Sean Fear’s local elections column
September 1st, 2006Turnout recovers
One feature of the first six years of this Government was declining turnout in local elections. Throughout the 1980’s, and the first half of the 1990’s turnout in local elections regularly exceeded 40%, historically, a high figure. After 1997, it declined steadily, reaching a low of 28% in 2000. In one by-election that year, in Liverpool, it even fell as low as 6%. This was mirrored in the General Election of 2001, when turnout reached 59%, the lowest figure since 1918.
This has concerned the Government, which believes the legitimacy of local elections is compromised by low turnouts. It has encouraged all sorts of pilot schemes to try and boost turnout. Local councils have experimented with methods such as internet voting, text message voting, or polling booths in supermarkets, while the Government has made it much easier to vote by post. None of these methods, it must be said, have had much success in boosting turnout. The one method which has been successful is compulsory postal voting. However, this has proved controversial, given well-publicised cases of fraudulent postal voting. It is arguable whether low turnout undermines the legitimacy of local government; it is beyond dispute that fraud does so.
2004 saw a rise in local election turnout to 42%, a very good figure. In part this was down to the introduction of compulsory postal voting in parts of the country. However, those parts of the country which used traditional voting methods also saw turnout rise. The reason for this was that the local elections were held on the same day as the European elections. The level of interest generated by parties such as UKIP drew people to the polls who would not usually vote in local elections. This year, turnout was also at a comparatively high level, 37%, despite the fact that no local authority, as far as I am aware, experimented with compulsory postal voting. The reasons for this seem clear to me. Firstly, politics is competitive again. For the first time since the early 1990s, Labour looks as though it can be beaten. That has generated more interest in elections generally. Both anti-Labour voters, and Labour supporters, who have not been terribly interested in local elections over the past few years, came out to vote. A good example of this was in the ward I contested in Brent, Fryent. My vote was up by 375 on the Conservative vote four years, previously, but the Labour vote was also up by 350. Secondly, minor parties are now motivating people to come out and vote, both for and against them. This is seen most strikingly in contests involving the British National Party. In Barking and Dagenham for example, turnout rose from 23% in 2002, to 39% in May, due to the fact that the BNP were contesting seats there for the first time.
Last night saw just two by-election results:-
East Staffordshire BC - Town: C 664, Lab 255, Ukip 104. Con hold. This represents a strong swing to the Conservatives from Labour .
Tonbridge and Malling BC - Ightham: C 352, Lib Dem 301. Con hold. This is a near loss to the Liberal Democrats in what was a very safe Conservative seat.
Sean Fear is a London Conservative activist and writes a weekly column for politicalbetting.com.
MessageSpace Advertising
Really good article Sean, but our experience from Norwich says that turnout was high in 04 when the locals were all-out and on the same day as the Euro poll and higher in 05 when combined with the GE but much lower in 06 when it was a stand alone poll. Isn’t that a major factor?
That’s no surprise Anthony.
But overall, May’s turnout was 5-6% higher than in the last comparable election, May 2002.
Sean. You are right that turnout heading back up is because politics has become competitive again. Some posters on here have said they expect turnout to decline at the next GE. I couldn’t disagree more. The rise of the Conservatives under Cameron is focusing the mind of many and has led to the return of two party politics.
I actually expect Labour to get as many votes next time as they did last year but the Conservatives to get many, many more and gain a majority. Local elections are still likely to feature minor parties and the Libdems but at national level, they will all be squeezed except in Labour/Libdem contests.
I would expect a further increase in turnout in next year’s locals as protest votes are delivered, especially if Blair is still in office.
Sean -Your example of the BNP in Dagenham is interesting and concerning. Historically the concern has been that more extreme parties get councillors in on a low turnout- silent majority staying home etc. For them to get the result they got in Dagenham on a turnout almost double the previous suggests their support must be quite broad in those areas
By-Election Results: Thursday 31st August 2006.
Chepstow TC, Thornwell
Lab 176 (50.0), Con 112 (31.8), LD Henry Ashby 64 (18.2).
Majority 64. Turnout 19%. Lab hold.
East Staffordshire BC, Town
Con 664 (64.9; +24.1), Lab 255 (24.9; +3.3), UKIP 104 (10.2; +10.2), [Ind (0.0; -37.7)].
Majority 409. Turnout 20.9%. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Llanbadarn Fawr WCC, Sulien
LD Bob Morris 192 (90.6), Con 20 (9.4).
Majority 172. Turnout 15.2%. LD gain from PC.
Tonbridge and Malling BC, Ightham
Con 352 (53.9; -20.6), LD Rebecca Hunt 301 (46.1; +20.6).
Majority 51. Turnout 42.5%. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Uttoxeter PC, Town
Con 588 (58.1), Lab 247 (24.4), UKIP 102 (10.1), LD 75 (7.4).
Majority 341. Turnout 20.7%. Con hold.
Please note:
The figures for percentage change are based on the details of the results from the last time that there was an election in the ward by statute in the May (or sometimes June) elections, rather than by any by-election. We use the figures in The Local Elections Handbook by Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher.
The Party-defending seat is the party that the former Councillor (who has died, resigned or been disqualified) belonged to when she or he was elected not the one that she or he may have subsequently belonged to as a result of any defection.
Hi Sean , Turnout was up in London but down in most of the Met Boroughs on 2004 except Birmingham . I am sure the main factors involved were that 2004 was a complete council election and the postal voting .
Darren do you have to post such drivel without backing it up with any facts or reasoning ?
If it had facts or reasoning in it, would it still be drivel? I would think not, unless the ‘facts’ were bogus of course, e.g. false or misleading statistics.
7 Yes that is factually correct . LOL
Sean, you generally pass as reasonable and objective, but presumably that is because you are being compared with other Tories who post here.
In the present case, you appear to have omitted one third of the results in principal authorities - namely the Lib Dem gain in Ceredigion. Or is Wales a foreign country or something?
So this week, we have one Tory hold with a good margin; one Tory hold, but almost losing it to the Lib Dems; and one Lib Dem gain.
I think you are on the verge of losing your reputation for relative impartiality.
9. At least he has one!
9 To be fair to Sean the Ceredigion gain was in a Community Council seat which we usually ignore though there was much confusion on ALDC about the election .
9. I think he just left out the Ceridigion community council result and the 2 town councils by-election somewhere. I also think he doesn’t usually include the results of town/parish councils in his weekly thread,
The ALDC results include Parish (and equivalent) Council results which Sean (rightly) does not list.
3 – DC – I’m one of the posters who think turnout will be down at the next GE, my thinking being there is no great desire yet among traditional Labour voters to punish Blair, dissatisfaction with him yes on many issues but the time for a change scenario is in my opinion not here yet unlike 1979 and 1997.If the trust in Labour for their traditional voters is not turned round then I feel a lot of us will either abstain or vote for “others”(not BNP) – voting for the Conservatives or Lib Dems is not an option unless the dissatisfaction turns sour so abstaining Labour voters will balance the “new” voters determined to kick Blair out.
Apologies, Sean. I thought that it was a primary council. But with that number of votes, I ought to have realised…. Ought to have realised anyway. Sorry. Very. And thanks for the multiple corrections!
I think it is a bit fantasical (and tiresome) to suggest a Conservative majority at the next GE extrapalated in mid term polls, local election results, combined with views down the local pub against Bliar.
The Labour vote has collapsed in the South and there is a goldfish bowl view by Conservatives living in Conservative areas about this being a global effect. Labour has done well for the regions (reflected in polls and ballots) - particulalry on crime, waiting lists, schools - and we are seeing what appears to be ‘very surprising results’. Such as a swing to Labour across Yorkshire and elsewhere the Labour vote holding very strong.
Teather To Fight Brent Central
17 That was discussed on the previous thread here Iain LOL
17. How far will the tories actually be in H&K? I thought they would have been more than 10% away from second placed Libdems.
18 - my apologies Mark!
19. I meant in the notionals.
From a LD’s point of view, Teather going for BC is a good move. For a Teather’s point of view, I’m not sure.
Sean, very interesting article. I think voter turnout will be up in locals and in the next GE for all parties. I wonder if it will be more like 1992 with people voting for their tribal preference rather than openly switching/tactically voting which became more evident from 97′ onwards.
Good article Sean, I appreciate these Friday round-ups. Broadly speaking, the increased turnout in local elections should be a cause for encouragement for all us political obsessives.
I also agree with DC’s forecast for a greater turnout at the next GE - whether the result as is favourable as he anticipates is neither here nor there, just the fact that it should be quite close should motivate plenty of 2005 abstainers to vote.
A bit late to add to the discussion but Teather has made the right call I feel. It will be much easier to garner labour votes the way that things are going and she does appear to have that indefinable ability to create support.
Interesting reading on Anthony Wells’ site regarding attitudes to terrorism and so on. I’ve long considered people’s reactions to be indicative of infantilisation and this does nothing to dispel that. Any risk to an individual is minimal at most, people like to make a fuss about how badly done to they are though and building up any fear of ‘terror’ is out of all proportion to reality. Plonk them in most other places in the world and they’d soon realise how easy they have it.
Wusses, the lot of them.
Sean in leader & Paul M @ 4 — I think sometimes too much is made of the BNP success in Barking & Dagenham. Most of their councillors are in the Barking rather than Dagenham parliamentary constituency and is probably at least in part a backlash against MP Margaret Hodge whose role in the Islington child abuse scandal was highlighted when a victim stood against her in the general election (admittedly he got few votes but it was a reason for not voting Labour.
There are other factors, of course, but this one should not be discounted.
If there was to be a protest vote, it was bound to benefit the BNP because they stood and the LibDems did not and the Conservatives barely did, putting up the odd token candidate (single candidates in wards returning three councillors).
24.”A bit late to add to the discussion but Teather has made the right call I feel. It will be much easier to garner labour votes the way that things are going and she does appear to have that indefinable ability to create support.”
H&K is a Labour seat too. Actually it’s Glenda Jackson’s seat. I think it’s easier to face Glenda or a new Lab candidate if she doesn’t stand (she’ll over 70 at next GE) than facing Dawn Butler.
If she would have problems to keep the tories behind, I suppose it means the tories are aheading for Downing Street with a decent majority and that the LDs are having a disappointing election.
Even later to add to this discussion - can I just clarify whether the percentage changes in turn out are absolute changes? The electoral register has severely contracted in many areas e.g. Trafford and this can have a distorting effect on percentage turnout.
An extreme example I know:
election 1 50% turnout
register reduced by 50%
election 2 80% turnout
Q. Has turnout increased?
4 I agree. Parties like the BNP, Respect, etc. will become more and more mainstream because both the Labour and Tory parties are viewed by the elctorate as converging into one ‘Global Capatalist’ manopoly party.
Thanks. In response to various points:-
3. I think turnout will be up at the next general election. But still below the levels we took for granted in the eighties - perhaps around the two thirds mark? Current opinion polls suggest we’re still a long way from a return to two party politics though.
4. Almost invariably turnout rises when the BNP enter an election. Unsurprisingly, they provoke a strong reaction from the voters.
9. and others. Yes. I never bother with town and parish elections, as I think they turn on personalities far more than parties.
25 I’m sure that the adverse reaction to Margaret Hodge is a factor. But most of the wards where the BNP did well are currently in Dagenham, but will be transferred to Barking in the boundary changes. That is significant. Barking has a growing black and asian population, but this effect will be countered by the inclusion of the new wards, which comprise the Becontree estate, where the BNP is very strong.
The BNP are virtually certain to finish a strong second at the general election. I think the outcome will turn on whether Conservative and UKIP voters vote for Labour to keep out the BNP, or vote BNP to kick out Labour.
21. Andrea, my notional estimates for the Brent/Camden seats -
Based on 2004 GLA List
Brent Central: Con 13.5% Lab 50.7% LD 31.4%
Brent North: Con 29.0% Lab 49.8% LD 18.4%
Hampstead and Kilburn: Con 23.8% Lab 36.9% LD 34.2%
Holborn and St Pancras: Con 19.7% Lab 43.9% LD 28.0%
Based on 2006 Locals, top vote
Brent Central: Con 13.7% Lab 52.5% LD 29.4%
Brent North: Con 29.2% Lab 49.2% LD 19.2%
Hampstead and Kilburn: Con 22.8% Lab 34.1% LD 38.0%
Holborn and St Pancras: Con 20.6% Lab 45.0% LD 25.7%
The differences are probably due in part to the Lib Dems targetting more wards in Hampstead/Kilburn than in the other three seats at the locals.
I agree with the comments by Sean Fear and observer that Teather will find Labour switchers and tactical votes harder to come by in Harlesden/Stonebridge than she did in Brondesbury/Queen’s Park. It is certainly a courageous decision.
30. Many thanks Kevin L.
The tory vote to squeeze in BC isn’t that big afterall. It’s larger in Holborn and St Pancrass (where I think there’s also a decent Green vote)
5. As I’ve already said on another thread, the ALDC information is wrong about Llanbadarn. It was a community council election, not county.
31 It may be hard to persuade Conservatives to switch in the new Holborn seat, as they now have quite a strong local government presence there.
30 - Hi Kevin - Not sure about your figures on Brent Central based on 2006 locals , Sean’s figures on highest vote are Con 21% Lab 40% LibDem 29% Others 10% and H and K Con 29% Lab 21% LibDem 36% Others 14% .
My own figures based on average vote per candidate agree with Sean within 1% .
I expect Kevin’s probably been using the 2006 locals as a basis for giving notional results for 2005.
34,35,yes, it’s a projection of the notional 2005 General Election result. I agree to within 1% on your actual 2006 vote shares.
Election day this year was the first really summery day in London, especially in the evening. Could this have contributed to the increased turnout? I can’t remember what the weather was like in 2002
30-Incredible how littlel movement there has been, compared with other London boroughs. ALso, how Brent North used to be a solid Tory seat, like my own Chiping Barnet. How things have changed!! One still is, the other isn’t. Why??