Local Elections Handbook 2002 Complete

LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2002 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2002 The 2002 Local Election Results Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher with the assistance of Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole and Lawrence Ware Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre University of Plymouth Local Elections Handbook 2002 © Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2002 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Published by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA ISBN 0 948858 33 8 Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................v Using the Handbook ................................................................................................... xiv Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities..................................................................... 1 London Borough Election Results ............................................................................... 13 Metropolitan Borough Election Results ....................................................................... 59 Unitary Council Election Results ................................................................................. 93 Shire District Council Election Results ...................................................................... 111 Tables ........................................................................................................................ 181 2 Introduction Forecasting and interpreting the results of this year’s local elections was complicated by widespread boundary changes, resulting, in many cases, in the need for whole-council elections. Indeed, this led to the almost farcical situation of rival politicians comparing the outcome in 2002 with different base years. Naturally, the year chosen was the one that presented their own party in the best possible light. The headline figures, shown in Table 1, show that there were elections for 5,914 seats in 3,342 wards across 174 councils in England. However, 4,031 seats in 1,596 wards in 84 local authorities were fought on new boundaries. Here, only estimates could be made about which party would have ‘won’ the previous election had the ward been in existence. Boundaries were unchanged in the remaining 1,746 wards but there were other complications. Although a majority (1,128 or 65%) of these wards followed the customary four-year electoral cycle, a large number did not. In fact, 463 wards were last fought in 1999, 138 in 2000, and the remaining 17 wards contested as recently as general election day 2001. Well-briefed politicians applied the best possible gloss to the results, confirming in the public’s mind that their elected representatives sometimes hide behind lies, damned lies and statistics. What can be stated with a degree of authority is that Labour won 2,400 seats, over 40% of the total, and four hundred seats more than the Conservatives. The Conservatives’ share of seats, just over two thousand in all, was 34%, slightly better than the party’s share of votes. In fact, for the main parties the ratio between votes and seats was more or less equitable, with the Liberal Democrats capturing 21% of seats with slightly less than 24% of the vote. The high proportion of wards fought by each of the three main parties reflects the urban nature of many of the wards with contests in 2002. Table 1 breaks down the results into four different types of local authority, viz., London and Metropolitan boroughs, Unitary and Shire District councils. The election across the 32 London boroughs was extremely close between Conservative and Labour parties, with just one tenth of one percentage point separating their respective vote totals. Interestingly, Labour’s haul of 865 seats was considerably more than the 655 seats won by the Conservatives. This disparity was despite the widespread boundary changes throughout London that saw a reduction in the number of wards (reduced to 624 from 759 in 1998) but less of a reduction in the total number of seats (reduced to 1,861 from 1,917), as the Local Government Electoral Commission continued its preference for three-member wards. Boundary changes, however, do not prevent direct comparisons with the pattern of aggregate voting at the previous elections held in 1998. Compared with then the vote share for the Conservatives rose by 2.2% while Labour’s declined by six and a half percentage points – a Labour to Conservative swing of just over 4%. This was hardly the level of progress that the Conservatives were anticipating during Labour’s second parliamentary term. The Liberal Democrat vote was virtually unchanged but the Green vote almost doubled to 5.5%, reflecting that party’s ambitions for the next London Assembly elections scheduled for 2004. v Table 1: Local Election Results 2002 All Authorities Wards Wards Seats Seats Seats Votes Contested Won Contested Won (%) Con 2,321,783 3,187 1,099 5,495 2,011 34.0 (32.2) Lab 2,537,195 3,087 1,378 5,343 2,400 40.6 (35.2) LDem 1,703,857 2,647 702 4,436 1,263 21.4 (23.7) Ind 214,585 473 92 584 133 2..2 (3.0) Green 193,665 810 11 1,082 14 0.2 (2.7) Other 229,806 702 60 876 93 1.6 (3.2) Total 7,200,891 3,342 5,914 London Boroughs Wards Wards Seats Seats Seats Votes Contested Won Contested Won (%) Con 587,790 605 219 1,769 655 35.2 (34.2) Lab 586,973 624 289 1,858 865 46.5 (34.1) LDem 353,833 535 103 1,478 307 16.5 (20.6) Ind 20,468 69 - 94 - - (1.2) Green 95,394 311 1 523 1 0.1 (5.5) Other 75,856 234 12 371 33 1.8 (4.4) Total 1,720,314 624 1,861 Metropolitan Boroughs Wards Wards Seats Seats Seats Votes Contested Won Contested Won (%) Con 675,885 767 133 777 133 15.9 (26.2) Lab 1,110,705 824 520 836 528 63.0 (43.1) LDem 600,019 698 150 706 153 18.3 (23.3) Ind 55,911 111 10 111 10 1.2 (2.2) Green 48,787 205 3 208 4 0.5 (1.9) Other 85,003 238 10 240 10 1.2 (3.3) Total 2,576,310 826 838 vi Unitary Councils Wards Wards Seats Seats Seats Votes Contested Won Contested Won (%) Con 204,428 291 79 442 115 21.8 (29.7) Lab 240,446 318 152 514 232 44.0 (34.9) LDem 186,890 274 78 443 146 27.7 (27.2) Ind 34,439 58 14 95 31 5.9 (5.0) Green 10,412 60 - 62 - - (1.5) Other 11,690 54 3 70 3 0.6 (1.7) Total 688,305 326 527 Shire District Councils Wards Wards Seats Seats Seats Votes Contested Won Contested Won (%) Con 853,680 1,524 668 2,507 1,108 41.2 (38.5) Lab 599,071 1,321 417 2,135 775 28.8 (27.0) LDem 563,115 1,140 371 1,809 657 24.4 (25.4) Ind 103,767 235 68 284 92 3.4 (4.7) Green 39,072 234 7 289 9 0.3 (1.8) Other 57,257 176 35 195 47 1.7 (2.6) Total 2,215,962 1,566 2,688 The battle for votes and seats in the 36 Metropolitan boroughs was certainly not as even as Labour continues to be dominant in a majority of these authorities. Labour’s vote of 43% was almost three percentage points lower than in 1998 but the party’s share of seats remained high at 63%. By contrast, the Conservatives continue to struggle to make much of an impression amongst voters in the Metropolitan boroughs. Furthermore, its vote is poorly distributed. Despite capturing more than one in four votes cast the party could only manage 133 seats, 16% of the total. Comparing that with the respective vote and seat shares for the Liberal Democrats (23% and 18%) demonstrates the extent to which the Conservatives suffer from the consequences of electoral bias. But as the boundary reviews in the London boroughs show, it is not simply a matter of establishing electoral equality amongst wards but rather how each party’s vote is distributed that holds the key to the Conservatives’ current dilemma. Comparisons with previous elections for the Unitary and District councils are practically impossible, except at the level of a fraction of local authorities and wards where boundaries remained unchanged. What can easily be observed, however, is further confirmation of the Conservative party’s apparent inability fully to come to terms with its reduced status vii in the eyes of voters and the impact this is having on the proportion of seats the party succeeds in winning. In the 18 Unitary authorities, for example, Labour held just a five- point vote share advantage over the Conservatives but there was a two to one division in seats in Labour’s favour (44% compared with 22%). Even in the District councils, which traditionally favour the Conservatives, the party hardly achieves the so-called ‘winner’s bonus’ in seats. In fact, the outcome in these particular authorities was remarkably proportional with vote and seat shares varying between one and three percentage points for every party group. Party performance and political control No fewer than 40 councils changed political control, almost a quarter of the total, illustrative of the heightened degree of electoral volatility in recent years – see Table 2. The direction of change, though not exclusive, was often against the incumbent party, Labour, Liberal Democrat and even Conservative. In many authorities there was significant support for minor parties and Independents. Because of boundary changes estimates were made beforehand of which party would have won newly created wards had these been in existence in 1998. Based on these estimates we calculate that the Conservatives made net gains of approximately 248 seats, with Labour incurring net losses of 278 seats.

Load more