Skip to content or view screen version

Low turnout for Mayoral Election

Ivan Agenda | 18.10.2002 16:49

Hackney council have just elected a new major with just under three-quarters of the population deciding not to vote. How low should a turnout be before it is considered nullified?

The election for the mayor of Hackney has been decided, with Labour councillor Jules Pipe, the current leader of the council being declared the winner with 41.95% of the vote. Yet probably the most remarkable aspect of this contest has been the amount of people who chose not to vote throughout the process. Prior to this election the council held a referendum to see if a mayor was desired and a mere 32% voted in favour. For the election itself, a staggeringly low turnout of 26.34% was recorded and this was still not the lowest of those that took place today. Bedford, Mansfield and Stoke-on-Trent all received low turnouts making the election seem like a farce.

Recently elections in Serbia resulted in a turnout of 45% and within their constitution over 50% must vote. However no such limit is required within our system as a spokesperson for the Office for the Deputy Prime minister (ODPM) said, “The elections are part of the democratic process and no threshold is set…election turnouts are a concern.” Julie Martins a local resident who was one of the many who decided not to vote said, “People are voting less and less because there views are being ignored more and more and Hackney’s had it worse than others…Tell me why I’m voting when all I see is our services cut and sold…Jules Pipe voted for those cuts.” What is certain is the majority of people didn’t vote for the winner and the question is was the winner democratically elected?

Ivan Agenda

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

What happened in total

20.10.2002 16:15

is very interesting. four elections were held that day, and as before, many "independents", of varying legitimacy, were elected. But Old Boot the Socialist [dont talk about Mr Foot like that ! - Editor] cant even get elected in Poor- But- Labour- Loyal Hackney ! Can it be that the SWP have chosen the wrong tactics ? Remember, similar elections beforehand have given us independent MPs and also some twat in a monkey costume, which means that we all knew beforehand the way the story would be played out.
I suggest that the socialist message must be taken to other classes in society, not just the traditional Labour consituency. If anything, this was the lesson from the fuel-tax protests some 2 years ago. All support for Labour has given us is Blair; its time to look to fresh forces in society, including realtively wealthy but exploited people who may not yet be socialist, but who need convincing. Well, fine; at least TRY to convince them ! Dont ignore them !

cheoddhbib

What happened in total

20.10.2002 16:15

is very interesting. four elections were held that day, and as before, many "independents", of varying legitimacy, were elected. But Old Boot the Socialist [dont talk about Mr Foot like that ! - Editor] cant even get elected in Poor- But- Labour- Loyal Hackney ! Can it be that the SWP have chosen the wrong tactics ? Remember, similar elections beforehand have given us independent MPs and also some twat in a monkey costume, which means that we all knew beforehand the way the story would be played out.
I suggest that the socialist message must be taken to other classes in society, not just the traditional Labour consituency. If anything, this was the lesson from the fuel-tax protests some 2 years ago. All support for Labour has given us is Blair; its time to look to fresh forces in society, including realtively wealthy but exploited people who may not yet be socialist, but who need convincing. Well, fine; at least TRY to convince them ! Dont ignore them !

cheoddhbib

What happened in total

20.10.2002 16:15

is very interesting. four elections were held that day, and as before, many "independents", of varying legitimacy, were elected. But Old Boot the Socialist [dont talk about Mr Foot like that ! - Editor] cant even get elected in Poor- But- Labour- Loyal Hackney ! Can it be that the SWP have chosen the wrong tactics ? Remember, similar elections beforehand have given us independent MPs and also some twat in a monkey costume, which means that we all knew beforehand the way the story would be played out.
I suggest that the socialist message must be taken to other classes in society, not just the traditional Labour consituency. If anything, this was the lesson from the fuel-tax protests some 2 years ago. All support for Labour has given us is Blair; its time to look to fresh forces in society, including realtively wealthy but exploited people who may not yet be socialist, but who need convincing. Well, fine; at least TRY to convince them ! Dont ignore them !

cheoddhbib

Excellent result

20.10.2002 22:16

You've said it 3 times, cheoddhbib, and it's still bollocks. It's not a question of pandering to the rich to get elected. And I don't remember the fuel protesters standing for elected office. If they did, they would poll far fewer votes than Paul Foot in Hackney.

This is an excellent result for the Socialist Alliance. They gained almost 13% of the vote, when in previous elections the most they've got is 8%. Paul Foot came 3rd, beating the Lib Dems and the Greens who came 4th and 5th. Hackney is Labour's heartland - the Labour candidate should have romped home. Instead, tonight he and other New Labourites will be breathing sighs of relief.

Paul Foot's campaign highlighted corruption in the council, it showed up the way that New Labour is determined to cut nurseries to pander to big business, it organised a delegation of local people from Hackney to go on the record-breaking anti-war demo a couple of weeks back of 400,000 people, and it supported striking council workers.

Even if Paul Foot had polled fewer votes, the campaign would still have been worth while. As it is, 13% is a good base for the Socialist Alliance to challenge for seats in the forthcoming local elections.

3 times

EXCELLENT result ?

21.10.2002 13:57

when every other 'independent' can stand on the twattiest of platforms and WIN, the socialist alliance cant grub up more than this, on whats supposed to be a serious platform! can socialists ever admit to themselves that they're getting it wrong ? And making idiots of themselves in the process ?

wake up and coff the smelly

SWP/SA politics fail in working class areas..

21.10.2002 15:40

When are the SWP?SA going to realise that bleating on about Iraq or whatever is the new campaign, and will not win u support in working class districts.
If the SWP/SA were going to win anywhere it was in Hackney...in fact before the election they seemed to believe they had it in the bag!! Hackney is and always was the base of the SWP...their head offices were for years here, as was their printing presses, their most branches in one borough, their most members for one borough, where their leadership lived etc etc.
The truth is u only get the support of people when u can win their respect. By standing on the outside of the community in Hackney the SWP/SA have very little support. Doesn't the lesson of the near sucess of the IWCA in Haggerston get through to the SWP/SA?!( the IWCA average vote in Haggerston was 600...there are 15 wards in Hackney...600x15 is er 9000...more than twice Foots vote...)
The Lesson? To me it is...Don't preach at people...ask them what they think are the problems where they live...deal with day to day problems... go back to basics..
the left have a lot of rebuilding to do in hackney as elsewhere..maybe Foots defeat will start the process. Sadly i hear the SA/SWP are saying the result was a resounding sucess...some hope for the people of Hackney!

brian

All poor

21.10.2002 16:39

Seems to me the process of election is a farce if just over 25% of thr population vote. More people voted to say we want a mayor and when the chance to vote for a mayor less voted. Disillusion appears to be growing and there is not one party in this land who inspires people to vote.

Ivan

The life of Brian

21.10.2002 18:08

A question for Brian - would you rather Paul Foot got fewer votes, or would you have enthusiastically welcomed it if he'd won? (incidentally I have scoured all his election material and website and can't find the slightest hint that the SA thought they'd got it 'in the bag').

I think it was a very creditable result achieved across the whole of Hackney. It's easy to get votes by telling people you agree with them - the liberals have been getting elected for years in places like Hackney for doing that. Perhaps the SA should have campaigned against asylum seekers rather than saying they defended them?

If you don't think that Iraq has any relevance to the working class then nor do you. Obviously all 400,000 people on the demonstration were middle class? And it seems a pretty basic argument that there are billions for bombs but nothing for housing or education.

As for the IWCA - if they would have got 9,000 votes why didn't they stand? 'Peter' from the IWCA announced here they'd put out 12,000 copies of an interview with Terry Edwards - who stood a platform as near to their policies as makes no difference. Is it a bit inconvenient to mention he came next to last?

dazed and confuzed

Low Expectations

22.10.2002 17:55

If this was an excellent result I would hate to see what you'all would call a poor result. Foot came third, he barely beat the LibDems who are still recovering from May and comfortably behind the tories.
The SA/SWP have far more people on the ground than any of the three main parties in Hackney yet still fail to make any significant impact. Jules Pipe wasn't worried about Foot anymore than Labour has worried about the SA in any Hackney election. The SA/SWP has never made any significant impact on the Labour vote. Labour were probably more worried about a split in their vote combining with some traditional dodgy voting practices and giving the Tory candidate a lift.
If the SA are to get anywhere in Hackney they need to conect with the community - Pipe promised double glazing and new roofs, Foot promised to oppose bombing Iraq. Also somewhere amongst the SA membership are people who know how to run an election campaign - unfortunately they don't appear to be the ones running the SA campaigns.

plug

SA/SWP

28.10.2002 16:13

Hi
The SWP came third right so they must have some support! But they have nothing to offer the class..by the way ive had it on good authority that the SA chair, Liz Davies, resigned as other SAers had their hands in the till..typical Trots! Oh and why do the middle class IWCA think workers are bothered about Iraq? Do they think 'real' workers are Alf Garnett types? Try ending the workerist posing and get out your armchair!
Victor

Victor
mail e-mail: sad1917@hotmail.com

Wot?

31.10.2002 01:06

Trots & IWCA bad - as against what, Victor? Anarchists maybe? If so, "purleeese", say I!

(Cue Anarchists bleating about how awful the left are)

Joss

Im Bad!

31.10.2002 14:46

Hi there
Yeah the Anarchists are mostly State run, or at least have sympathies that way. My theory is that the SWP et al werent letting Reformist Liz in on what the finances were..that or she stumbled upon something rotten in the heart of the SA..thats why all the groups are keeing Stumn on what happend and she hasnt spilt the baked ones either!
Liz if you are reading this (and I have it on good athourity that you do) please tell us what happend..or at least lets get some speculation going whilst i get a cup of cha..
Victor, the All Seeing, the All Knowing

Victor
mail e-mail: sad1917@hotmail.com

Incoherent Victor

04.11.2002 20:39

I don't really know exactly what Victor's on about as his post is muddled. You mumble something about "workerism" , "armchairs" and the IWCA somehow being "middle class". All fascinating stuff - but in my experience, the activists of the IWCA - and their supporters - are the most genuinely working class I've come across. Maybe a touch of bitterness in your post Victor?

Sean

Victor?

04.11.2002 21:02

Victor - you are meant to slag off the IWCA for not taking up issues like Iraq. We've never said anything about it. All our newsletters are at www.hackneyiwca.fsnet.co.uk Have a look for yourself.
Then you can criticise us for only taking up the immediate interests of the working class - like crime and anti-social behaviour, housing repairs and cleaning and the running down of community facilities.

Peter

IWCA

05.11.2002 14:39

Hi
The point wasnt what IWCA are or are not doing (not being in Oxford I have no idea either way) it was just i get pissed at the way IWCA/RA rubbish any concern with stuff like Iraq as being all middle class. Im certainly not middle class.
Working class people like me do get annoyned when politico's tell us municipal rubbish collecting are 'real' working class concerns and we shouldnt worry our pretty little heads about wider stuff..christ in the pubs i go to i often hear working class people talk about Iraq etc..and what i was getting at was that these issues are too important to be written off as just the perserve of middle class Trotskyite groups..
Victor

Victor
mail e-mail: sad1917@hotmail.com