A couple of posts ago, before the UKIP stuff got in the way, I was talking about how different election systems and profiles allow, or arguably require, different ways of thinking and voting.
So having looked at decent examples of a two-horse race and a genuine proportionate democracy, that leave our local council election - which doesn't really fit into either.
Wandsworth. Or, as the press usually refers to it, Tory Wandsworth. And it has been Tory since the later seventies; pretty overwhelmingly so.
As with many council's, Wandsworth has multi-member First Past the Post. For me, that means that twenty wards each elect three candidates. We have three votes each, and the three biggest scores win in each word. Most Wards see a pretty dramatic split on part lines - the three Tory, or Labour candidates, get pretty similar scores. (In my memory we've never elected anyone from anywhere else, and the LibDems and Greens have historically fielded only one or two per ward, with little campaigning.) And the Wards tend to elect three of something. They are all Tory or all Labour.
Now, immediately, I think that mixing this up would be a good idea. Why not try and get a bit more of a spread? I could vote 2/3rds Labour and 1/3 Green - try to give the Council more of an eco-focus . Or 2/3 Tory and 1/3 UKIP, just to make sure the Council doesn't surrender its powers to Europe.
Now, I have lived and voted in some very different areas, and it is clear to me that local politics is very different. Wandsworth is a (very) low tax environment - a normal Band D property pays £682 per year. Even the biggest properties only pay £1,360. The next door borough - Lambeth pays nearly double these numbers across the board. It has been Labour for ever, except for a truly surreal Liberal led LibCo coalition in 2002.
The fact that both have been in power through both long Tory and Labour governments makes it hard to blame outside interference for things.
So this looks like the classic choice. High or Low Tax. And, presumably, high and low service. Ah, no. Despite being cheap, as a taxpayer, Wandsworth is pretty good. My bins get emptied, they have an OK recycling scheme, the Leisure Centres are basic but OK, reasonable libraries. Some OK schools. Looking for bad points, well some of the roads are pretty bad - need a lot of repair.
And my experience of Lambeth (which I am told persists to this day)? God Awful. Nothing worked, Everything was late, or broken.
Now, I did write "as a taxpayer". I have been fortunate enough never to need the other stuff the Councils provide - services for the homeless, or troubled kids, or the elderly. And it might be that here Lambeth knocks Wandsworth into a cocked hat.
But why is this? Is Wandsworth good and cheap because of or despite the Tories? I simply don't know. Would I pay an extra £1,000 if I knew it meant better services, better conditions for Council workers etc? Probably not, actually, but I would pay something more. But the obvious first conclusion is that Lambeth voters put up with a crap service because it is a crap service from a Labour Council.
Surely this takes dogma too far. I've known a few councillors in my time. They have all been out to do the best for their local areas. There will be some auditioning for Parliament, but not many.
So where does this leave us? Well - you can't assume that cheap isn't linked with poor service. You can't apply the logic from one area to another. You can look at the service you have had, and vote accordingly.
Which does mean that, though I am still reflecting, there is a chance I am going to vote Tory in the local elections. Economically it is clearly the right thing to do, but the thought is not a happy one!
No comments:
Post a Comment