English Local Elections 2006

[Filuwaúrdjan]

These haven't had as much coverage as the London ones, partially because the media is London-centrict to the core, and partially because most observers don't think much will change. A few wards here, a few wards there, the odd power change there, and there... and up to a point they're kinda overshadowed by the looming and LONG overdue reforms of local government to be announced this autumn.

As always a third of seats in the Metropolitan Boroughs are up, and the same is true of many District Councils, Unitary Authories, and Parish/Town councils (which are largely "Non-Partisan" and as such attract no media coverage whatsoever). Some of the DC's and UA's are up half up, some are (I think, although could be wrong) all up, and the patterns for Parish and Town councils is too confusing to repeat.

More will be put up here in the morning.

Please do not discuss the London borough elections or local by-elections in this thread.

[Peter]

Oxford

I'll mostly just talk about my present home in this thread I expect:

Oxford City Council is elected by halves and has elections in even years with councillors serving a four year term. For a blank outline with ward names, click here. For previous election results back to 2002 see the City Council website, though you will have to put up with PDFs.

Present composition of Council (number of Councillors up in 2006):

Labour - 21 (14)
Lib Dem - 17 (7)
Green - 7 (3)
IWCA - 3 (0) [Independent Working Class Association - firery anti-war lot]

Obviously Labour are playing defensive after having their asses handed to them on a plate. (If you don't believe, look at the super-kinky pics).

The distribution of the incumbents facing re-election is:



The results from the 2004 elections on identical wards is:



Click either image to enlarge.

In addition to holding all their seats, Labour would have to win a further 4 to take full majority control of the council. This won't happen.

In addition to holding all their seats, the Lib Dems would have to win a further 8 seats to take majority control of the council. This won't happen.

We will either be stuck with a minority council (LD or Lab), or maybe finally the LDs will make up with the Greens and form a coalition to control the council. Regardless, Oxford is an NOC hold for the BBC.

The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed the lack of blue - we have no Tory councillors. Their best chance will be either in Headington Hill and Northway (presently Labour, were only 17 votes behind in 2004) or Wolvercote (presently Lib Dem, were 159 votes or 7.4% behind in 2004).

The situation with the two IWCA (purple) wards in the SE of the city is a bit more complicated than it first appears. Whilst they were both won by the IWCA in 2004, subsequently both had by-elections for the 2002 seats which were both held by Labour quite comfortably, therefore I do not expect them to mount a serious challenge to any of the Labour wards this time. In essence, their 2004 performance was an Iraq backlash coupled with the general unpopularity of the Labour administration.

I'll post more analysis over the weekend. I will do requests for custom maps for 2004 also (e.g. Labour share across the city)

[Harry Hayfield]

The only council up for election in 2006 I know anything about is Nuneaton and Bedworth. (All data from BBC Online)

At the last elections for Nuneaton and Bedworth, Labour won 22 seats to the Conservatives' 11 seats and Liberal Democrats who won 1 seat. Whilst that may not sound too suprising, it does when you consider that in 1995 the Conservatives were in danger of being wiped out (when they only had one councillor in Weddington, St. Nicolas and Whitestone's three member wards).

The real breakthrough for the Conservatives came in 2000 when they hit (unbelievably in my opinion) Bedworth, Bulkington (which had been Labour for decades). Since then they have gained other unbelieveably strong Labour areas including Nuneaton, Galley Common and Bedworth, Slough.

Looking at the results for 2004 the most likely seats to change hands are:

Nuneaton, Arbury (Lab majority of 31)
Bedworth, Exhall (Lab majority of 35)
Bedworth, Bede (Lab majority of 56)

which would put Labour on 19 and the Conservatives on 14 (Lab overall majority of 4) which would be the closest the council has ever been to NOC since I started following the council in 1994.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The real breakthrough for the Conservatives came in 2000 when they hit (unbelievably in my opinion) Bedworth, Bulkington (which had been Labour for decades). Since then they have gained other unbelieveably strong Labour areas including Nuneaton, Galley Common and Bedworth, Slough.

In 2004 it was mainly due to that nasty row over Gypsies (which also resulted in an extremely high Tory turnout in the Nuneaton constituency last year) which I *think* has cooled down somewhat, although I'm not entirely sure about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Random fact: In 1976 Labour held 18, the Tories 14 and the Liberals 3.

[Rural Radical]

Random Fact sounds like an Austin Powers Villan.

Can we talk about Shrewsbury & Atcham and Crewe & Nantwich. Two of my Neighbouring authorities taht are up this year.

[Peter]

An interesting little opus that I discovered whilst looking over the list of candidates is that the Tories are not contesting all the seats.

The Tories had the following voting patterns last time:


Here is where they are running candidates:


(Click either to enlarge)

The council estate wards in East Oxford, I can totally understand - they hadn't performed well there in the past, and they had no reason to believe this was going to change any time soon. Same with the central wards of St Marys and Iffley Fields which are dominated by students and city workers.

What does jump off the page at me is Marston in the north of the City - they polled a respectable 20% in 2004 and under a more appealing leader such as Cameron, they could probably have seen some improvement there. This will undoubtedly significantly effect the race in Marston which is presently a Lib-Lab margainal with the 2002 incumbent being a Labour councillor. The Tory vote up there is likely to be liberal and therefore I would expect them to go Lib Dem, potentially swinging the seat.

[Harry Hayfield]

All figures from BBCi

Shrewsbury and Atcham

Con 20
Lab 10
LDm 6
Others 4

No Overall Control (1 Con gain needed for gain)

Crewe and Nantwich

Lab 22
Con 21
LDm 6
Others 7

No Overall Control (6 Lab gains, 7 Con gains needed for gain)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All figures from BBCi

Shrewsbury and Atcham

Con 20
Lab 10
LDm 6
Others 4

No Overall Control (1 Con gain needed for gain)

In practice they have a majority at the moment (there are a couple of Condependents on the council). There's about a 50/50 chance of the current administration (with or without the Condependents; one of which is retiring) staying, and the same chance of a return of the Lab/Lib coalition (for either party to deal with the Tories in Shropshire is close to being electoral suicide). Under the old ward boundaries the Tories wouldn't have a majority or even be close to it.
I've been hearing rumours that the LibDems think they have a very good chance to take out the leader of the council (Copthorne ward; middle class residential area in the southwest of Town). They've beaten him before (in the mid '90's) and came close to beating his collegue in 2004.

[Harry Hayfield]

My forecast of national projected vote share (with change on 2002)

Conservatives 38% (+4% on 2002)
Liberal Democrats 31% (+4% on 2002)
Labour 20% (-14% on 2002)
Others 9% (+4% on 2002)

[Ben.]

My forecast of national projected vote share (with change on 2002)

Conservatives 38% (+4% on 2002)
Liberal Democrats 31% (+4% on 2002)
Labour 20% (-14% on 2002)
Others 9% (+4% on 2002)

I think that 36-39% is about right for the Tories, but 31% for the LibDems and 20%! for Labour seems pretty dire! I'd expect Labour to come in third (in share of the vote) however 11 pionts behind the LibDems seems a bit much to say the least.

I'd say it might end up more like...

CON: 38%
LibDem: 30%
LAB:27%

...still a disaster for Labour, though i doubt it'll have much inital impact.

[afleitch]

Latest 'Sky is falling' poll, just thought i'd slot it in this thread:

LAB 30
CON 30
LIB 25
OTH 15

[True Democrat]

Does Labour usually come in third in local elections?

[Harry Hayfield]

Data from the Local Goverment Chronicle (based at the University of Plymouth)

Locals 1996: Con 31% Lab 46% Lib Dem 22%
Locals 1997: Con 34% Lab 36% Lib Dem 26%
Locals 1998: Con 30% Lab 40% Lib Dem 23%
Locals 1999: Con 28% Lab 34% Lib Dem 22%
Locals 2000: Con 37% Lab 32% Lib Dem 24%
Locals 2001: Con 39% Lab 31% Lib Dem 25%
Locals 2002: Con 32% Lab 35% Lib Dem 24%
Locals 2003: Con 32% Lab 28% Lib Dem 24%
Locals 2004: Con 30% Lab 29% Lib Dem 24%
Locals 2005: Con 40% Lab 25% Lib Dem 28% (Labour finish third)

And if you care to go back even further (ITN Guides to the 1992 and 1987 General Elections)

Locals 1991: Con 34% Lab 35% Lib Dem 21%
Locals 1990: No estimates given
Locals 1989: Con 42% Lab 31% Lib Dem 20%
Locals 1988: No estimates given
Locals 1987: No estimates given
Locals 1986: No estimates given
Locals 1985: Con 38% Lab 30% Lib Dem 28%
Locals 1984: No estimates given

Wow, it's even worse that I though. Labour never came third (1984 - 1991, 1996 - 2004) at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Latest 'Sky is falling' poll, just thought i'd slot it in this thread:

LAB 30
CON 30
LIB 25
OTH 15

That looks to be one of Mori's "special" polls; it's certain to vote only and the sample size is actually under 600. To be honest it's probably best to ignore polls at the moment...

...the ICM one the other day though did ask a question on voting intentions in the local elections. Which none of you has posted. Which doesn't suprise me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does Labour usually come in third in local elections?

In some local authorities yes, in others no. Which ones are you interested in (and this may be a bit "last chance to see"; a big local government shakeup is long overdue and is to be announced this autumn)?

===

The only interesting part of the ICM poll (until King Tony calls it quits, just ignore any and all national polls) was the seperate question asking people how they would vote in the local elections. The results were:

Lab 22%, Con 22%, Lib 16%, SNP 3%, PC 1%, Grn 4%, BNP 3%, Other 5%, Won't Vote 7%, Refused 7%, Undecided 11%

If we igore the Nats, the Refused, the Won'ts and the Undecideds, we get...

Lab 30.2%, Con 30.1%, Lib 22%, Grn 5.5%, BNP 4.4%, Other Party 7.6%

Even this poll (ie; sans nats, etc) had more people interviewed than Mori's new poll, btw.

However, even these numbers aren't quite right; Labour have been doing well in Welsh local by-elections and Wales isn't up this year. Knocking 1pt off Labour and giving it to the Tories would probably make up for that.

Whether the poll is accurate or not is something we won't find out for quite a while after the elections are finished (it takes a long time to add up the popular vote for local elections) and is o/c entirely academic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Wife of a LibDem candidate has been arrested in Brum over postal vote fraud

[Harry Hayfield]

Oh dear, that's not good news (for any party).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It gets worse; it was in Bordesley Green ward.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Although I her husband is a candidate in Nechells ward. Ex-PJP IIRC.

===

Oh and David Miliband "Get's It"

===

The English locals aren't getting much media coverage (London is getting more than it's usual share), beyond the Brum fraud thing, much to my irritation.

[Peter]

Less than a week to go: I am still yet to receive a leaflet from the Tories or Labour; My Lib Dem and Green leaflets are here. In other news, my JCR President has gotten me a ticket to go to the Oxford count.

The general picture is that the Lib Dems will pick up some ground from Labour, though Labour won't do anywhere near as badly as in 2004 which was nigh on apocalyptic. The Greens and Lib Dems continue to compete heavily over the student vote, but the Greens have somewhat shot themselves in the foot - The Oxford Animal Lab that is presently being built is supported by the Lib Dems, but vehemently opposed by the Greens. Polling of students indicates 80% support for the Lab. Greens should consolidate their gains over Labour from 04.

There is also a concurrent by-election for the 2004 seat in my ward, St Clements, which the Greens should hold.

All in all, the changes are likely to be (from 2002):
Headington Hill and Northway - Con gain from Lab
Quarry and Risinghurst - Lib Dem gain from Lab
Marston - Lib Dem gain from Lab (on account of the Tories not running)
Carfax - Lib Dem gain from Green (Greens had only held it in the past because of Mike Woodin)
Iffley Fields - Green gain from Lab

Yielding an 2006 map along these lines:



Labour - 10
Lib Dem - 10
Green - 3 (+1 by-election)
Tory - 1

This gives a total Council of:
Lib Dem - 20
Labour - 17
Green - 7
IWCA - 3
Conservative - 1

24 is needed for overall control, so we may well be stuck with Lib Dem minority.

[Ben.]

Oh and David Miliband "Get's It"

Maybe, but to me he just seemed lightweight and desperate on the radio this morning.

I really don’t understand why folks seem to rate Miliband so highly, he’s clever but he hardly a potential prime minister… indeed I cant think of a single “bright young thing” within the Labour Party who might make a credible Prime Minister, the likes of Miliband, Alexander and especially Balls lack any real clout or credibility.

Ultimately Labour’s best, most promising ministers area all distinctly middle aged the likes of Blears, Benn, Johnson and (though he’s not a minister anymore) Dennham. If there’s a credible anti-Brown candidate, when Blair steps down, it’ll come from amongst these middle aged, middle ranking, pols not the distinctly underwhelming “young turks”.  

Finally, while it would be nice if local elections where fought simply on local issues that’s never going to be the case in most years and it was certainly not the case in the mid-90’s when Labour never shrank from exploiting Tory sleaze and incompetence.                

[Rural Radical]

Hilary Benn would be a good Prime Minister.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Maybe, but to me he just seemed lightweight and desperate on the radio this morning.

He always sounds like that (even though he isn't). Comes across as a bit of a geek as well, which is unfortunate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's clever and not in an airy-fairy way. Basically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's more to politics than being P.M. Joe Chamberlain and Nye Bevan never became Prime Minister (both wanted to, but it was never very likely) and thinking of more influential politicians over the past few centuries is quite hard.

Besides a lot of past P.M's weren't exactly regarded as being potential P.M's for most of their careers. And the reverse is true. There was never a Prime Minister Gaitskell, a Prime Minister Butler, a Prime Minister Brown, a Prime Minister Healey or a Prime Minister Heseltine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Similer things can be said of all political parties. Politicians mature anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because there will always be exceptions, doesn't mean that the parties shouldn't encourage people to vote on local issues (and all three parties have been as bad as each other in not doing that over the past few decades. The peabrained local government disorganisation of the early '70's made things a hell of a lot worse o/c). And by local issues I don't mean dog sh*t or various scare stories. Miliband understands the latter point, most other politicians (of all parties) don't seem to.
What gets me angry every local election is when a good administration goes down to defeat because of a manipulation of either national issues or dog sh*t issues, results in a small minority (for low turnouts are the enemy of effective local government...) of voters getting in a hissy fit over 'em.

[Ben.]

Yes, but national factors do play apart - though i agree that its a shame where good local councils are turfed out because of the incompetance and unpopularity of the incumbent government.

That all said... what where your thoughs on Brooklands Ward in Manc? The Tories seem pretty bullish about their chances there at the moment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, but national factors do play apart - though i agree that its a shame where good local councils are turfed out because of the incompetance and unpopularity of the incumbent government.

It's mainly about perception. Sort of. The real problem is the low turnouts and the fact that local government boundaries do not reflect local ties (and in London it's even worse, with many wards not even being close to doing so. The boundary committee broke far too many old borough boundaries last time). I'm hoping that the latter will be dealt with, partially at least, come autumn.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It'll be close. The Tories have certainly put a lot of work into it (too much perhaps?) and it's [almost] unique in Manchester as it's a ward where the LibDems haven't managed to displace the Tories as the centre-right party of record.
One thing to note; it's actually a suburban ward.

A lot of seats in Manchester are up in the air this year (local politics realigns a lot there. It's not that long since the LibDems won the Bradford ward and Labour were winning in Didsbury) although in the end the overall balance *probably* won't change much (and as Manchester is one of very few big cities with competent local leadership, I certainly hope that's the case...).