If you’re anything like me – and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on you, I’m sure you’re not – you may have been wondering how the result of the vote on which ten parks to give a bucket of cash to compared with the results of the Mayoral election, or indeed levels of deprivation, which it’s already been established are geographically very similar.
One would assume that the levels of deprivation in an area would provide some guide as to the need for inward investment in the area, and given Boris’s established antipathy towards really useful investments like transport projects, investments in parks would be better than nothing. But would increased levels of internet take-up in Boris-supporting, more affluent areas skew the vote in their direction (and if so, was that why Boris was doing it)?
Well, you need wonder no longer, because I’ve overlaid the results onto the relevant maps:
My first reaction to creating these maps was relief that it wasn’t actually as bad as I’d feared it could be. Winners like Lordship Recreation Ground (2) and Little Wormwood Scrubs (10) are clearly in areas of poverty so it’s great to see that votes were mobilised in these areas to get them the funding they needed.
Four of the winners do appear to fall clearly in Boris heartlands (1/3/5/6). The other four then seem to be located on the cusp between rich and poor or Boris-backers and Boris-stoppers.
So overall there is a slight bias towards areas which may not be in quite such dire need, but it’s nothing like the suburb kickback exercise some – myself included – had feared it could prove.
The jury’s out on this sort of public vote, and these results don’t really bring it any closer to concluding its deliberations. Which is a shame, because with the way Boris’s regime is going, there won’t be much more evidence coming their way: it could be quite some time before he’s dishing out any more money to anyone, by public vote or otherwise.
- I don’t know any of these parks myself, nor am I familiar with any relevant local circumstances to them or the votes. Comments are very welcome from those of you who do/are.
Tags: parks · voting8 Comments
8 responses so far ↓
I was hoping somebody would do this. The votes do seem skewed quite significantly towards the less deprived/more Conservative voting areas, with those appearing just outside those zones probably benefiting from their votes as well.
I’m no Boris supporter, but it’s worth pointing out to his credit that there were actually 11 parks to get funding – 10 getting £400k each (the ones listed here), plus £2m for Burgess Park in Southwark, right in the middle of a very deprived an no doubt Ken-voting area, and very much deserving of a makeover
The two south-east London winners, Parish Wood Park and Avery Hill Park, are only about 500 yards apart, so probably benefitted from the same block vote of people from Sidcup and Eltham. (Like my parents!)
They lie in different boroughs, through – Bexley and Greenwich – so I don’t think there’s that much of a conspiracy going on. It’s definitely Boris country, though.
Thanks Geoff. I had been working from the london.gov.uk page about the winning ten parks, which strangely doesn’t mention the £2m award to Southwark. Seems a bit weird when it’s such a substantial sum!
Adam: one of the interesting anomalies about the voting system that we need to bear in mind when conducting our analysis was the fact that it was very borough-focussed: by default, anyone texting/webbing in their post code would automatically cast a vote not necessarily for their nearest shortlisted park, but rather for the nearest shortlisted park in their borough. So for instance someone living in Linsted Close:
wouldn’t have been voting for Parish Wood Park, despite it basically being their garden, because the Greenwich/Bexley borough boundary happens to run along the park side of their road.
So for a true idea of how the votes stacked up in terms of Boris boroughs vs. non-Boris boroughs, we have to take this into account too.
I do agree though that it’s not as bad as many of us thought it could have been. Does anyone know how many actual votes there were? I gather some boroughs really went to town with promoting it so it would be interesting to see how many people responded to their promotional banners (both real and online) etc.
darryl853: Hadn’t seen your comment when I posted mine. Funny we both focussed on the same corner. Good point about Avery Hill being nearby: perhaps Linsted Close’s residents all tried to vote for Parish Wood but the strange voting system meant they were voting for Avery Hill instead
Could you link back to the original source of your maps please, as Plattitude did?
Clare: I’ve added links in underneath each map. I was thinking it was adequate to link to Plattitude as the original bringer-together of the two, but you’re right that I should credit the original sources too. Apologies.
Thanks!