Ed Miliband, and his wife Justine, leave after voting in the local and European elections at Sutton Village Hall this morning. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why a strong result in the local elections is so important for Labour

The party needs large gains to demonstrate that it can win the general election and to compensate for possible defeat to Ukip in the Europeans. 

For months in Westminster it was assumed that David Cameron would be the leader under pressure on the day of the European and local elections. The prospect of the Tories being beaten by Ukip and finishing third in a national election for the first time was expected to send his party into a tailspin. But today, against expectations, it is Ed Miliband who faces the greatest challenge. 

Weeks of careful expectation management have ensured that a third-place finish in the Europeans has been priced into Cameron's political share price, with potential rebels appeased in advance. Over the same period, the narrowing of the national polls has reassured Conservative MPs that they can win the next general election, while inspiring fear among their Labour counterparts. "We’ve been defying gravity and now we’re falling to earth," one of Miliband's MPs tells me in my politics column this week. 

Among the PLP and some shadow cabinet members, there is consternation at what many regard as the party's failure to take the attack to Ukip earlier in the campaign. Others have been dismayed by a campaign that included the much-derided "Un-credible Shrinking Man" election broadcast and a poster erroneously attacking the coalition for raising VAT on food (which is exempt). Miliband has announced no shortage of radical policies - the banning of exploitative zero-hours contracts, a cap on rent increases, a 48-hour GP guarantee, the linking of the minimum wage to median earnings - but many feel these have been undersold by the party at large and, in particular, the shadow cabinet. One MP told me that some members had effectively "gone on strike". 

For all of these reasons, a good result in today's elections, and the locals in particular, is essential. Should Labour be beaten by Ukip in the Europeans, becoming the first main opposition party not to win the contest since 1984, the party's strategists will note that the election is rarely a reliable indicator of the general election result and often produces anomalous outcomes. In 1989, the Greens finished third with 15 per cent of the vote. In 1999, the Tories won the contest but suffered a landslide defeat to Labour two years later. Ukip won 16 per cent of the vote in 2004 and 17 per cent in 2009 but polled just 2 and 3 per cent at the subsequent general elections. Defeat to Farage's party in what David Axelrod calls the "age of alienation" does not mean Labour cannot triumph in 2015.

But in order to make this argument convincingly, the party needs a strong result in the locals. Labour's test of choice is how well it performs in those seats it needs to win to achieve a majority next year. It is here, one strategist tells me, that the party has concentrated its field resources, which allowed it to win a "1992 share of seats on a 1987 share of the vote" in 2010.

In an attempt to manage expectations, Labour says that "a good night" would see it gain 150-200 seats (and 25 per cent of the vote in the Euros). But the pollster John Curtice argues that nothing less than gains of 475-500 is acceptable for the main opposition party at this stage of the electoral cycle.

Today, Labour needs a strong result both to demonstrate that it can win the general election and to act as a firewall against the backlash that would follow defeat to Ukip in the Euros. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.