Labour lose Lewisham council...
May 5 2006 09:53
but not mayor 
Lewisham council has gone to no overall control, though Bullock was still elected. TBH I don't think this situation has occured before in any of the elected mayor set-ups and I don't know what effect on Bullock's power will be (well, really it means the chief officers' powers as Bullock appears to be a mouthpiece).
Gains for Libdems, Greens, one extra Tory, the Trots held on to their seats.
One thing that we might want to look at is a campaign about how much Bullock gets paid. I'd thought it was in the £30-40k mark, but it's actuially 71k. Is he worth it? (What a rhetorical question).
How much money does it cost to demolish a swimming pool? A: £71K a year
that sort of thing - what do people think
May 8 2006 07:52
#2
According to info put out by Lewisham Council, it's not no overall control, because the opposition needs a 2/3 majority to overturn any of the Mayor's pool-busting, school-PFIing, anything that moves privatising policies.
In terms of bourgeois legitimacy, Bullock got 37.74% of the vote, which went up to 42.8% after second preferences were eliminated. However, in terms of the electorate, he got 12.45% of first preferences. So it'll be interesting to see if he claims a mandate for closing swimming pools when all the other candidates said they'd keep it open. Less than one in eight Lewisham electors think his school plan is a good one (and in the affected ward, formerly a safe Labour seat, Labour were spectacularly wiped out).
regards,
Martin
May 8 2006 08:01
#3
martinh wrote:
According to info put out by Lewisham Council, it's not no overall control, because the opposition needs a 2/3 majority to overturn any of the Mayor's pool-busting, school-PFIing, anything that moves privatising policies.
Bloody hell. I didn't realise the mayor had so much power. So rather than being "NOC," this result leads to a further centralisation of power. (As if power was centralised rather than a diffuse network of capillary relationships... blah... [/Foucault]). As you say, though, it kind of depends whether SB has the brass neck to claim a mandate.
May 11 2006 08:27
#4
According to this...
Quote:
DEFIANT Lewisham Mayor Steve Bullock says he will still demolish Ladywell Leisure Centre despite his party taking a battering at the ballot box.
May 11 2006 10:35
#5
I dont get this - if hardly anyone voted Labour in the elections - who were the people voting for a Labour mayor? People voting for Lib Dem councillors?!
May 11 2006 12:35
#6
Rkn
That's how first past the post elections work. The Tory came 3rd for Mayor, despite the Tories only having 3 councillors. There might be 1 in 15 people voting Tory in the Borough, but not enough in most places to make a difference. Similarly, Labour still hold Deptford, New X, and most of SE6. They also gained a seat in Lewisham Central because the Lib Dems put up an Asian.
And the Socialists didn't take all 3 seats in Telegraph Hill.
So, if Labour are coming a close second to different parties in just over half the wards and winning the rest, it stands to reason that they will get more votes than anyone else for Mayor.
Personally, I think he is now very vulnerable to precisely the sort of non-electoral pressure we advocate. I mean, a mandate of 1 in 8, what's that? Slightly more than a UB40 song 
Regards,
martin
I think that's a good idea.
I didn't realise how much he got paid, but it was in the bearded swimming pool enthusiast's election address.
"After the election: Same old Bullocks" is also a headline that leaps to mind.