2nd choice votes	Total vote
Boris Johnson	Conservative Party	1,043,761	42.48%	124,977	1,168,738
Ken Livingstone	The Labour Party	893,877	36.38%	135,089	1,028,966
Brian Paddick	Liberal Democrats	236,685	9.63%
Siân Berry	Green Party	77,374	3.15%
Richard Barnbrook	British National Party	69,710	2.84%
Alan Craig	Christian Peoples Alliance and Christian Party	39,249	1.60%
Gerard Batten	UK Independence Party	22,422	0.91%
Lindsey German	Left List	16,796	0.68%
Matt O'Connor	English Democrats	10,695	0.44%
Winston McKenzie	Independent	5,389	0.22%

Incidently - this compares very well with my prediction in March of how the various candidates would do. My only error was to underestimate the Christians who came two places higher than I thought they would, pushing UKIP and the Left List down a touch.

The left's vote in the constituency ballots

Updated: the total hard left vote is down in every constituency from the 2004 total, except in City and East (due to Respect Renewal's increased vote).

Below is the run down constituency by constituency, however the average percentage of the TOTAL left vote was 2.53% which compares very badly with 2004's 4.29 %. The Left List's average percentage at this election was 1.37%, whilst I'm sure they'll publicly spin this as a massive step forwards their members will be clear that this is a very poor performance indeed.

Barnet and Camden

2008.....Left List 1.15%
2004.....Respect 3.61%

Bexley and Bromley

2008.....Left List 0.52 %
2004.....Respect 1.02 %

Brent and Harrow

2008.....Left List 1.44 %
2004.....Respect 3.62 %

City and East

2008.....Left List 1.21 %
2008.....Respect 14.28 %
2008.....Total 15.49 %
2004.....Respect 13.46 %

Croyden and Sutton

2008.....Left List 0.77 %
2004.....Respect 2.18 %

Ealing and Hillingdon

2008.....Left List 1.35%
2004.....Respect 2.85%

Enfield and Haringey

2008.....Left List 3.48%
2004.....Respect 5.52%

Greenwich and Lewisham

2008.....Left List 1.37 %
2008.....Socialist Alternative 1.06 %
2008.....Total 2.43 %
2004.....Socialist Alternative 2.44%

Havering and Redbridge

2008.....Left List 0.88%
2004.....Respect 3.8 %

Lambeth and Southwark

2008.....Left List 1.18 %
2008.....Socialist Party 0.95%
2008.....Total 2.13 %
2004.....Respect 3.96%

Merton and Wandsworth

2008.....Left List 1 %
2004.....Respect 3.27 %

North East

2008.....Left List 3.04 %
2004.....Respect 8.03 %

South West

2008.....Left List 0.8 %
2004.....Respect 2.44 %

West Central

2008.....Left List 0.98 %
2o04.....Respect 3.88 %

Constituency results

Barnet and Camden
Tories and Labour up, Lib Dems down. Veritas managed to stop the Left List coming last here.

Candidate	Party	Votes	Votes %	Majority
Brian Coleman	Conservative Party	72,659	40.36%	19,693
Nicky Gavron	The Labour Party	52,966	29.42%
Nick Russell	Liberal Democrats	22,213	12.34%
Miranda Dunn	Green Party	16,782	9.32%
Magnus Nielsen	UK Independence Party	3,678	2.04%
Clement Adebayo	Christian Peoples Alliance	3,536	1.96%
David Stevens	English Democrats	2,146	1.19%
Dave Hoefling	Left List	2,074	1.15%
Graham Dare	Veritas	510	0.28%

Bexley and Bromley
Massive increase in Tory vote (12.82%), Lib Dems down just over 7%, UKIP down over 12%. Awful, awful NF vote.

Candidate	Party	Votes	Votes %	Majority
James Cleverly	Conservative Party	105,162	51.83%	75,237
Alex Heslop	The Labour Party	29,925	14.75%
Tom Papworth	Liberal Democrats	21,244	10.47%
Paul Winnett	National Front	11,288	5.56%
Ann Garrett	Green Party	9,261	4.56%
Mick Greenhough	UK Independence Party	8,021	3.95%
John Hemming-Clark	Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital	6,684	3.29%
Miranda Suit	Christian Peoples Alliance	4,408	2.17%
Steven Uncles	English Democrats	2,907	1.43%
David Davis	Left List	1,050	0.52%

Brent and Harrow
Labour up 8%, Tories up 3%, Lib Dems down 4%.

Candidate	Party	Votes	Votes %	Majority
Navin Shah	The Labour Party	57,716	36.45%	1,649
Bob Blackman	Conservative Party	56,067	35.41%
James Allie	Liberal Democrats	19,299	12.19%
Shahrar Ali	Green Party	10,129	6.40%
Zena Sherman	Christian Peoples Alliance	4,180	2.64%
Sunita Webb	UK Independence Party	3,021	1.91%
Pat McManus	Left List	2,287	1.44%
Arvind Tailor	English Democrats	2,150	1.36%

City and East
Labour up 7%, UKIP down 10%, Lid Dems down 5%. Respect coming third here is pretty impressive although I think they'll need to improve on this 14.28% come the general election. Interesting that this is such a strong BNP area too.

Candidate	Party	Votes	Votes %	Majority
John Biggs	The Labour Party	63,635	33.97%	31,553
Philip Briscoe	Conservative Party	32,082	17.12%
Hanif Abdulmuhit	Respect (George Galloway)	26,760	14.28%
Robert Bailey	British National Party	18,020	9.62%
Rajonuddin Jalal	Liberal Democrats	13,724	7.33%
Heather Finlay	Green Party	11,478	6.13%
Thomas Conquest	Christian Peoples Alliance	7,306	3.90%
Michael McGough	UK Independence Party	3,078	1.64%
Graham Kemp