Local Elections Handbook 2004 Complete

LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2004 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2004 The 2004 Local Election Results Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher with Galina Borisyuk, Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole & Lawrence Ware Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre University of Plymouth Local Elections Handbook 2004 © Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2004 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 37 0 Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................v Introduction ................................................................................................................. vii Using the Handbook ................................................................................................ xxiii Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities ..................................................................... 1 London Assembly ...................................................................................................... 11 Metropolitan Borough Election Results ....................................................................... 29 Unitary Council Election Results ................................................................................ 77 Shire District Council Election Results ....................................................................... 95 Welsh Unitary Council Results ................................................................................. 145 Tables ...................................................................................................................... 177 Acknowledgements It is appropriate that on the twentieth anniversary of our publication of local election results we acknowledge some of those who have helped to ensure the continuity of the Local Elections Handbook. First and foremost, we thank all those local Electoral Administrators who respond to our seemingly incessant requests for information. In the last two decades the provision of results has come a long way. When we started to compile these data many of those toiling away in preparing electoral registers and in organising the elections expressed surprise that anyone from outside their area would be at all interested. Now, with the advance of technology, more and more local authorities are posting their results on the web, sometimes within minutes of the official declaration. This streamlines collation, but we often still need to contact local authorities either to check a fact or because vital pieces of information are omitted from the electronic version of the results. Along the way a very large number of individuals have assisted in collecting, collating, processing, analysing and publishing local electoral data. Alan Willis and John Woollard have been towers of strength and endeavour. Without them we may well have concluded some years ago that the task of publishing local election results was simply too great and that there were more manageable projects to undertake. In Plymouth there have been too many people to list, but we do want to single out the current team of Galina Borisyuk, Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole and Lawrence Ware. Their work begins some months before each round of elections, assessing the scale and impact of boundary changes, the complexities of the electoral cycle and how many seats are to be contested. But it is after the elections that the fun really begins. There is a mistaken view held in some quarters that collecting and analysing the results of a general election, where millions of votes are cast, is more difficult. In fact, the number of votes cast is largely irrelevant to the process of collection. In 2004, a relatively quiet year, we collected the results for almost 3,500 wards – more than five times the number of parliamentary constituencies. Analysing v the outcome in single member parliamentary constituencies is also somewhat easier than grappling with the difficulties of multimember wards. That the number of mistakes is so relatively small is a testament to the skill and experience of our team. Three organisations should also be mentioned. The University of Plymouth has provided all manner of valuable support over the years, including help with computing, administration, reprographics and staffing. Local Government Chronicle has backed us financially and logistically, and we thank the various editors who have kept a watchful, yet benevolent eye over the Centre’s progress. In 2004 we are also pleased to acknowledge support from the Electoral Commission, which has enabled us to collect more detailed information, specifically about the impact of combined elections on turnout. It was eight months after the 1985 county council elections before we were able to publish the results. In 2004, despite the advances that have been made, it has taken six months for this publication to appear. There’s a moral here but for the moment we can’t quite work out what it is! Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher October, 2004. vi Introduction Local elections in 2004 were held in England for the 36 metropolitan boroughs, for 89 shire districts and 19 unitary councils. There were also elections for the 22 Welsh county/county borough councils, whose previous elections took place in 1999. These were originally scheduled for 2003 but were postponed so as to avoid clashing with those for the Welsh Assembly. In London there were the second elections to the Greater London Authority (GLA), with electors selecting both a Mayor and Assembly. There were no local elections in Scotland. The local elections, normally held in May, were postponed until June 10th and were simultaneous with those for the European Parliament. Extensive ward boundary changes meant that all metropolitan boroughs conducted all-out rather than partial council elections. Similarly, 9 unitary authorities, 14 districts and 6 Welsh councils implemented boundary reviews. The metropolitan boroughs retain three-member wards, meaning that for every election each ward re-elects at least one councillor, but for other authorities the number of councillors per ward fluctuates. Across England and Wales, though excluding the GLA, elections were scheduled for a total of 3,453 wards (divisions in Wales) and 6,075 seats. Because of boundary changes the number of seats gained or lost by each of the main parties has been estimated, based on our assumption of which party would have won the previous election had new boundaries been in place. Accordingly, the Conservative party emerged as the principal winners, gaining an additional 240 seats whilst Labour made net losses of just short of 500 seats. The Liberal Democrats also made gains of approximately 150 seats and there was also progress for candidates standing either as Independents or for one of the proliferating minor parties. In Wales, the nationalist party, Plaid Cymru, unable to match its spectacular performance in 1999, lost 30 seats. These results see the Conservatives extend their lead as the largest party of local government. xxixvii The second elections for the directly elected mayor of London and 25 member Greater London Assembly (GLA) were also held. The mayoral election was won again by Ken Livingstone, although standing this time as the official Labour, rather than as an Independent candidate. The runner-up was Steve Norris for the Conservatives, a position he filled also in 2000. The Greater London Assembly election saw few seats changing hands. Labour lost two seats, and the Green party lost one. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) gained two while the Liberal Democrats increased their Assembly members from four to five. Local elections in England and Wales With wholesale boundary changes and whole council elections for the metropolitan boroughs this was a bad time for Labour to have so much at stake. The Labour leadership made little attempt to disguise the scale of losses. The Home Secretary was ‘mortified’, the Deputy Prime Minister believed that the government had received a ‘kicking’ while Prime Minister Blair pleaded for his party to ‘hold its nerve’ whilst apologising to his party’s defeated councillors. There was a plea for party unity from the Chancellor as some dissident backbenchers raised doubts about Blair’s leadership. Almost one in five of Labour’s seats were lost. Table 1 provides the broad picture of voting. Although it contested fewer wards and seats than Labour, the Conservative party captured more votes. The Liberal Democrats finished in a creditable third place, just six percentage points separating first from third. It is noticeable that none of the main parties received the support of more than three in ten voters and that 18% of voters, almost one in five, supported candidates standing for smaller parties. With more than six thousand seats at stake there were pressures on local parties to find sufficient candidates to fight each vacancy. Virtually seven in ten wards had at least one candidate from the main parties but neither the Conservatives nor Liberal Democrats were able to field as many candidates as did Labour. The Liberal Democrats contested less than

Load more