The Mayor deserves £65k a year. Now time to pay councillors a full-time salary.

Politicians and their salaries. I’m sure if some members of the public had their way, they’d be lucky to be paid minimum wage. For obvious reasons, councillors and MPs become rather queasy when talking about their salaries. There never seems to be a good time to raise the prospect of a pay rise. Sympathetic ears are in short supply. The British don’t take too kindly to people moaning about money, let alone an elected official. Instead, coming off the back of past furores when MPs have demanded a pay increase, they’ve taken the only (sensible) step they know how. If you’re a politician, and someone mentions the dreaded words “pay rise,” you remain silent, seem uncomfortable, and pull an awkward looking face.

Is it false modesty? Possibly. More likely avoiding the prospect of getting lynched in the street. But they can rest easy. I’m happy to do the talking for them. When it comes to councillors, it’s about time we paid them a full-time salary.

At present, every councillor in Bristol receives a basic remuneration of £11,416 a year. Those with additional responsibilities are granted an SRA (Special Responsibility Allowance). Before the election of Mayor George Ferguson, the council leader took home a tidy £52,000 a year. Executive members, committee chairs and political group leaders were also paid up to £20,000 on top of their basic salary.

All this has now changed. This week councillors from all parties agreed, rightly, that the mayor’s wages should match that of an MP: £65,738. Members of Ferguson’s cabinet get £21,000, as well as their basic pay. Most councillors will still get their basic sum, plus extras, as and when needed.

This needs to change. Last week, a panel of MPs concluded that councillors had a right to expect “an appropriate level of compensation,” although, unhelpfully, failed to say what this level should be. They argued that the setting of councillors' pay should be taken out of their hands and given to an independent body. What’s more, they stressed that low pay was deterring many young people from entering local politics. The average age of a councillor nationwide stands at a youthful 60.

Admittedly, this isn’t going to happen in the age of austerity, but it’s something that should be considered in the future. Most people are unaware of who their councillor is, and even less clear about what exactly they do. Some argue that the honour and pride of working for their community should be enough. Hence, it’s a role that is often taken up by those who are either retired or approaching retirement. But, we pay MPs, so why not councillors? Nobody is more in tune with the needs of the people around them than the local councillor. MPs are far too busy, and far too absent, to do anywhere near enough for their constituents.

It might seem a strange time to suggest this soon after Bristol has voted in its first mayor. After all, the power of the city’s councillors has been significantly diluted. But even more reason to give them a greater purpose in their own wards. Whilst the mayor has the ultimate say over almost everything, he cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of everything.

Bristol decided that it needed a mayor to grapple with the city’s problems. According to the Cities minister, he is now “one of the most powerful political figures in the country.” Properly paying councillors would also recognise the vital role they play. Yes, they don’t always deal with the glamorous stuff (grumbling about car-parking spaces and broken street lights just two examples of complaints they commonly come across), but this is the mundane stuff that we take for granted. We assume the roads will be gritted when it snows (all eyes on Friday), that our bins will be collected, that our electricity always works, that our parks are looked after. These things don’t happen by accident. Councillors, together with thousands of council staff, are working tirelessly behind the scenes.

Cutting the number of councillors in Bristol, from 70 to 35, would free up money to pay the remaining half, something in the region of £25,000 a year. It would also ensure that it attracts people from a wider cross-section of society. Rather than something that is done alongside the day job, resulting in late nights and busy weekends, becoming a councillor would become a profession in its own right. It’s the very least they deserve.


This comment piece was first published by thisisbristol on Wednesday 16th January 2013

Census and council figures reveal Bristol’s sharp divide

The Census isn’t merely the release of a dreary set of statistics, or a chance for the right-wing media to whip us up into another national panic about how many more immigrants we’re being overrun by. It allows us to gaze into the not-too-distant past, to reflect on where we are as a society today, and to predict where we’ll be ten years down the line. As you may have seen, Tuesday saw the release of another batch of stats from the 2011 Census. The first wave of facts and figures were published in July.

In this post, I want to move beyond these headline findings, and look at another set of figures that merit close scrutiny.  Recent reports from the council have shown up some stark inequalities in Bristol, which I expect to be echoed when the full data for the 2011 Census is released. For example, compare the city’s most populous ward, Lawrence Hill, with its least populous, Stoke Bishop. We already know from figures out last month that Lawrence Hill’s 18,942 residents greatly exceed the city’s 12,235 ward average. Stoke Bishop comes in below the average, with 9,269 residents.

According to the Census, Bristol’s population as a whole grew by 38,000 - or around 9.8% - over the last decade. A much smaller increase, in fact, than I’d been expecting. (For comparison’s sake, the 2001 Census saw a tiny fall in the numbers living in Bristol: 390,000, just over 2,000 fewer than in 1991).

The latest council stats reveal that Lawrence Hill has seen a 44% increase (5,763) in its population, the second highest rise in the city, and with under-30s making up half the ward. In Stoke Bishop, under-30s make up a similar proportion (46%), but this number is swelled by the large volume of students who live there.

To get beyond the headlines, one has to delve into the findings of the council’s Neighbourhood Partnership Profiles. Introduced in 2008, NPPs group together two or three wards, and give a comprehensive breakdown of local concerns: anything from health and wellbeing, deprivation, to fear of crime. It is only when you carefully examine this document that the huge divisions in Bristol become apparent.

Whereas the problems identified in the neighbourhoods of Stoke Bishop, Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym include high domestic energy use and above-average car use; in Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill, residents have to contend with above-average levels of deprivation, poorly insulated homes with health and safety risks, and problems with noisy neighbours and drunk and rowdy behaviour, to name just three. In one part of the city, over-consumption is the main issue; in the other, the issues are more about quality of life and basic safety.

Lawrence Hill is the most deprived electoral ward in the South West of England, and belongs to the most deprived 10% in the whole country.  60% of all children living there do so in poverty. Fewer than 4% of children live in poverty in Stoke Bishop.

Over 3,500 crimes were recorded in 2009/10 in Lawrence Hill, at an offence rate of 204.2 per 1,000 population. (A significant reduction from 2001/02 (420.5 per 1000). This compares to just 291, or 28.4 per 1000, in Stoke Bishop for the same period. Unsurprisingly, fewer than half of Lawrence Hill residents feel safe in their area after dark, compared to 75% of those living in Stoke Bishop.

In 2011, only 30% of 16-year-olds in Lawrence Hill got 5 GSCE’s at grades A*-C, including English and Maths. In Stoke Bishop the figure was more than treble that, at 94%. The council’s figures don’t take into account the type of schools that these pupils attended, although one can probably guess. Either way, Lawrence Hill’s score falls way below the national average achieved by state schools.

As of last year, a quarter of Lawrence Hill’s residents were in receipt of out-of-work benefits, double the Bristol average. These include such things as jobseeker’s allowance and incapacity benefit. The figure for Stoke Bishop is a paltry 2.2%.

Why am I bombarding you with all these statistics? For four reasons:

1.      Firstly, when people say we live in a divided city, these are some of the things they are talking about. It isn’t hyperbole, or empty political rhetoric designed to win votes.

2.      Secondly, this pattern of inequality isn’t a recent phenomenon. It’s been with us for a while, and therefore deserves more attention than it has received up to now.

3.      Thirdly, much of this deprivation, crime and underachievement take place elsewhere. That is, in areas most Bristolians rarely venture into. Most of us probably only see our own wards and the shopping areas around the city centre. So perhaps a little bit more media attention is justified.

4.      Finally, addressing some of these issues should form a large part of Mayor Ferguson’s brief. I’m all for shiny new stadiums and arenas and displays of cultural muscle, but successfully tackling inequality is the thing that will really change our city for the better. Everything else is just cosmetic.  

 

This article was first published on thisisbristol on Friday 14th December 2012

 

Bristol Labour councillors undermined by blinkered NEC

A farce and an embarrassment is how I’d describe recent events in Bristol. In under a week, Labour have managed to score not one, but two own goals. All coming off the back of the election on November 15^th of the city’s newly elected mayor, George Ferguson, the independent candidate.

From the moment he took office, Ferguson has called for a “rainbow coalition” to sit in his cabinet. Based on the election results, he vowed to fill it with three Labour councillors, one Tory, one Lib Dem, and one Green. A city beset by years of political squabbling and inertia was finally going to put Bristol first. Indeed, the city has felt just that little bit more upbeat, hopeful that this time things will be different; a mayor, with bite, and the power to get things done.

Well, that was the fantasy, anyway. Labour has shut the door on the chance to be a part of Ferguson’s cabinet. Last Wednesday evening, Bristol Labour Party members gathered to reflect on defeat, and to look ahead to the future, where it was to decide on whether the party should accept a role with the new mayor. A vote was taken, where much to my dismay but not surprise, most members voted against entering into coalition rule. I was at this meeting and voted in favour.

Then, last Thursday, Labour councillors had their own meeting to discuss what to do next. On Friday morning, live on BBC Radio Bristol, Labour’s leader on the council, Peter Hammond, revealed that the party had voted in favour (discovered yesterday to be 9 to 8,) of working with Ferguson. I was stunned, shocked, and delighted. Naturally, those who supported this decision took to Twitter (where else?!) and the blogosphere to express their relief, more than anything else, that sense had prevailed. Other not so happy members naturally had a somewhat different take, angered that the views of the party membership had been ignored.

And then the NEC got involved. On Sunday, Hammond told the local media that the party had been instructed to abide by the wishes of its members, and to take its place in the new administration as “constructive opposition.” Something which prompted Hammond to resign as party leader, but not before he articulated what many Bristolians, both within and outside the local Labour Party, felt:

“Earlier today the Labour Party announced that they were not prepared to endorse a proposal from Bristol’s Labour councillors to take up the offer of three seats (out of six) in George Ferguson’s cabinet. As a loyal member of the Labour Party I must and will abide by that decision however flawed I think it is.

“[But] in all conscience I cannot publicly support a decision that runs contrary to the advice I gave to Labour councillors which they accepted by a majority decision as they are entitled to do.

“To date I have received numerous emails and had numerous conversations (with Labour Party members and members of the public (Labour voters and otherwise) who told me that Labour should forget what they saw as narrow party self-interest and ‘get in there’ to argue for the values and practical measures Labour represents.

"I have never believed that Labour participation in this cabinet would deliver the manifesto upon which we contested the mayoral election but in these changed political circumstances we should at least be able to be at the table to advocate Labour’s approach in dealing with the issues facing the people of Bristol in the face of government actions which do not benefit Bristolians.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.

A chance for Labour to put some of its agenda at the heart of George Ferguson’s first cabinet has been squandered in the most chaotic fashion. There’s no doubt in my mind the behaviour of the Lib Dems in government has somewhat sullied rule by coalition. For every unpopular decision made by the Tories, the Liberals have taken the greater battering in the polls. Those members opposed to this political union from the start argue that they don’t want Bristol Labour to be associated with every unfair cut, or ill-conceived policy, that may be enacted. We’re told that cuts of up to £32m are on their way.

To which I say, use the power available to you – remember, Labour have been offered three cabinet posts, to the three offered collectively to the Tories, Liberals and Greens – to ensure our city’s most vulnerable and most in need of help don’t get penalised. Rather than carping from the sidelines in a city which has stopped listening to you.

This was a wonderful opportunity for Labour to try and shape the policies of the city’s first directly elected mayor. Ferguson himself has expressed his desire to work with Labour, saying he is sympathetic to some of its ideas and proposals put forward during the campaign. Labour, and the Greens, have led the way in calling for a living wage. Their pressure has resulted in Ferguson agreeing to implement it by the end of his first term.

The NEC’s intervention has ensured that if any Labour policies are passed, it won’t be Labour getting the credit. The NEC’s stance is idiotic, foolish, and short-sighted. Naked tribalism over the majority has won the day. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of peoples’ feelings towards the council over how things have always been done in Bristol.

George Ferguson’s election has generated a lot of good will. I’m sure even amongst Liberal or Tory voters, resentment has been somewhat tempered. The NEC has badly misjudged the mood of the city. They have imposed diktat from afar. Lambasted by the public following Wednesday’s vote, Labour councillors had started to restore some pride to its party. Only for it to be cruelly and humiliatingly taken away a couple of days later.

Labour’s refusal to jump on board has been met with incredulity. Some proclaim this now makes Labour irrelevant in the city.

Bristolians want to see some action. They want to see a change from the bad old days. They want someone to come along and make this great city even greater. They want affordable, reliable buses; they want more homes built; more primary school places; anti-social behaviour dealt with. They’re not interested in incestuous party politics. If Labour doesn’t want to be a part of this, that’s fine, we’ll carry on and leave them behind. You can guarantee these thoughts are going through the heads of a great many locals right now.

A browse through some of the comments on the pages of “thisisbristol,” the online version of the local newspaper, The Post, should make for sobering reading for key party strategists. They are not uninformed rants, but highly insightful, and in tune with what the city needs at this moment.

My feeling is that this is a mistake Labour will come to regret. Every justification the party makes, with the same reasons monotonously churned out, only serves to strengthen this belief.


This article was first published on Labour Uncut on Tuesday 27th November 2012

Labour councillors undermined by party’s blinkered governing body

What a farce. What an embarrassment. In under a week Labour have managed to score not just one, but two major own goals. A chance to put some of its agenda at the heart of George Ferguson’s first cabinet has been squandered in the most harebrained fashion.

The reaction last Thursday from many Bristolians to the news that party members had voted against joining Ferguson’s “rainbow coalition” was met with a mixture of incredulity and dismay. Worse, some proclaimed this now made Labour irrelevant in the city. Again, in the interests of openness, I declare that as a Labour Party member I attended Wednesday’s meeting, and of course voted in favour of joining the cabinet. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. A browse through some of the comments on these pages would have made for sobering reading for key party strategists.

And one can only assume certain personnel read them, judging by the decision from Labour councillors to defy its members and vote in favour of coalition politics. Assuming that the party’s councillors would go along with the views of its members, I was somewhat stunned, and delighted, to hear the news that sense had prevailed. I’d like to think someone, somewhere, had listened to me. I should be so lucky!

This morning on BBC Radio Bristol, Labour MP for Bristol South, Dawn Primarolo, revealed that councillors had voted in favour by the narrowest of margins: 9 to 8.

And then yesterday we had the dramatic and humiliating u-turn. Humiliating for councillors to see their wishes, however small, overruled by the NEC, the governing body of the Labour Party which oversees its direction and policy-making process.

George Ferguson’s election has generated a lot of good will. I’m sure even amongst Liberal or Tory voters, resentment has been somewhat tempered. The NEC has badly misjudged the mood of the city. They have imposed diktat from afar. Lambasted by the public following Wednesday’s vote, Labour councillors had started to restore some pride to its party. Only for it to be cruelly taken away a couple of days later.

What the NEC doesn’t realise, or for whatever reason has chosen to ignore, is the possible damage all this is doing, and will do, to the party in Bristol. They are either so removed or so unaware of the politics of this city that they haven’t the faintest clue how this looks to non-Labour voters. Only the most tribal, the most blinkered, would think their intervention has helped.

There is certainly a debate to be had about whether elected party councillors should be able to brush aside the desires of party members. But, it’s a debate for another time, and certainly one that the wider public couldn’t give two hoots about.

Bristolians want to see some action. They want to see a change from how things have been done in the past. They want someone to come along and make this great city even greater. They want affordable, reliable buses; they want more homes built; more primary school places; anti-social behaviour dealt with. They’re not interested in incestuous party politics. If Labour doesn’t want to be a part of this, that’s fine, we’ll carry on and leave them behind. You can guarantee these thoughts are going through the heads of a great many locals right now.

Again, I sympathise with some of the reasons Labour have put forward for wanting to sit in opposition, even if I think they are wrong. There’s no doubt in my mind the behaviour of the Lib Dems in government has somewhat sullied rule by coalition. For every unpopular decision made by the Tories, the Liberals have taken the greater battering in the polls.

Bristol Labour doesn’t want to be associated with every unfair cut, or ill-conceived policy, that may be enacted. But, then do your best to fight them. Use the power available to you – remember, Labour have been offered three cabinet posts, to the three offered collectively to the Tories, Liberals and Greens – to ensure our city’s most vulnerable and most in need of help don’t get penalised. Rather than carping from the sidelines in a city which has stopped listening to you.

I strongly believe that refusing to sit in cabinet is a mistake and one the party will come to regret. As touched upon above, read some of the comments by readers of these pages in response to Wednesday’s vote. If these are anything to go by, the backlash has already begun. They shouldn’t be dismissed as rants and ravings. Many are highly insightful.

At least Peter Hammond, Labour’s leader on the council, did the honourable thing over the weekend and resigned. How often do we get to say that in politics? Citing central party interference, Hammond declared that he wasn’t prepared to ignore his colleagues’ wishes:

“Earlier today the Labour Party announced that they were not prepared to endorse a proposal from Bristol’s Labour councillors to take up the offer of three seats (out of six) in George Ferguson’s cabinet. As a loyal member of the Labour Party I must and will abide by that decision however flawed I think it is.

“[But] in all conscience I cannot publicly support a decision that runs contrary to the advice I gave to Labour councillors which they accepted by a majority decision as they are entitled to do.

“To date I have received numerous emails and had numerous conversations (with Labour Party members and members of the public (Labour voters and otherwise) who told me that Labour should forget what they saw as narrow party self-interest and ‘get in there’ to argue for the values and practical measures Labour represents.

"I have never believed that Labour participation in this cabinet would deliver the manifesto upon which we contested the mayoral election but in these changed political circumstances we should at least be able to be at the table to advocate Labour’s approach in dealing with the issues facing the people of Bristol in the face of government actions which do not benefit Bristolians.”

I couldn’t have put it any better.


This article was first published on thisisbristol on Monday 26th November 2012

It’s a no brainer: if invited, Labour should join Ferguson’s cabinet

Newly elected mayor, George Ferguson, may soon find that winning proves to be the easy part. The tricky bit will be bringing all the city’s power brokers together. It’s pretty much accepted that the Lib Dems will find themselves in Ferguson’s cabinet, together with the Greens. After all, it was those disenchanted Liberals who helped get him elected.

What about Labour? Noises coming out of Bristol’s Labour’s Party suggest things may not be quite as straightforward. Early indications are that being a “constructive opposition” would be preferable to accepting a place at the top table. An opposition which scrutinises and holds its leaders to account is essential in a democracy. I accept this.

Except, this isn’t Westminster. This is Bristol. Local democracy should at times be able to rise above the dog eat dog world of the Commons. Now with an elected mayor, it’ll finally have some bite. For the first time in a generation we have a chance to get this city moving and release its untapped potential.

Labour can sit idly by watching/opposing Ferguson et.al. implement cuts they perceive to be damaging, disproportionate, and unfair, or they can do something about it. By not joining, they are showing the city that they are putting their own party’s interests above the city’s. Or that’s how some might see it. Remember, perception is everything in this game.

In Bristol, we exist beyond the suffocations of the Westminster Village. Labour can have a very real and positive influence. In an ideal world, it’d be great to see Marvin Rees, Labour’s mayoral candidate, offered a prominent role. As I mentioned in my previous posting, of all the mayoral candidates, only Rees truly grasped the damage that is being done to the city by the gaping chasm that is its social inequality. If anything, his concession speech proved what Bristol stands to miss out on. I had always hoped that whoever won would offer the losing candidate a significant role in the mayor’s first cabinet.

But, I find some of the reasons given for why Labour should turn down possible cabinet posts incredibly depressing. In a piece for LabourList, Labour’s premier grassroots blog – independent, but supportive of the party – its editor, Mark Ferguson, outlined his rationale, warning Bristol Labour people why they should do just this:

“Some Labour people will be placed in a difficult and uncomfortable position – being offered positions in an independent administration, perhaps alongside Tories, Lib Dems and others. In a way it’s understandable if some consider taking roles working alongside independents. Four years in opposition is a long time, and the need to help those who only Labour can stand up for is great.

“And yet by working for an “Independent” – those Labour people could end up doing a great deal of harm to Labour voters, and the party.

“Labour politicians helping a politician push his anti-Labour agenda would leave a bad taste in the mouth for sure, but it would also damage the party in Bristol… It would be a betrayal of the party that got them elected to advance their careers.

“Bristol is the kind of place where Labour needs to maintain and extend its support, and this task will be made harder if local Labour councillors are acting as apologists for a non-Labour Mayor who will (like everyone else in local government) be forced to make unpopular cuts.”

Normally, I have a lot of time for what Ferguson writes. He is often astute and measured in his analysis. But, on this, I think he is wrong.

Firstly, it’s hard to pre-judge what kind of mayor George Ferguson will be. Labour doesn’t know. None of us know. Part of his appeal was this unknown quantity. Yes, cuts will be on their way. Up to £32m, so we’re told. This is therefore a chance for Labour to help in shaping the mayor’s agenda, ensuring it isn’t the city’s most vulnerable who bear the brunt.

In fact, this is a chance for all the four parties in Bristol, (including the Greens) to show that for once, they are above party politics. Don’t you think this city has had enough of the pettiness and the mud-slinging? It’s held Bristol back for years. Now, with a mayor, with cross-party support, we can put the past behind us.

Some may dismiss this as idealistic and naive. I’m happy to accept both charges. There’s nothing wrong with believing that all parties, and none, can work together.

Labour accuses George Ferguson of having run an unashamedly “anti-Labour” campaign. Of course he was going to do this. He knew full well that getting voters to reject Labour represented his best chance of cashing in. In the end, it was their rejection of the Tories and Lib Dems that benefited him the most. Of course asking voters to reject one party, rather than positively endorsing another, is negative and cynical. But, everyone does it. It’s just electioneering.

Not joining Ferguson’s cabinet would be short-sighted, foolish and wrong. It would also show voters they were right to reject business-as-usual party politics. It is also worth pointing out that Ferguson doesn’t have to bring Labour along with him. Let’s be honest, had Labour won, would Ferguson be invited to join the cabinet? Unlikely.

Rather than putting their careers ahead of the party, as Mark Ferguson says they would be doing, I ask Labour to put Bristol ahead of their party. After all, it could end up benefiting the party rather than harming it.


This article was first published on thisisbristol on Wednesday 21st November 2012

Why George Ferguson won, or why Labour lost

Bristolians have always known what makes their city special: its beauty, diversity and edginess, as well as the locals’ refusal to follow the herd. Once again, for the second time in six months, Bristol has dared to be different. There are several reasons why George Ferguson won last week’s mayoral election. Some of them are the same reasons why Labour lost, some are not.

If it were a choice between who had the better manifesto and the most alluring pledges, Marvin Rees, Labour’s candidate, should have won hands down. Rees understood from day one the key issue Bristol needed to address: its social inequality. Yes, the buses are a disgrace, we all know that. And, most of the candidates promised to fix them. But, only Rees was talking the language of equality, or lack of. Who better to address the alarming gaps in quality of life – be it housing, work, crime, or even just life expectancy - between residents of Lawrence Hill and Westbury on Trym, than a resident of the former, who has seen with his own eyes what happens when parts of the city get left behind?

Whilst Ferguson played lip service to this crucial issue, Rees made it a centrepiece of his campaign. But it wasn’t enough. Voters across the country have been in punishing mood for some time now. Punishing the establishment that is.  For many, Rees, irrespective of many of his qualities – such as freshness and authenticity – was the Labour Party. The same Labour Party that people blame, along with the Tories and Lib Dems, for the stalemate and inertia at the council. It’s often been my belief that Bristol is a wonderful city, despite, not because of the work of the council.

Voters were clearly not prepared to take a chance on what they perceived to be just another Labour councillor in the making, with a far bigger paycheck, no matter how unfair that may seem or how strong a candidate Rees was.

Seeing a steady stream of the Labour Shadow Cabinet visiting Bristol would also have convinced many that Rees was, and would be, answerable to Labour Party HQ down in London. Whatever policy ideas Ed Miliband put forward, people would wonder if they’d be replicated here. Opposition attacks on the government? Bristolians would assume these were also Rees’ views.

The mayoralty should be an opportunity for political independence, or at least a little free-thinking, no matter what party you are standing for. That’s part of its appeal. Ken Livingstone, and even Boris Johnson, have made a name for themselves doing just this. The sight of Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, Diane Abbott, and even Ed Miliband, swanning around East Street or Cabot Circus reminds people of the very politics - or should that be the very politicians? - they are rejecting in greater numbers than ever before.

This is not about you; this is about us, Bristol. This should be an election about local issues, led by local activists, some may have thought. Not by big hitters vying for a return to government.

There’s no doubt that the low turnout – at 27.9%, only marginally better than the 24% who voted ‘yes’ in May – benefited an outsider. Historically, low turnouts tend to harm Labour. By the same token, it is the Conservatives who usually benefit, confident that their supporters will turn out on polling day. It’s simple demographics:  the elderly are statistically more likely to be Tory voters and they vote in greater numbers.  

Both of the above happened, but with a twist. The Conservative vote, like the Lib Dems’ (as expected) collapsed. Among Labour activists, there was concern that the Tories would vote in larger numbers than Labour folk. They were right to be worried. Except they didn’t turn out to vote Conservative. They voted for George Ferguson. Right across the city, people snubbed mainstream parties in favour of the untested independent.

There’s little doubt that George’s charisma, his refreshing honesty to admit to not knowing something in hustings, and his ‘none of the above’ appeal, won him many admirers, both old and new.

Ferguson’s main theme was to convince that he could transcend the squabbling party politics that have dogged the council for years. I was never swayed by the argument that he was being disingenuous in proudly proclaiming his independent credentials, when he had been, until recently, a long-standing member of the Lib Dems. He’s always maintained that he hadn’t been an active member for a while. But, more than this, I always felt this line of attack was fruitless and unlikely to have much of an impact on voters. Clearly they agreed.

It is also worth mentioning that, in general, this has been a pretty clean campaign, thankfully devoid of the dirty tricks and cynicism that can often dominate local politics. To this, all the candidates must take credit.

There was however one exception: politics as practised in the Twittersphere. As a Labour Party member (yes, cards on the table time) I was often appalled and rather disappointed at the incessant taunting and baiting of Ferguson online. Some Labour supporters seemed to feel it more worthwhile to devote their energy to unleashing a barrage of negative tweets in his direction, rather than singing the praises and highlighting the strengths of their own candidate. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from politics. To his credit, Ferguson, more often than not, refused to let it get to him, and responded, as far as Twitter is concerned, by being civil, respectful, and good humoured.

Finally, to all those who voted against having a directly elected mayor in May (that’s most of you), let me say this. At least now we know who’s in charge. Who to blame when things go wrong. And who to thank when they go right. Because I imagine most of you couldn’t name our last council leader. A victory for local democracy, if nothing else. (It was the Lib Dems’ Simon Cook, by the way).

 

This article was first published on thisisbristol on Tuesday 20th November 2012