Local Elections Handbook 2000 Complete

LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2000 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2000 The 2000 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 2000 © Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2000 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 permis- sion of the publishers. Published by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA ISBN 0 948858 29 X Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................v Using the Digest ......................................................................................................... xvi Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities..................................................................... 1 London Assembly Election Results ............................................................................... 9 Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results .......................................................... 23 English Unitary Council Election Results .................................................................... 53 English Shire District Council Election Results ........................................................... 75 Tables ........................................................................................................................ 123 aaaa Introduction On May 4 there were elections for the new Greater London Authority as well as for more than three thousand seats in 152 local authorities across England. Almost 10,000 candidates contested the elections. In 131 local authorities only a third of all council seats were up for election, making it less likely that changes of political control could occur in these areas. A total of 21 authorities held whole council elections as new ward boundaries took effect. The pattern of the electoral cycle was quite complex. Most seats up for election had last been contested in 1996 but others had been last fought more recently. The existence of different base years and the existence of new wards in some cases, makes direct comparisons between this election and the last quite difficult. Greater London Authority – the electoral system The London Mayor is elected in a cross-London ballot using the Supplementary Vote system of election. Electors are asked to cast a first and a second vote from the list of candidates. A candidate is elected if s/he receives more than half the total number of first votes. If none of the candidates obtains an absolute majority of first votes cast, as was the case, the two candidates with the greater number of first votes remain in the contest while all the other candidates are eliminated. The second votes, indicated on the ballot papers of those eliminated candidates, now come into the reckoning. Where such a second preference is for one of the two candidates remaining in the contest, (in this case Ken Livingstone and Steve Norris) it is added to that candidate’s first vote. The candidate with the greatest total number of votes -that is, first votes plus any transferred second votes from eliminated candidates- is deemed elected. In a break with the traditional ‘first past the post’ method, the London Assembly, comprising a total of 25 members, was elected using a form of Proportional Repre- sentation known as the Additional Member System (AMS). Under this system voters are given two votes, one cast in a single-member constituency, the other for a cross- London party list. For this election there were 14 single member constituencies (cre- ated by merging various London boroughs) elected by ‘first past the post’ and 11 seats determined by list vote. Voters could, and did, choose candidates from different parties in the contests for constituency and list. Allocation of the 11 list seats was determined as follows. The total London-wide number of list votes cast for each party in all the constituencies were aggregated. Allocation of additional member seats takes account of the number of constituency seats won by each party. The initial stage involves dividing each party’s list vote by the number of constituency seats won plus one. Naturally, if a party fails to win a single constituency its list vote is divided only by one. A party winning, say three constituency seats, would see its list vote divided by 3+1. Following this division the party with the highest number of votes is awarded the first of the 11 list seats. That party’s list vote is now divided again to take account of the additional seat it has just v won. This process of division and seat allocation continues until all 11 seats are determined. Parties nominated candidates for the list in the order in which they wished them to be elected and voters were prevented from expressing a preference for candidates from within a list. ‘Independent’ candidates were entitled to stand either in a constituency or for election as an additional member or both. Voters in London, therefore, received four opportunities to cast a ballot: two votes for mayor, one vote for a constituency Assembly member and a fourth vote that could be cast for the London-wide list. It was clear from the final figures that many voters did not take up their full quota of votes. Mayoral election result Ken Livingstone won the contest for London mayor with some ease, although by failing to win an absolute majority of first votes the contest went through to the second round. Livingstone finished ahead in all but two of the 14 constituencies. Livingstone and the Conservative party candidate, Steve Norris, went head to head in the second round. While the other nine mayoral candidates were eliminated from the contest, their second votes were allocated to either Livingstone or Norris. A total of 108,550 votes were transferred to Livingstone while the figure for transfers to Norris was 99,703 votes. Following this redistribution Livingstone had 58% of the vote and a majority over Norris of more than 200,000 votes. As Table 1 shows, Frank Dobson finished in third place, a mere 20,000 votes ahead of the Liberal Democrat candidate, Susan Kramer. Ram Gidoomal, a refugee from Kenya and millionaire businessman, finished in fifth place, ahead of the Green party. In fact, independent and other minor party candidates together polled 48% of the mayoral vote: expressed differently the vote for the candidates from the three main parties amounted to just half of the total vote. A clearer rejection of the established party order could hardly have been stated. Table 1: Result of the London Mayor Election 1st vote % 2nd vote % Final Result Ken Livingstone Independent 667,877 39.0 178,809 12.6 776,427 Steve Norris Conservative 464,434 27.1 188,041 13.2 564,137 Frank Dobson Labour 223,884 13.1 228,095 16.1 Susan Kramer Liberal Democrat 203,452 11.9 404,815 28.5 Ram Gidoomal CPA 42,060 2.5 56,489 4.0 Darren Johnson Green 38,121 2.2 192,764 13.6 Michael Newland BNP 3,569 2.0 45,337 3.2 Damian Hockney UK Ind 16,324 1.0 43,672 3.1 Geoffrey Ben-Nathan Pro-Motorist 9,956 0.6 23,021 1.6 Small Shop Ashwin Kumar Tanna Independent 9,015 0.5 41,766 2.9 Geoffrey Clements NLP 5,470 0.3 18,185 1.3 Total vote 1,714,162 1,420,994 1,340,564 vi The London Assembly election results Throughout, the battle for London mayor overshadowed elections for the new As- sembly. For example, pollsters found that a significant proportion of respondents were unaware of the Assembly election. There was, of course, the further complica- tion of a new voting system, strange to English voters accustomed to first past the post elections. Given the electoral system, however, it was unlikely that any single party would win seats sufficient for an overall majority. Interest lay in the eventual distribu- tion of seats among the different parties and the implications this would have, espe- cially in terms of coalition politics. The election did indeed result in a hung assembly. Table 2 shows that four parties won seats, with the two largest parties, Conservative and Labour, each quite short of an overall majority. The Conservatives captured the largest share of the constituency vote, a fact reflected in the party’s return of 8 constituency members. Labour, trailed behind the Conservatives winning the remaining 6 seats. It should be noted that this was the first local election in London in 18 years that the Conservatives led Labour in the popular vote. Table 2: Summary Result of the London Assembly Election Constituency % Seats List % Seats vote vote Conservative 526,707 33.2 8 481,053 29.0 1 Labour 501,296 31.6 6 502,874 30.3 3 Liberal Democrat 299,998 18.9 - 245,555 14.8 4 Green 162,457 10.2 - 183,910 11.1 3 Others 95,612 6.0 - 246,238 14.8 - Total 1,586,070 14 1,659,630 11 Although the Conservative party won the largest number of constituency seats it did so largely because of Labour’s poor performance rather than because of any great advance of its own. Compared with the 1997 general election the Conservative vote rose, but only from 31.2% to 33.2%. Compared with the 1998 London borough elections its vote was higher by just one percentage point. If Conservative progress was minimal Labour’s decline was spectacular. The party’s share of the constituency poll was just 31.6% – a fall of 18 percentage points compared with the last general election. In Enfield and Haringey Labour’s vote fell from 57% to 32% compared with 1997, although the party clung on to win the constituency. Across London the pattern was one of Labour decline, little movement for Conservative and Liberal Democrat, and a large shift in support towards the Greens and other groupings.

Load more