The battle with the Green Party for Clissold Ward was just one area where Luke Akehurst's tactics helped Labour to an almost unhealthy victory, taking 50 of the borough's 57 seats (not including the Labour Mayor, Jules Pipe).
It may be common practice in all parties but Akehurst's report reveals a stick-heavy/ carrot-light attitude by the Labour Party leadership toward its councillor candidates. The positives (two annual social events and a no-arguing policy for in-house debates) seem to be outweighed by the negatives (league tables to encourage competitiveness, and threats of deselection and weekly reporting regimes for wards that lag behind on canvassing numbers.)
But are these threats just secondary measures to keep an already compliant selection of candidates in-line? In the piece Luke Akehurst makes it clear that powerful measures were taken to clean up the Hackney Labour Party and whatever techniques he devised to do this in 2000, why wouldn't he deploy them on newer generations of politicians?
Maybe the botched attempt to deselect hard left Labour Councillor Barry Buitekant was a symptom of this Labour group engineering. May be it wasn't. But the question now is whether the Hackney Labour Party is willing to scrutinise its leadership and whether it's members can restrain its leadership if they need to?
Meanwhile, the election result seems to be a mainly white Labour group with most minorities under-represented.