Forum Topic

"No" is what the people of Chiswick have said to the current Hounslow Streetspace programme

So in London, Labour win Barnet, Westminster and Wandsworth, with Voters rightly rejecting Boris Johnson.  In Chiswick, against this backdrop Labour fail to advance meaningfully.  Congratulations do go to Amy Croft for her win.  However, Labour should have secured many more based on what happened elsewhere in London, and they failed.This is all down to their decision to allow former Cllr Hanif Khan to stand.  He came last and Joanna Biddolph first.  The vicious plan by a small minority in Chiswick to attack Jo Biddolph was seen for what it was, and the truth is out Chiswick residents were repulsed by that and against an awful Boris Johnson led Tory Government voted on the main local issue and have firmly rejected the Hounslow's Streetspace plan yet again.  The Council now needs to work with the 80 to 90% of residents to address these schemes.  If this had been a national election the Tory vote in Chiswick would have been wiped out.  Johnson needs to go now, and go quickly for the sake of our democracy.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1598d87 Comments

Well said - but the usual noisy 10% of Streetspace supporters in Chiswick will still feel they have a mandate although now significantly weakened.

David Kerr ● 1598d

"but the usual noisy 10% of Streetspace supporters in Chiswick will still feel they have a mandate although now significantly weakened."Yes, I guess their arrogance renders them dullards.

Steve Taylor ● 1598d

"In Chiswick, against this backdrop Labour fail to advance meaningfully.  Congratulations do go to Amy Croft for her win.  However, Labour should have secured many more based on what happened elsewhere in London, and they failed."It's notable that London is being singled out as the area where Labour has done best. The swing to Labour in the four wards of Chiswick is 3%. This matches exactly the latest value of the swing across London given by the BBC.

Tom Pike ● 1598d

Tom, I'm not one of the usual pro-car nutter brigade, but it is notable that Hanif Khan did perform particularly poorly.  The road schemes in the area defnitely contributed to the election results.

Al Webber ● 1598d

Before we get into attributing motives to how people voted it's worth noting that as usual the real winner was General Apathy. Turnouts were:Gunnersbury 40.83%Homefields 42.75%Riverside 40.64%So, effectively well over half of those residents the successful candidates have been elected to represent chose not to cast their vote. No doubt this"silent majority" will be claimed by the usual mouthpieces.

Bruce Hammal ● 1598d

Bruce is right in saying that A LOT of people in Chiswick haven't voted (it's not much better in my ward over in Ealing, only 44% turnout). But those who've bothered turning up have re-elected the incumbents. This means that Joanna Biddolph over in Gunnersbury and, in my neck of the woods, Gary Malcom have won. And since they basically ran on one thing - getting rid of cycle lanes or, in the case of Gary, reopening Fisher's lane - then, as much as it pains me to, the council ought to listen to them. Otherwise it wouldn't be democracy.I don't know what the silent majority thought about CS9, or Fisher's Lane. That 55-60% of people who didn't vote could've been 100% in favour of both or 100% against. But since they didn't voice their opinion, I think it's only fair that those who have should get their wishes granted.

Francis Sheehan ● 1598d

"Hanif Khan did perform particularly poorly."He had five less votes than the second-placed Labour candidate. Are those five votes the price he paid for being cabinet member for transport?"The road schemes in the area defnitely contributed to the election results."Does that explain why in Chiswick Riverside, which has the most extensive LTN in the borough, Labour performed rather strongly with a 4% swing, higher than the London average?

Tom Pike ● 1598d

Francis, in an environment of voter apathy, the really worrying thing is how easy it is for a genuinely tiny number of commited activists to claim the high ground and use the cabinet system of government to achieve what they want. With a large majority of councillors quite content to vote as instructed by their party leaders, contentious major decisions can be waved through with just the usual hollow nod to consultation.Tricky thing this democracy business!

Bruce Hammal ● 1598d

The turnout for the 3 Chiswick wards was comfortably the highest in the Borough though …

Mark Perry ● 1598d

Tom, ever heard the expression  "your flogging a dead horse" ? Councillor Joanna Biddolph got highest number of votes Hanif Khan got lowest number of votes...

Loraine Pemberton ● 1598d

And guess which councillors will be happily nodding through more dubious measures affecting Chiswick?

Bruce Hammal ● 1598d

Bruce, I wholeheartedly agree. But this is our (e.g. voters') fault. If you care about something, then you've got to do something about it. I don't know about Hounslow, but in Ealing voting is the easiest thing: you just need to register and then you can vote by mail. There's no reason not to do it, but for a general cannot-be-botheredness. I'm a cyclist, I believe that we should be using human power as much as possible, especially in cities, and public transport ought to pick up the rest of the tab. I voted for those candidates who expressed that view, but unfortunately in my ward they lost. This means that the other side's points must be heard... and if people complain about - say - Fisher's lane being reopened then all I have to say to the complainers is "Where were you on May 5th? We could've done with your vote".

Francis Sheehan ● 1598d

Looks on the turnout figures that indeed residents came out to vote against Hounslow Streetspace in Chiswick, where so many residents have been ignored to date.And a Tory got in at Hanworth Village, a new ward area, but an area that rejected Hanif Khan too.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1598d

In no way was it a good night for Hanif Khan.He was deselected from cabinet. Then again from his ward. Then Labour struggled to find a slot for him. He was the sacrificial lamb. Clearly.Turn your back on Chiswick, it will do the same to you. Hanif got his just rewards marking the finality of his downfall. Indeed, well done.

David Lesniak ● 1598d

Francis,A transport network isn't planned on a ward to ward basis.  The Conservatives in LBH&F campaigned to remove C9 and they didn't win any seats in wards along the route.The election result doesn't change anything.  Cycleway 9 is still policy at a borough and Mayoral level. The upgrade will be finished and linked to the route in LBH&F within the next month or so.Cllr Biddoph will continue to be as ineffective trying to stop it as she has been for the last 4 years.

Michael Robinson ● 1598d

Hi David,Do you know someone called Amanda Smith?  There seems to be a lot of commonality between your and her postings.Talking about small, noisy and now dissolved groups - OneChiswick - care to say what has happened to the money they raised?  Do you accept any personal responsibility for wasting it?

Michael Robinson ● 1598d

Having called this completely wrong I feel a bit embarrassed this morning but then again nobody predicted this particular set of results.Trying to map the outcome onto a single issue seems to me futile as it has been in the past. There is a lot of sound and fury about Cycleway 9 and LTNs but I don't believe it was the primary concern for most people and only a small number of people are likely to have switched their votes because of it. As Tom and Michael rightly point out overwhelming hostility to active travel measures doesn't fit with the Chiswick Riverside or Ravenscourt Park results. On the other hand Labour does seem to have suffered in some areas where LTNs have been introduced e.g. Enfield.At first glance to me the main factor in boosting an individual's vote seems to be whether or not they are an incumbent. This suggests that it is not a stance taken on a particular issue that is the primary factor but the work they have done for their constituents over the last four years. Every bit of casework could result in the person helped making the effort to vote for them in gratitude. Even the detractors of the councillors re-elected never describe them as lazy and they regularly report back to their constituents keeping them up-to-date with what they do. This seems to have paid off.It would be really interesting to hear an explanation of the Amy Croft victory. She seems to have no social media presence, even on the Labour Party's own accounts and nobody seems to have heard of her before. This doesn't mean she hasn't been working hard already in the community and that is the reason her personal vote got her over the line. I agree that it could be good news for Chiswick Riverside residents to have a councillor associated with the ruling group.What the results so far don't seem to be making clear is whether or not Johnson will be with us for much longer. Some of the media, not just his cheerleaders, seem to have fallen for the expectation management exercise which predicted total disaster. What seems to have happened is that the Tories have done slightly worse than what was a very bad outcome for them last time out nationally.If you want to see genuine change both locally and nationally then you should be rooting for him to go.

Francis Rowe ● 1598d

“ Does that explain why in Chiswick Riverside, which has the most extensive LTN in the borough, Labour performed rather strongly with a 4% swing,”I would have thought it pretty obvious that those who now enjoy the tranquility and privacy of living in an LTN would be devastated to lose that privilege and self entitlement  that Labour has afforded them. They care not a jot about the high pollution and traffic problems  these LTNs cause for their neighbours in neighbouring wards.

Steve Taylor ● 1598d

As I posted elsewhere, the results in Chiswick were right in line with the broader London results, so I agree it's impossible to separate out any single differentiating local issue.You're also quite right to highlight the advantage of incumbency, though Peter Thompson was previously a councillor in Chiswick. It appears voters' prior experience in this case counted against him, and that might have given Amy Croft an opening.

Tom Pike ● 1598d

"though Peter Thompson was previously a councillor in Chiswick. It appears voters' prior experience in this case counted against him, and that might have given Amy Croft an opening."Indeed, he was extremely weak as Leader of the Council. People will remember that.

Steve Taylor ● 1598d

I think it is probably fair to say that the contentious issues which have divided people in the Chiswick area over recent times will have had a significant effect on voting choices this time around. Usually there's not much to get very excited about locally; not so in 2022. It has presented people with a difficult moral choice, knowing that local trends inevitably get regarded as some sort of verdict on the party in power nationally. I think it's possible that people chose not to vote because nothing they could do felt right and Count Binface wasn't standing!

Bruce Hammal ● 1598d

Equally Tom, I believe you and others have claimed that all polls show great support for these schemes, both CS9 and LTNs. So given that they didnt exist in W4 at the last local election, if they are so clearly popular, then surely we should have seen a much big pro Labour shift to reflect this? Not just a similar shift as rest of London. We also saw a higher turn out in W4 that tells us something.Where there was a specific consultation on LTNs, restricted to local residents as we saw in Ealing, I think up to 7 LTNs were removed with oppostion of 58-80%. We seem to be told we cant possibly have such clear votes in Chiswick, so end up with rather circular discussions like this.

Bill George ● 1598d

1. It looks like turnout is slightly down compared to 2018, which would of itself indicate that people weren't particular motivated to vote by these new measures.2. The local CS9 survey showed a slight majority in favour, and other polling showed traffic measures were not the highest priority in terms of deciding a vote.3. After all the efforts to focus the Gunnersbury campaign on Hanif Khan, he got just five votes less than his fellow Labour candidate. 4. The swing to Labour in Chiswick was identical to the swing in the rest of London.Taken together, this gives very reasonable evidence that traffic measures didn't play a strong role in the vote in Chiswick or, less likely, the proponents and opponents votes were pretty balanced.

Tom Pike ● 1598d

1. Turnout though seems to have been above other areas this year, which seems to be more relevant comparison2. The 'local' CS9 survey covered people within 2 miles of the 'route', so to the north as far as Westway. An interesting definition of local, and as we saw with LHR, the issue with surveys is always the wording. Which is why the unambiguous genuinely local consultations in Ealing can be relied upon3. Equally, if all the measures are so popular, and Hanif one of the key architects, he should have won quite easily?4. Yes it is. So again, if all these schemes are so popular, why is there not a much bigger swing to reflect this?I tend to agree that traffic didnt play that big a role, but its quite hard to know. But it would suggest they dont generate the level of support you claim, as witnessed by the most objective votes to date in Ealing on LTN removal.

Bill George ● 1598d

Tom, still flogging that dead horse regarding Hanif Khan's embarrassing failure to secure a Councillorship in Chiswick Gunnersbury despite you and your chums sustained attempts to discredit Cllr Biddolph. She and her fellow Councillors won, you, your cabal and Khan lost. Why not try and save some face and credibility by ceasing to prop up a several times failed local politician ? Just a suggestion.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1598d

The Labour majority has increased in Ealing. The Conservatives fought on an anti-LTN agenda, seemingly concerned that Labour intends to perform a volte face and pursue a pro-LTN and cycling transport agenda now that it is secure for four years. They went from eight to five Councillors. Who knows why but their influence is reduced regardless. Lib Dems are now the dominant anti-LTN and anti-cycle lane party in Ealing with six Councillors, although their leader lives in a LTN that he does not propose conducting a plebiscite for to see if motorists from outside his area who would like to drive through it outnumber his neighbours who, presumably (we shall never know), would prefer that they didn't. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and whether Peter Mason will follow the same process of relying on SurveyMonkey to run local plebiscites that did not limit the location of respondents or how many times they could respond. I suspect some political opportunism was at play there and that now the leader is in the hot seat to deliver on manifesto pledges to reduce emissions and improve air quality that we will see that they learned how to run a better play on Fishers where they combined data with consultation results to make the final permanent decision.  There is a similar story at play in Richmond where the Lib Dems take a different view to their Ealing colleagues, favouring active travel schemes and where the Conservatives who did not favour active travel schemes have been all but eliminated from the Council, losing ten Councillors with just one lonely blue rosette remaining. Lib Dems have a free pass there with five Green Councillors forming the opposition.The reality is that Ealing, Hounslow, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond, Wandsworth and Westminster will all be minded to pursue progressive transport policy in the next four years, they have the mandate from the electorate to do so and the funding from national government to make it happen. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea will have to fly the flag for people in west London who do not like cycle lanes or LTNs.

Paul Campbell ● 1598d

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-london-council-elections-2022-b998375.html

Tom Pike ● 1598d

It’s a maudlin result. Shows more about the dissatisfaction with our elected representatives in Parliament than anything local. People are fed up with Boris and voted accordingly. As he’s fully supportive of screwing up neighbourhoods with LTNs, it’s not of note that they had little choice when looking at the bigger picture.What is interesting nationally, at least for the next 15 minutes of fame, is the Lib Dems picking up votes rather than Labour.

Russell Pearson ● 1598d

But the man from Del Monte, he say YES!

Basil Finnis ● 1598d

Michael,Personally I agree: a transport network ought to be defined at city level, it's madness that I can cycle on a segregated lane (well, if and when it's completed) from Chiswick to Hammersmith to the Olympia, then it's a free-for-all to Hyde Park, then "something" in Westminster up to Embankment where it resumes. But the problem is that it's not done at a centralise level, and it's undeniable that there's a message from Chiswick about it. I mean, the Tory councillors here have campaigned on nothing else. There was nothing else on the programme, as far as I could see. It could very well be that the majority of locals are in favour of the schemes, but it's also true that not enough people were bothered enough to actually get out and vote for them.

Francis Sheehan ● 1598d

Your analysis of Ealing is incorrect. Much of Labour’s campaign was based on an anti-Boris Johnson ticket, and they blanket canvassed the former LTN area’s to push that message. There was far more door knocking than in 2018 (when Labour pursued an anti-Brexit ticket to woo the sizeable European contingent here). At the count on Thursday night one Labour cabinet member admitted the strategy was basically ‘all about Boris’.The Tories had a very lacklustre campaign, which perhaps illustrates the essential differences between them and Labour. The latter is very effective at messaging and organising foot soldiers to spread the word, but they are pretty poor at running things properly. A lot of Ealing Council’s financial chickens will come home to roost in the next few years.Peter Mason is a political opportunist. His ambition is to be an MP. He’s already backtracked on his record when in cabinet under Julian Bell, although his true colours will start to reappear soon enough. Certainly the honesty and transparency have evaporated. And the Labour manifesto was laughably vague. Big promises about tackling the cost of living crisis (despite increasing council tax and other charges), rewilding and all the other guff.As for ‘progressive transport policies’, well as someone who lived in an LTN for long enough it certainly wasn’t progressive. It increased traffic on my previously quiet residential street and it didn’t encourage more cycling. That’s why that LTN and others were removed. Unfortunately these schemes, and others, are thought up by daydreamers with little else to occupy them or justify their salaries. A proper transport strategy would recognise the complexities of living in London, in terms of population, economic status, employment, etc. Simply pushing ‘active travel’ does none of that.

Simon Hayes ● 1598d

Unfortunately I don't think his visit to Downing Street did him any good.

Philippa Bond ● 1598d

“ Unfortunately these schemes, and others, are thought up by daydreamers with little else to occupy them or justify their salaries. A proper transport strategy would recognise the complexities of living in London, in terms of population, economic status, employment, etc. Simply pushing ‘active travel’ does none of that.”Simon Hayes is 100% correct.

Steve Taylor ● 1597d

There is a danger in all this in not acknowledging what a great achievement it was by the sitting councillors to get re-elected.Every poll and every bit of expert analysis was indicating that seats like the one in Chiswick were the most likely to fall and that all the local wards would vote Labour in a general election. It is easy to dismiss this but the techniques used are quite sophisticated and there is an increasing body of evidence that they are quite accurate.One thing that might have led them to being wrong was a low turnout. Older people tend to vote Tory and do what they say, younger people tend to say they will vote Labour but don't turn up on the day. In the event the turnout was exceptionally high with the three local wards the highest in the borough. This should have reduced the possibility of the polls being wrong.That they turned out to be can only be down to local factors and, in this case, that has to be the hard work and commitment of the councillors that represented the area. They have very visibly helped out in a range of ways to help their community. To attribute this to one policy issue does them a disservice.Tom would dispute this saying that there was a swing against the Conservatives inline with the London average and that our local councillors' performance was nothing exceptional. I haven't had a chance to look at the detailed number myself but Tom does tend to base very firm conclusions on quite uncertain foundations. Working out vote swings in a three seat ward with boundary changes is very complex and you can't compare a swing in an individual ward against the average because a change in voting patterns is always likely to be larger away from the party that starts with the highest number of votes.I stated on this forum before the election that only apathy could save the local councillors from a complete wipeout in the Chiswick area. This was a soundly based view looking at the available data. It was wrong because I underestimated just how effective the councillors had been and how well-informed the Chiswick electorate is.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1597d

That is spot on.  It is to do with local factors and hard working local councillors.It is surprising that some have claimed that the failure of Hounslow Cycling & Friends Labour candidate Hanif Khan to win in Chiswick Gunnersbury was unrelated to Cycleway CS9 or the Hounslow Streetspace programme.  If that is the case why did the former Councillor in charge of Transport and responsible for the Hounslow Streetspace programme make the following video, as linked to his twitter account...https://mobile.twitter.com/hanifkhan_1/status/1519377767275638785and say "Conversations during @labourdoorstep, have included the Cycleway 9.  made on 27 April from what can be seen.The decision not to support candidate Hanif Khan had everything to do with the failings of Hounslow Streetspace and the 80 to 90% of residents having been ignored.Now if this had been a national election we would have voted on national matters and sought to get rid of Boris Johnson.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1597d

Yep. Boris should be extremely grateful that Hanif Kahn stood in Chiswick. It  was a certain winner for the Tories.

Steve Taylor ● 1597d

It's simply incorrect to state that all the predictions were of Labour topping the polls in all the Chiswick wards. The actual expectation was that Chiswick Gunnersbury was the most likely to see a Labour gain as evidenced by the campaigning on both sides concentrating on that ward. As it turned out, both party's expectation turned out to be narrowly wrong, but most certainly not as far off as your predictions! The swing I calculated is for the four Chiswick wards, so the only boundary change was the  addition of about 300 voters along the western boundary in an electorate of over thirty thousand. In fact the total number of votes hardly changed, so turnout was only fractionally down from 2018. It was most certainly not exceptionally high compared to previous elections. It's not difficult to work out the two-party swing - it's simply half the change in the parentage lead and it doesn't depend on the number of votes, just the change in the proportions. Chiswick's swing, 3% from Conservative to Labour, was very close to the London average. In fact the change in all four party's share was very close to that seen in the rest of London.There very little grounds to support the case that local factors made a difference, unless you base it on misconceptions.

Tom Pike ● 1597d

Even data from Professor Pike couldn’t swing it for Hanif Khan!

Maggie Dodge ● 1597d

If I give you the percentages and historical data for 10 football matches can you tell me if the games are over or under 2.5 goals, pleaseI could be a millionaire soon

Julian Pavey ● 1597d

Tom, I don't think there are any misconceptions here. Perhaps you were a bit close to the fray in your firm backing for Hanif Khan's campaign and therefore it is hard to accept that based on the non-specifically local trends in this election you should have won. That you didn't, is no reflection on your efforts but the strengths of the existing councillors.I looked at the swings in the individual wards and your use of an average is misleading because there is no clear trend between the three. There appears to have been a swing to the Tories in Chiswick Homefields but a significant decline in their vote in Chiswick Riverside to give a swing to Labour of 4 percentage points. Part of this must be down to boundary changes as the ward now incorporates some bits of Brentford. In Chiswick Gunnersbury the swing was 2.3 percentage points where once again there were boundary changes.I haven't seen an official number for the overall swing across London but working on the number you quoted earlier of three percentage points to Labour there is still every reason think that the performance of the local councillors was exceptional.As well as the boundary changes you need to take into account the higher that average turnout for these wards which favours Labour and the fact that any swing will be higher that the average if an incumbent starts with a bigger share of the votes. Taking these three factors into account and all other things being equal the swing against the Tories in Chiswick should have been much higher than the London average.In addition the polls taken before the election which identified the Chiswick wards being at risk used an MRP analysis which assumes people with similar demographic characteristics tend to vote in similar ways. A clear trend had been identified nationally for more highly educated, better off, professional people who were Remain leaning to not vote for the Conservatives. The Westminster voting intentions in all three local wards is now solidly Labour according to this analysis - see the Electoral Calculus web site for details.You have seen this effect in Wandsworth where it was gains in more prosperous areas like Putney which helped Labour get the extra seats they needed. The swing to the Labour was 4.1  percentage points about the same as the one in Chiswick Riverside where only one incumbent councillor was standing for re-election and (through no fault of her own) her reputation was slightly tarnished by the behaviour of her father.There seems to me little doubt that the councillors who were re-elected retained their seats because of the good work they have done for their constituents over the last four years (and longer in most cases). I find it gratifying that this has happened and would applaud it regardless of the party the individual represented.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1597d

Sadly, it makes no difference who people in Chiswick vote for as their local councillor.  LBH is completely dominated by Lab, they have no interest in the views of Chiswick residents and will enforce whatever policies they want, Chiswick is simply a cash generator for LBH.As for cycle ways and LTNs playing a role in the election results, I am not convinced.  Even at local elections, national politics and trends  tend to be the dominant factor and with their performance over the last few months BoJo's merry band deserved a good whipping.Incidentally this Saturday morning (11.00 am) with shoppers out on CHR (although not as many as I expected) I saw exactly 3 bikes travelling between Sainsburys and TGT: one was on the pavement, one was travelling east not using C9 and the finally one had stopped and was looking a bit lost.  On a reasonable spring morning that is pretty poor use of C9 although in fairness later in the afternoon there was a bit more use when I went down to CHR to finish my shopping

Justin Stephenson ● 1597d

The lack of cyclists you observed on Cycleway 9 on Saturday morning is likely to be down to large stretches of it still being closed. The segregated lane was popular with families at the weekend when it was fully operational but it would be dangerous for them to use it right now.It does make a difference who you vote for as your local councillor. Although in opposition he or she can't change policies in the borough much of these are dictated by central government anyway. The most important way that a councillor can make a difference is in their casework, particularly in relation to dealing with housing issues for council tenants. The councillors in Chiswick both Lib Dem and Conservative have by all accounts been pretty good at this sort of thing and they seemed to have reaped the benefits at the ballot box. I agree with the view that, if only non-local factors were at play, all the Conservatives in Chiswick would have lost.In Southfield ward the Lib Dems have been good hardworking councillors and been given a much increased majority by their constituents. However, those trying to claim this is due to attitudes to active policy, particularly their opposition to the Fishers Lane closure need to consider why most of the increase in their vote was taken from the Conservatives.

Mark Evans ● 1597d

Why are parts of the cycleway still closed?

Maggie Dodge ● 1597d

"There seems to me little doubt that the councillors who were re-elected retained their seats because of the good work they have done for their constituents over the last four years."I'm not sure how you can have such confidence in your assertion. In Homefields, John Todd, a much respected councillor, stood alongside a new candidate, Jack Elmsley. According to your assertion, Councillor Todd might have expected to see his good work rewarded by a relatively better performance compared to the newcomer. In fact both candidates saw their vote share drop by 0.8%, Jack Elmsley's in comparison with his predecessor's.In Riverside, the one incumbent, Councillor Giles, saw her share of the vote drop by 3%, but the two newcomers also saw a 3% drop compared to the average of their two predecessors' share. In Turnham Green and Southfield, all six were incumbents, but there was the same variation in the change in their vote share as seen in the other two wards where there was a mixture of newcomers and incumbents. In fact if you look at the relative change in the candidates' vote share compared to the ward average for their party, the two largest drops of 0.27% each were for Councillor Biddolph, an incumbent who was elected, and Seb Wallace a newcomer who was not. I initially thought that incumbency played a significant role in this election. However, looking more carefully a major feature was the similarity in the relative performance of all three candidates in each ward compared to the ward swing, not the difference between incumbents and newcomers.The PollCat predictions grossly overestimated the Labour gains not only in Chiswick but in Wandsworth and the rest of London as well. You can't use them to conclude that the Conservatives did relatively well in Chiswick compared to the rest of London. As for Electoral Calculus, there are GE predictions at the ward level and have little value as council election predictors with quite different turnouts. For example they mark Southfields as Labour which was certainly not a feasible council prediction. I also think you must also have misread the Electoral Calculus tables as they show both Riverside and Homefields wards as voting Conservative at a GE, certainly not solid Labour.

Tom Pike ● 1597d

Tom, you seem to keep making an awful lot of assumptions to justify your preconceptions to fit election events to your narrative. You previously said that the swing to Labour in the Chsiwick wards of 3% was in line with London average. But averages usually tell us very little other than what happens when you add up some quite different numbers. The swing I saw reported in Westminster and Wandsworth were 3.7% and 4.1%. So substantially higher than W4, but more as one would expect in an area where the party losing share had more votes to start with. So by the same logic, the Chiswick ward started with a higher an average Tory vote and should typically have seen bigger swings than the average across London. Why that didnt happen we can never know definitively, but it does suggest it was down to local issues. I think we know what those are.Whatever your views on CS9 its depressing to see more delays and roadworks as reported on the front page. TFL managed to deliver the Kew beidge section in full to the original spec (unlike W4 which is still not getting the version that was consulted upon), Hammersmith seems to be getting the same. Quite why this should be the case in W4, with much reduced vehicle capacity through the central stretch of CHR under this version, does not seem to have an answer. Its a shame that TFL were not pushed to deliver the full scheme, rather than rushing into a temporary scheme which has now been dug up yet again. Perhaps it shows us why such schemes should be open to consultation and not rushed through on the nod with zero scrutiny. Still from what I can see no westbound bus lane by Stamford Brook bus garage, though maybe its coming. Noone has benefitted from this ongoing mess.

Bill George ● 1596d

Jeremy hasn't misinterpreted the Electoral Calculus analysis. He is right to say that it shows both Chiswick Riverside and Chiswick Homefields would now vote Labour in a general election. They do caution they haven't done a specific ward by ward analysis but the margin of Labour's lead in these wards is significant, so their methodology would have to be way out for it to be wrong.
I presume Tom is referring to Southfield ward (Ealing) as opposed to Southfields (Wandsworth). If so he is wrong to say that Electoral Calculus is getting this wrong. It has been the pattern for some time that residents have chosen Lib Dems locally but then gone with a different party at the general election. It is not a surprise to see the ward opting for Labour in a General Election. The excellent work done by the local councillors has brought about a different result in the borough elections.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1596d

I'm not sure where this misconception that swings are larger where the vote share is larger has come from, but it's simply incorrect. The swing is simply half the change in the difference in two party's vote shares - it doesn't depend on the relative proportion of the vote. For example, RBKC has the largest Tory share of any London borough in 2018, over 50%, but Labour gained just one seat in 2022. That 4.1% swing in Wandsworth with nine seats gained by Labour came after the 2018 election gave the two parties the same votes. There is no relationship between the swing and the proportion of the vote. Your logic that Chiswick should have expected a larger swing to Labour than Wandsworth and Westminster is therefore faulty. In fact the swing in the total vote of the four Chiswick wards was in line with the average London swing. That's as expected if local issues didn't play a large part in driving the vote.

Tom Pike ● 1596d

You've made the same mistake as Jeremy. You're showing the 2019 MP prediction broken down by ward. There is a separate 2022 Council Election prediction based on their polling this April. It shows both Riverside and Homefields predicted as Conservative at the ward level. I've used the postcodes for Chiswick School and SotG School:https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?postcode=W4+3UNhttps://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?postcode=W4+3NXAdmittedly it's rather confusing as to what EC are predicting in terms of MPs, breakdown of that GE vote by ward and council votes in those wards.

Tom Pike ● 1596d

You can access the 2022 local predictions from here:https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_localelectionpoll_20220503.html

Tom Pike ● 1596d

Tom, whatever your trying to prove with your numerous, long winded posts, in reality it's irrelevant. With the exception of the loss of Seb in Riverside Ward, Chiswick retained its excellent Conservative Councillors. Something I'm sure you're overjoyed about

Loraine Pemberton ● 1596d

Many congratulations to Labour for retaining Hounslow and Ealing Councils and ensuring that the Tories and their trolls have no meaningful influence on the Council's decisions. Real politic Tories, suck it up!

Gareth Sinclair ● 1596d

Maggie, I was speaking with the staff of Artisan (the coffee shop on Goldhawk/King st) and they were saying that it's due to the traffic light system not being set up. They were told another 3-4 weeks by the workers.I support the cycleway but I'm dreading how the signalling will work. The hallmarks of an over-engineered and complicated system are all there, there are something like 12 lights on the Chiswick High Road/Chiswick Lane junction.

Francis Sheehan ● 1596d

Hah, they were hardly likely to lose Hounslow were they? Useless Labour alongside the cruel and useless Tories in their ridiculous two party love triste.

Basil Finnis ● 1596d

What a weird post Loraine.  Don't you like the debate?

Philippa Bond ● 1596d

Piker, old boy, why don't you take your one-eyed views somewhere else for a while?You've had your say (God knows enough times) by now. Just accept that for all your thoughts of saving the planet by putting everyone on bicycles there is a majority, yes a majority! who either have a car or aspire to have one. I, for one, am disabled and am unable to comply with your requirements. Over half the world's population does NOT live in Chiswick, so get real for once in your life.

gary strang ● 1596d

Surprised to hear that from you, Gary, what with you being best mates with Tony Smart. "Get real" indeed, Pete!

Tom Pike ● 1596d

Whatever cluster of utilities is at British Grove and CHR has proven to be problematic. Works there have been slowed down sorting it out. I also can't help but notice there are fewer men working. The pavement at that intersection is being reduced by about 3/4 so when those homes put out trash for collection, you won't be able to walk on the pavement left let alone push a pram. And that doesn't take into account two-way pedestrian traffic. They have begun to reduce the pavement on the east side of the intersection slicing the pavement across from Artisan in half in front of the abandoned commercial space making it less desirable to rent.There is no bus lane on the westbound side by the bus garage. There is now a bus bypass in front of Prebend Mansions reducing back to a single lane and then widening to a left turn filter at Chiswick Lane.

David Lesniak ● 1596d

Heath Robinson springs to mind with the design at that end of CHR and trying to squeeze a Quart into a Pint Pot. And all to satisfy one group of the community and sod everyone else like Residents, Pedestrians, Businesses etc

Loraine Pemberton ● 1596d

Gary Strang is 100% correct!The people have spoken. The cycling cabal has been defeated. “No" is what the people of Chiswick have said to the current Hounslow Streetspace programme”

Steve Taylor ● 1596d

Tom, I am fully aware of what a swing is. Equally I am not sure you fully understand what an average is and therefore what little it can tell us. You keep referring to an average, which is a sum of hundreds of different figures that will have specific local factors. You said Chiswick performed in line with the London average. But that average tell us nothing. We saw much bigger swings in Westminster and Wandsworth, previously TOry controlled. So by definition, to get to an average, there must be wards and boroughts with smaller swings. Of which Chiswick was not one. Typically, though not always, swing will be largest in areas with a higher share of vote to the party that is losing share. It would be interesting to see what the swing was in some Labour stronghold wards in LBH. There is no 'logic' to your argument either. What we can agree is that its difficult to say but also that there seem to be specific local considerations that mean Chiswick wards continue to return Conservative councillors. As opposed to Libdems just north of the tube lines despite a very similar electorate, or now Labour in much of Westminster and Wandsworth. Anything else is hot air.

Bill George ● 1596d

Bill, repeating a misconception only compounds an error. I just looked at the swing in every general election since 1945 compared to the vote share, and in fact the swing away from a party slightly reduces with its increased margin in the vote in the previous election. That's quite the opposite of what you claim. You can see that reflected by the fact that most parties are given more than one term in government in succession. The same is also seen even more in most London boroughs, including Hounslow, and in individual wards in Chiswick. That's why a change in the party returned in any one ward happens relatively rarely, and is therefore notable when it does occur. It's clear that you recognise this, even if you faIl to see that this observation is quite counter to your claim that large margins produce large swings.There are very good reasons to sum up votes to try to understand the intent of an electorate. Each vote will indeed have numerous factors that determine it, so to identify any particular effect it's necessary to look at the largest number who might have experienced it. This is indeed a fundamental underpinning of democracy, where the overall intent of an electorate is discerned by summing up their individual votes.I'm not sure how you missed the result but clearly Chiswick will not keep on returning Conservatives to LBH. Even if they had previous.y thought otherwise, I think our councillors are now very well aware that they can't assume three Tory councillors will be returned for all the Chiswick wards.

Tom Pike ● 1595d

Surely people voted Labour in the hope that Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner would invite them to a beer and curry party ?

Richard Greenhough ● 1595d

Tom, for an academically intelligent man, you really do spout utter twaddle.Any road up, we will all have to wait at least 4 years to see if your wishes and predictions come true 🧚‍♀️

Loraine Pemberton ● 1595d

Tom, shouldn't the rule that the simplest explanation is usually the right one apply here?I'm no mathematician but if you are saying that local factors don't really come into play and you assume say that 10% of Conservative voters have decided to switch plus their previous vote across London is 28% and 45% for Chiswick wouldn't that mean a 5.6% average against them overall but a 9% swing in Chiswick?The employment of your prodigious skills in marshalling data to make a difficult argument is always impressive but putting so much effort into trying to convince us that the local councillors deserve no personal credit for their win seems a misuse of your talents.

Francis Rowe ● 1595d

I’m not sure where you got your figure from, but the previous vote in the four Chiswick wards gave a 10% lead to the Tories in 2018. This has been reduced to a 4% lead, so a swing of 3%.  This is the same as the swing across the rest of London. Indeed, the simplest explanation is that no overriding local concerns affected the swing in Chiswick compared to the rest of London.

Tom Pike ● 1595d

The numbers given were assumptions to show why, as far as my small brain can work out, if there is a uniform change in voting patterns across London, swings in wards which have a bigger pre-existing majority would be larger. Have I got this wrong?

Francis Rowe ● 1595d

I’m afraid you have.  The swing is based on the proportion of all the voters who shift their preference, not the proportion of voters for a particular party. If you choose the latter it confuses the shift on voting with the strength of voting.

Tom Pike ● 1595d

I'm afraid he hasn't. The example he gives does a good job of illustrating the point that I and others have made and presumed would not be particularly contentious.If you take into account the larger starting majority, the higher than average turnout and the boundary changes - the swing to Labour in Chiswick should have been much higher than the average.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1595d

The simplest explanation.  It continues to be surprising that some continue to claim that the failure of Hounslow Cycling & Friends Labour candidate Hanif Khan to win in Chiswick Gunnersbury was unrelated to Cycleway CS9 or the Hounslow Streetspace programme. As pointed out before the former Councillor in charge of Transport, Hanif Khan and responsible for the Hounslow Streetspace programme made a video, with the full support of Hounslow Cycling & Friends and linked to his twitter account...https://mobile.twitter.com/hanifkhan_1/status/1519377767275638785He said "Conversations during @labourdoorstep, have included the Cycleway 9” he had a guest speaker and copied it to a small number of friends and cycling lobby people.  Was it only whilst canvassing that he started to understand the true meaning of “listening” and understood that 80 to 90% of Chiswick people are against these schemes.The purpose of Hanif Khan standing as a candidate, the attacks on incumbent Councillors was all about having the architect of Hounslow Streetspace programme win, so that it could be presented that the people of Chiswick had endorsed these schemes.  They did not.  Khan lost and the people of Chiswick said “No” to the Hounslow Streetspace programme.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1595d

You are wanting to redefine how a swing is calculated - it’s not a swing any more and of course you can’t then compare it to how everybody else calculates a swing!

Tom Pike ● 1595d

Jeremy,You are demonstrating some basic misunderstandings when it comes to the definition of "swing".This uses Chiswick Riverside as an example but you can do the calculation yourself with other wards or adding up the votes across all wards.In 2018, the turnout was 11,459. The Conservatives got 5,099 votes (44.5%) and Labour got 3,765 votes (32.9%).  The Conservatives therefore had a lead of 11.6%.In 2022, the turnout was 8,000.  The Conservatives got 3,247 votes (40.6%) and Labour got 2,938 votes (36.7%).  The Conservatives therefore had a lead of 3.9%.The swing from Conservative to Labour is the difference in the lead divided by 2, so 11.6% - 3.9%  = 7.8% and divide by 2 to get a swing of 3.9%.The turnout (which went down) is immaterial as the swing calculation is done using percentages of the total.The larger starting majority simply means that there would have needed to be a bigger swing to Labour to win more seats in this ward.Your claim about "higher than average turnout" can also only be justified if you work out what the 2018 Chiswick turnout was compared to the average.  If that was also higher than average, then all that means in the last 2 council elections, people in Chiswick generally turn out more than the London average,

Michael Robinson ● 1595d

Jonathan - as I said at the beginning of this discussion (sometimes rant) - well said.  The truth will always out.

David Kerr ● 1595d

Well given Jonathan Mabbutt has already proclaimed the significance of an irrelevant crime report number multiple times, I don’t really think you can take his claims seriously.Will the truth come out about David Kerr and his involvement with OneChiswick? Or is the truth of incompetence and arrogance a bit too embarrassing?It would be also be good if the Onesies were truthful with the names they use to post on this forum.

Michael Robinson ● 1595d

Jonathan Mabbutt is 100% correct. The cycling cabal are so desperate now it is quite embarrassing. It is totally disingenuous to use stats from four years ago to try explain the situation in 2022. The situation in Westminster is unique and no stats will reflect the current mood of the people of Chiswick!

Steve Taylor ● 1595d

That’s rich Michael Robinson. Quite a sense of humour you’ve got there. Who knew.

Maggie Dodge ● 1595d

You seem to have at least three conflicting explanations for the election results:“No" is what the people of Chiswick have said to the current Hounslow Streetspace programme”"I would have thought it pretty obvious that those who now enjoy the tranquility and privacy of living in an LTN would be devastated to lose that privilege and self entitlement  that Labour has afforded them. They care not a jot about the high pollution and traffic problems  these LTNs cause for their neighbours in neighbouring wards.""The people who voted for her could have voted for a monkey! They were simply voting against the Conservatives!"Do you have any more? I'm not sure three is enough!

Tom Pike ● 1595d

Hopefully that will get through to you why your stats prove nothing. Past voting patterns have nothing to do with how people voted this year.

Steve Taylor ● 1595d

It would be good if the Twitterati were truthful with the names on their Twitter accounts. But that's a different forum with no rules nor regulations with less to come in the future. Meanwhile it's lovely to see Karen and her ilk on Twitter up to their usual shenanigans. Nice to see no empathy for someone living in their car, if that is the case. And brilliant to see her not direct her queries to the one who could help: Katherine Dunne. It might've also been Hanif Khan but he's out and not sure who's in yet.But from personal experience I can tell Karen that when the license you pay for is somehow jeopardized, the council is utterly useless in resolving the situation. Small price to pay, I guess, for trading on public space.

David Lesniak ● 1595d

Good to see Amy Croft, get in down in Chiswick Riverside, and be honest enough to say that she was "surprised to be elected", and it was down to the "national picture" in regard to Boris and the Conservatives.  Did not even mention the LTN down there.Also good to see her say:  I want to make it clear to residents that their views will be heard and I think it will be helpful to have diverse representation.  This is in contrast to outgoing Hanif Khan, who in a final facebook address says her getting in is all down to the LTN.  Well apparently even Amy says not and maybe Hanif Khan should have listened earlier.  In contrast him losing was all about Hounslow Streetspace, and many natural Labour voters chose not to vote for him or his colleagues.Well if Amy does the right thing she will quickly understand from the local resident groups GPG and SoGa survey that they presented at that Church meeting in March that a majority 87% of residents did not support the current LTN measures.  Maybe if Labour listened to the majority in Chiswick and do what the majority of residents want and stop cow towing to narrow special interest minorities, associated with Momentum and Extinction Rebellion they may win more seats next time, particularly if Boris Johnson's government continues to be so poor.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1594d

Yes, that Facebook adieu from Hanif was something. He made it seem as though he lost by a mere 5 votes. No grace. No humility. No amity toward his rivals. Couldn't even be bothered to get Ranjit's name correct.

David Lesniak ● 1594d

It was out of touch. Showed he had not learnt anything about listening to teh majority.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1593d

I quite like Wellesley Road not resembling the M25.The cycle lanes are poorly thought out though and hinder buses.

Basil Finnis ● 1593d

“ I quite like Wellesley Road not resembling the M25.”Definitely the LTNs benefit the few who live in them and love them. Unfortunately they are to the detriment of tens of thousands and cause high pollution on arterial roads. They don’t deter anyone from using their cars. In fact the uptake on youngsters applying for Driving Tests is phenomenal!

Steve Taylor ● 1593d

And the position remains "No" is what the people of Chiswick have said and continue to say against the Hounslow Streetspace programme.  As Labour we have a local problem, the narrow left wing of the Labour Party running Hounslow Council will cause significant problems for the Labour Party going forward more generally.Back in May, with Boris as leader and failing at every turn to be honest, it would have been true that the Tory vote in Chiswick if it had been a national election would have been wiped out, and that would have been doubly true if Liz Truss had been leader.  It is good to see the back of them both.Amy Croft did well to win a ward seat but many many more Labour councillors should have won.  The imposition of the traffic schemes was a deciding factor and many natural Labour voters, voted against the Council for imposing these schemes.But there are potentially 2 years to an election and Rishi Sunk could be completely a different proposition.  Chiswick was largely and still is anti Brexit (and that drove people away from the  Tories) but time has passed and so that will not have the same weight, demographic voting pattern changes among ethnic groups will also play a part, and locally in Chiswick unless Cllr Shantanu Rajawat can deliver on what he said he wants to be, and that is a listening Council, then Chiswick will remain blighted as far as the majority see it with the Traffic schemes imposed on them by a left wing led Labour Council, egged on by a small and narrow fan club.Tony Blair understood that you need to win the centre ground and Sir Keir and team understand that too. The opportunity is there to do this once again, but that requires working with majorities of people, consulting them and engaging with them, not imposing things on them or ignoring their needs or pre-determining the outcome of consultations.Two years is a long time, and national polls for Labour will not likely hold the same current advantage for the duration. Against a well managed national Labour party that recognises these trends Hounslow Labour is now potentially starting to look like an outlier, left wing and out of touch with democracy.  It needs to reconsider its approach.

Jonathan Mabbutt ● 1419d

Excellent analogy from Jonathan.

Steve Taylor ● 1419d