Local Elections Handbook 2006 Complete
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2006 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2006 The 2006 Local Election Results Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher with the assistance of Galina Borisyuk, Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole, Elena Long and Lawrence Ware Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre University of Plymouth Local Elections Handbook 2006 © Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2006 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 41 9 Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................... vii Using the Handbook .......................................................................................xix Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities ......................................................... 1 London Borough Council Election Results .................................................... 11 Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results ............................................. 53 Unitary Council Election Results .................................................................... 85 Shire District Council Election Results ........................................................ 101 Appendix ...................................................................................................... 147 2 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the helpful response by Returning Officers and Electoral Administrators to our requests for information, which this year extended to cover data on postal ballots, spoilt papers etc. Inevitably, there were teething problems with these additional data – we should make it clearer that information at the ward level is more valuable to us than that which has been combined into a summary figure for the local authority as a whole. More valuable still would be to obtain data for individual polling stations, which we know some Electoral Administrators routinely collect. If you are one of these then please feel free to get in touch with us directly. Our thanks also go to the Electoral Commission, which provided support for our collection of data, principally that concerning the numbers voting by post and in person. The issues surrounding electoral registration and ballot security are on-going but it is only by assembling data such as these that we assess better both the nature of the problem and its solution. As before, we would also like to express our gratitude to David Cowling, Head of BBC Political Research, for sharing his data on the mayoral elections. Although this Handbook is being published around the same time as previous editions that hides the fact that data collection was particularly frenetic in 2006. Much of this work was, in fact, accomplished by the end of June so that various other deadlines would not be compromised. Achieving this impressive task is only possible through a team effort. Much of the preparatory work is undertaken by Brian Cheal, a name that we know is familiar to all Electoral Administrators!. Later, the different expertise of Galina Borisyuk, Dawn Cole and Lawrence Ware is vital to the process of collating, processing, checking, re-checking and transforming the data. This year we can honestly say that deadlines would not have been reached without some excellent assistance provided by Elena Long. The phrase, ‘thrown in at the deep end’ doesn’t quite describe what was asked of Elena and it is testimony to her skills (not forgetting the good humour) that she was able to adapt so easily to life within the Elections Centre during what is a particularly frenetic period of the annual electoral cycle. Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher October 2006. v vi Introduction In 2006 local council elections were held for 176 authorities, mainly across urban England (there were no elections in Scotland and Wales). There were whole council elections for 32 London boroughs (three of which also held mayoral elections), which meant contests for 1,861 seats. Elsewhere, in 36 metropolitan boroughs, 20 unitary councils and 88 shire district councils, about a third of all seats were contested at this stage of the electoral cycle. Together, this involved elections for over four thousand seats in more than three thousand wards - about one in five council seats countrywide were at stake. However, because the elections covered mostly urban areas some 21.7 million electors, some 58% of the English electorate, had an opportunity to vote. Establishing prior electoral benchmarks is difficult because the baseline comparison year varies. For most the baseline year is 2002, reflecting the fact that councillors are normally elected for a four-year term. Then, Labour performed relatively well and the scope for losses in 2006 was therefore large. For more than fifty authorities, however, the baseline year is 2004, because ward boundary changes affected the electoral cycle. Those elections were fought against a backdrop of government difficulties stemming from the war in Iraq and having posted one of its worst ever set of results it was difficult for Labour’s stock to fall still lower. The results were mostly good for the Conservatives and sufficiently bad for Labour that pressure on the leadership intensified. The days of unequivocally good results for the Liberal Democrats are over, at least for the time being it appears. Our estimate of the national equivalent vote places the Conservatives on 39%, far ahead of Labour on 26%, with the Liberal Democrats placed third on 25%. vii The Conservatives made net gains of 320 seats, the tenth consecutive set of elections where the Conservatives have registered gains. The attrition rate amongst Labour’s ranks continues. Its net losses of 350 seats, together with the loss of 18 of its 46 councils means that the Conservatives are now well ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats as the largest party in local government, both of council seats and councils controlled (Table 1). Table 1: State of the Parties in Local Government, 2006 Councillors Con Lab LD Ind/Other Nats London Boroughs 784 685 318 74 - Metropolitan Boroughs 550 1,174 583 136 - Unitary Councils 805 768 655 176 - Shire Counties 1,147 575 469 78 - Shire Districts 4,972 1,998 2,375 1,223 - England (total) 8,258 5,200 4,400 1,687 - Scotland 126 497 175 234 190 Wales 111 479 148 352 174 Great Britain 8,495 6,176 4,723 2,273 364 Councils Con Lab LD Ind/Other Nats NOC London Boroughs 14 7 3 0 - 8 Metropolitan Boroughs 5 15 3 0 - 13 Unitary Councils 12 8 4 0 - 22 Shire Counties 23 6 3 0 - 2 Shire Districts 114 18 19 5 - 82 England (total) 168 54 32 5 - Scotland 0 13 1 6 1 11 Wales 1 8 0 3 1 9 Great Britain 169 75 33 14 2 147 The London results were best for the Conservatives where the party made 185 gains, three-quarters of which came from Labour with the remainder mostly from the Liberal Democrats. However these gains were offset by losses, including 40 seats to the Liberal Democrats, bringing the party a net gain of 130 seats. Table 2 also shows the Conservatives gained control of four councils viii from Labour (Bexley, Croydon, Ealing, Hammersmith & Fulham) and a further three from no overall control (Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon). This takes the number of Conservative controlled boroughs from eight to fourteen. It would have been fifteen had the Conservative administration held on in Richmond on Thames. Labour’s electoral strength in London, seriously depleted at the last general election, declined still further with net losses of 177 seats. More than half of these losses, 126 seats, were to the Conservatives. The party lost roughly one in five of its seats and majority control of Brent, Camden, Hounslow, Lewisham and Merton, although there was the small compensation of re-gaining majority control in Lambeth. The Liberal Democrats gained 40 seats from the Conservatives but lost 45 in return. It gained 61 seats from Labour but lost 46 in exchange. It was a similar story at the level of council control: the gain of Richmond cancelled by the loss of Islington. Table 2: Council gains and losses in 2006 Con gain from Lab (5) Con gain from NOC (10) Bexley Bassetlaw Havering Crawley Chorley Hillingdon Croydon Coventry Mole Valley Ealing Harrow Shrewsbury & Atcham Hammersmith & Fulham Hastings Winchester Lab gain from NOC (1) LD gain from NOC (2) Lambeth South Lakeland St Albans LD gain from Con (1) Richmond upon Thames Con lose to NOC (3) Lab lose to NOC (13) Gosport Barrow in Furness Merton Harrogate Brent Newcastle under Lyme West Lindsey Bury Plymouth Camden Redditch LD lose to NOC (2) Derby Stoke on Trent Islington Hounslow Warrington Milton Keynes Lewisham Outside London, Conservative progress was less impressive, averaging less than two seat gains per council with most of those made in the shire districts. In fact, in the metropolitan boroughs the number of seats held by the main parties remained virtually static – a product of the fact that the overall picture was nearer to the results in 2004 rather than 2002. Coventry ix was gained by the Conservatives and this means that all but one of the