Sean Fear’s Friday slot
December 1st, 2006-
Are Labour’s southern Problems getting worse?
Some weeks ago, I wrote about the return of “Labour’s Southern Discomfort”, the instinctive rejection of Labour by Southern voters, in the 1980s. This showed up markedly in May’s local election results, and is now even more pronounced in recent local by-election results.
Labour support, in local by-elections, has generally held up better in the North than in the South, particularly in the North West, where the party has actually gained four seats since May. What we are witnessing in the South, on the other hand, is the elimination of Labour’s last strongholds, outside London.
Recent results have included falls in the Labour vote share of 28% in Pill, North Somerset, 25% in Downton & Redlynch, Salisbury, 10% in Southwick, West Sussex, and 7% (compared to May) in Battin, Havant. This pattern was continued in last night’s results. These are all wards where, historically, Labour have won seats, or at least polled strongly, and where their support now seems to be vanishing. If these results are replicated in May, there could easily be over one hundred local authorities, mainly in the South, without any Labour representation at all.
Last night’s results were, as I have indicated, poor for Labour. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have reason to be pleased.
Durham CC - Ouston and Urpeth: Labour 665, Lib Dem 487. Labour hold. A strong swing to the Liberal Democrats.
East Lindsey DC - Skegness St Clements: Labour 356, Conservative 249, Ukip 157. Labour hold. Labour’s one reasonable result of the night, helped probably by the split in the right wing vote between Conservative and UKIP.
East Lindsey DC- Sutton-on-Sea South: Lib Dem 273, Independent 198, Lab 142. Lib Dem gain from Independent.
Havant BC - Hart Plain: Conservative 839, Lib Dem 593, Labour 84.. Conservative gain from Lib Dem. This is strange as it contrasts completely with the result in Battin, which saw the Lib Dems move up from third to first place.
Maidstone BC - Parkwood: Lib Dem 347, Lab 130, C 125. This has historically been a safe Labour ward, which the Liberal Democrats have taken on a huge swing. It is a typical example of the type of Southern ward where Labour support is melting away.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne MBC- Lemington: Lib Dem 1180, Labour 815, BNP 383, Conservative 147. Lib Dem gain from Labour. The relative positions of the Liberal Democrats and Labour are similar to where they were in May, suggesting that the impact of the Conservatives and BNP was neutral. The outcome suggests that the Liberal Democrats will face few difficulties in Newcastle next May.
Oswestry BC - Whittington: Conservative 314, Labour 121, Lib Dem 114. Conservative gain from Independent.
Scarborough BC - Hertford: C 736, BNP 267. Conservative hold. A straight fight between Conservatives and BNP is a rarity. Does anyone know why the Liberal Democrats failed to contest a seat they nearly won in 2003?
Shropshire CC - Oswestry: C 770, Lab 338, Lib Dem 324 Conservative hold. This is an unusual example of a two seat County Division. Labour actually won one of the seats here in 2005, and this is an appalling result for them. The Labour vote was down by 5/6 compared to 2005.
Shropshire CC - Whittington: Lib Dem 680, Conservative 559. Lib Dem gain from Independent.
Tewkesbury BC- Northway: Lib Dem 250, Conservative 205, Independent 202, Labour 93. Lib Dem gain from Labour. This is another dreadful result for Labour, who went from first to fourth place.
Sean Fear is a London Tory activist
MessageSpace Advertising
Nov/Dec does seem to have seen a renewed slump in Labour support…things looked to have stabilised a bit for them in Aug-Oct when their average vote share in local contests was down ‘only’ about 2%, but their Nov/Dec average vote share is down around 5% so far.
Sean do you think this Labour collapse in the south is good news for the LDs since it might suggest the potential for juicy third party squeezes in some seats either at risk from the Tories or even capturable from the Tories. I also wonder whether there might not be one or two seats like Watford where Labour risk going from first to third which would certainly be good news for the LDs in preventing a Tory surge from third to first.
Sean, as you say this has not been a good week for Labour- the old rural Labour vote seems to have really collapsed. Also kind of interesting that the Conservatives did not do better in Maidstone. Could I ask, on these results, what is the relative change for the three parties- Lib Dem up, Labour down, presumably, but what are the relative percentages and roughly where are the Conservatives?
Now that’s weird. Couple of weeks ago I wrote about Southern Discomfort too …http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/blogs/jamesbarbour/archive/2006/11/14/5884.aspx
OT. What’s happening in the Chester Con Association?
http://iccheshireonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_headline=city-tory-party-turns-its-nose-up-at-offer-&method=full&objectid=18192528&siteid=50020-name_page.html
what are the rules in terms of calling a byelection once a candidate has resigned?
Whats the minimum and maximum time (assuming no council elections in the following May) allowed?
Maidstone, Oswestry and Tewkesbury? Ahh yes. the key battlegrounds for Labour. I’d be more interested in Watford, Hemel Hemp. Oxford e or Gillingham etc.
Basing reports of Labour’s death on council by-elections in seats the tories won comfortably in ‘97 is over-egging it, I think.
At least one of those result seems to be impacted by independents, and Maidstone is against the LDs not the Tories, so who knows.(I confess, I got confused by all the oswestry’s, whittingtons and shropshires in the list today- presumably there is some reason why this patch is having 3 by-elections!)
East lindsay is a decent result, Newcastle a dissappointing one, and a sign that the local party isn’t doing enough. Durham swing seems mostly to do with the fact that there was no Tory this time.
By the way, I’ve done a post on my blog comparing the satisfaction ratings and disatisfaction ratings for the last eight opposition leaders during their first year. Results are pretty interesting.
It has graphs and everything.
Enjoy!
Whatever the reasons for the Liberal Democrats not fighting the Scarborough BC seat the BNP must be very pleased. It is a good result for them and extends a trend in Yorkshire in recent months. I guess that they will target Yorkshire in the next Euros in order to get their first MEP (maybe they are already hence the fact they seem to be fighting every local council byelection which comes along). They will have a good chance given they were not far away last time and that they will pick up the majority of the UKIP vote too, given what a mess they are in. A bit concerning for Yorkshire folk I think.
7.”East lindsay is a decent result, Newcastle a dissappointing one, and a sign that the local party isn’t doing enough.”
It’s in Newcastle North constituency. IIRC Newcastle North wards where the ones with the best LD results overall last May. Better than in the Newcastle East wards (the 2 seats should have similar majorities at Westminster level).ù
Not sure if it does mean that Doug Henderson in the most vulnerable Lab MP in Newcastle next time.
Fascinating, Brit Spin (8). You say:
“…the percentage of voters satisfied with the performance of each leader. David Cameron is the thicker blue line. As you can see, after a good start, where the numbers satisfied with him was in the Kinnock(83)/Smith/Blair territory, his numbers have flatlined,or even slightly declined, and he is now firmly in Foot/IDS/Howard/Hague territory.”
When do you think that the Tories will realise that they have chosen yet anther duffer in Cameron and drop him?
gaz it depends on a lot of different things, as far as im aware there is no maximum time until two electirs have come forward asking for an election. If this does happen then there is no no legal requirment to have it, however when it has been called there is a limit of a month.
It also gets complicated depending on what the returning officer wants to do, as far as im aware should the poll be around a specific time ie around christams and new year or withina close proximity to an all out election, then they have the descretion to change the date or just not have it.
if this does not happen it should say re two electors coming forward
10. I definately think Doug Henderson’s seat is vulnerable to a strong Lib Dem challenge. He doesn’t live in the constituency (he lives in Fife!!) and is not reknowned for his campaigning. New boundaries mean that Nick Brown shouldn’t rest on his laurels either.
10. I’m not sure if it’s most vulnerable or not. It might even mean that by splitting the votes it makes them both a little easier to hold (on a reasonable swing).
11. to be fair. that section refers only to the satisfaction ratings. he does much better than the “losers” on dissatisfaction ratings.
Just wanted to make it clear I’m not totally ignoring Cameron’s strengths!
#11 - Repeat after me “Oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them”. Do this a hundred times…
More seriously Cameron does need to be as “good” as Blair to win an election. The 1997 election was won [lost!] with a lot to spare, after all. However, I do think the results are interesting in the way they expose ridiculous media bubbles that have little bearing on reality.
2 I think the impact will vary from seat to seat. It certainly can’t be *bad* news for the Lib Dems though.
3. When I last did a round up a few weeks ago, the vote shares were in the region of Conservative 35%, Lib Dem 28%, Labour 25%. My impression is that the Conservatives’ position has improved, and Labour’s worsened since then.
7. As I said, Labour support has held up much better in the North. I wouldn’t use these as a pointers towards next May’s results outside the South of England. However, it does look as though Labour will suffer very badly in the South.
Not sure that this is truely dire for Labour. Only the truely motivated will come out to vote in November and December. Since we have a Labour government there is not the urgency of opposition to drive Labour voters out to vote. I would expect UKIP and the Tories to do well at the moment as they have the most motivated supporters. Your normal average Joe will stay in on a wet Thursday. Labour should not be worried by this.
Just for Fun: Pure Gold…
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/goldanthem/#detail
17. I agree. (assuming there’s a missing “not”) Blair is pretty much Sui generis. I was annoyed not to have thatcher in there, as she won a tighter race and her figures would be an interesting comparison.
If anyone knows where I can get that data, I’d be happy to add it in.
18. I agree that it’s important to loks at regional variation- though be careful about using “the South” so widely when extrapoloating from local to nationals.
For example, I’m not sure the Tories are too worried about not making progress in Newcastle North in these by-elections (IIRC there is a decent Tory ward in Newc North). They would be worried though if Tynemouth showed a collapse in support. The same applies for Labour.
The worry for Labour must be any sign that voters are flocking to whomever is best placed to defeat them. That might make cosy calculations about the Tories needing a 10 point lead for a majority out of date. Still we needed a 7.5 % lead to get a bare working majority in 1992 and that was with 11 Scottish seats plus a number of other seats in England that are surely now beyond us..
23.”plus a number of other seats in England that are surely now beyond us.. ”
there’re some 1992 Lab seats which are now more winnable than some 1992 Con seats. At least on paper. Maybe it can compensate.
[18] Thanks Sean- So really very poor for Labour, it seems
Think you are right about St Clements but apathy wins again.
If you were to add the UKIP vote to that of the Conservatives then the Tories would have won about with the same majority as they did in this ward when there was a by-election for Skegness Town Council this time last year in a two way contest between Labour and the Conservatives.
Anyway, here’s to democracy because this is the first time in ten years the ward has been contested.
Sean, the Hart Plain result I expect is largely due to the reason the by-election was called. The sittibg Lib Dem hadn’t turned up to a council meeting in 6 months and resigned after the story got into the local media.
Last Sunday a fair few people turned out to help Elaine (Conservative Candidate) deliver leaflets (I was with a contingent from Southampton University CF) and anyone you spoke to seemed really dissapointed with the previous councillors behaviour.
27 Thanks. The selfishness of some local councillors (of all parties) can be astonishing.
23 “The worry for Labour must be any sign that voters are flocking to whomever is best placed to defeat them.”
I agree that voters are deserting labour. But the lib dem victory in Northway (like that in Redbridge the other week) came from a long way back. (The Maidstone result - where the tories might have gained control of the council - is similar)
A. The decline in absolute votes compared with 2005 is unreal because another event happened on that polling day to boost CC turnout. :
Re 7. Britspin. What is your data source for your analysis? Is it based on one pollster or several? Was all the data based on answers to the same question? Just check the different polling data on attitudes to Iraq to see how the terms of the question can influence the outcome.
Historical comparisons should really compare like with like.
Its Mori’s historical trends series. Which is all Mori is good for frankly.
31. You’re right! It’s all Mori- the same Q and AFAIK the same weighting etc. (I thought the post made that clear, but happy to edit if not).
I understand scepticism about MORI, but on this series were talking purely about Sat/Dissat- so those who want to move the Tories up a coupl of notches can do so but the trends remain. As one tempter against doing so however, the results aren’t great for “losing” labour oppo leaders - Foot gets horrible ratings, as does Kinnock.!
Looking at all the leaders some other points that are interesting.
1. Roughly speakingly, your best satisfaction comes in your first year. There are exceptions- Kinnock after taking on Militant, hague in fuel crisis, but they’re marginal and evn Blair doesn’t get better than his first year until becoming PM. This might not apply to cameron (policy free can be an advantage!), but it has to everyone else.
2. Disatisfaction rating tend to go up over time- but with real and significant dips. call this the Enoch law.. political careers tend to end in tears.
3. Changes in PM do make a differnce. Thatcher was at -45 when she left. Major was at +40 a coupl of months later and stayed high for the rest of the year. Kinnock dissat ratings rose significantly across that time.
MORI seems to be the only pollster that publishes satisfaction/dissatisfaction ratings each month.
What is interesting is to see just how little enthusiasm there is for opposition leaders on the whole (Blair excepted). I think it suggests that whether the public likes the opposition leader or not, has very little bearing on his party’s chances (I’ll bet ratings wouldn’t have been high for either Heath in the late sixties, or Thatcher in the late seventies).
34. I would really love to know Thatcher, Wilson and Heath’s score. I’m assuming Mori have them as I’d be surprised if they only began to poll as soon as maggie took over!
Interestingly Callaghan was more popular as an oppo leader than Thacher, even just after the 79 election. Higher satisfaction and lower dissat than she had. presumably it was labour who held him back, as Foot had awful ratings almost immediately.
33 BrtiSpin You are still not comparing like with like on PM changes. Major was almost unknown and Brown is very well known.
History may teach us lessons but rarely provides direct comparisons. Although there are some. Major and Brown is not one of them.
36- would Brown-Callaghan be a better analogy then ?
35.”I would really love to know Thatcher, Wilson and Heath’s score” That would be interesting. Could you imagine some of the comments about Mrs T when she was opposition leader if PB.com and ConHom had been around?
36. Lol. I didn’t compare Brown and major, you did that yourself.. I was trying to say (probably unclearly) that a change in the PM can impact on the oppo leaders rating. I thought that was interesting because it’s not intuitive- why would Major being PM make Kinnock a worse oppo leader?
I should add that when Blair because PM his sat went up twenty points and his dissat declined to almost nothing. In case you’re wondering that isn’t a prediction for Gordon Brown either, though I suspect he too would get a wave of favourable coverage.
34 Sean Fear We are back to normal politics. The 1992 to 1997 period was unusual in the intensity of the reactions to a government. Why this should be so is debatable. Perhaps it is one of those amazing conjunctions of factors: clever opposition leader, long term government that had made radical changes, ERM etc. etc.
In other head to head comparisons , such as Callaghan and Thatcher, or Wilson and Heath or Wilson and Home there has not been such a conjunction of factors and there is no reason to believe that there will be in 2010.
Although Iraq and Iran might offer some scope. . . .
38. I would love to see ConHome comments when she was ousted!
37 Crossland I saw your post after mine.
40 Yes. Broadly speaking, you’re doing well with MORI if you can get 30% + approving of your record as opposition leader.
41. Andrea, something tells me that her most vocal critics pre 79′ might have been wailing the loudest when she was ousted.
43. (Be warned- this comment is subject to comments about Mori Labour favouribility!)
What you say has been true for IDS, Howard, Foot, Hague and Cameron.
However, Knnock and Smith both had satisfaction rating up to the mid-forties. That seems reasonably high to me, even bearing in mind Moriphobia! I find it hard to balance out how much of this is because the first four mentioned above were truly dreadful oppo leaders.
Please replace mid forties with low forties in post above. brain fade.
Anyway, I’m off to the gym- so apologies if no more responses…
46.”Anyway, I’m off to the gym”
The gym can be a source of political knowledge!
(for those who remember a certain debate in an old thread)
Many thanks for the commentary Sean.
I wonder if part of the story is party’s not standing?
40 - old hack
I broadly share your view that the ‘blair’ era may be an anomaly.
The fun for politico’s is that this cuts both ways for example..
“The 1992 to 1997 period was unusual in the intensity of the
reactions to a government. Why this should be so is debatable. Perhaps it is one of those amazing conjunctions of factors: clever opposition leader, long term government that had made radical changes, ERM etc. etc.”
..can imply that all things remaining roughly ‘politics as usual’ Cameron will not win the next election as not enough of those conjunctions are there.
p.s to be pedantic re ‘conjunctions’ and Callaghan- Thatcher, what about the Winter of discontent ?
45 They only got up that high temporarily though. And Kinnock seems to have generated very strong feelings against him, also.
i don’t understand how the Scottish Parliament can pass laws on bankruptcy when Treasury and economic affairs are reserved to Westminster.
Can anyone enlighten me, please.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1781092006
40 & 49. i agree. Blair has been an anomaly and it doesn’t really feel like Cameron is the heir to Blair in terms of popularity.
If we’re back to Politics as normal, we end up with the old saw about the election being the Governments to lose, which is pretty much where I am on the topic, to be honest.
Right defintely off to the gym!
Re Mori. Just look at the massive Labour figures that were in those Mori polls. On change to voting intention figure Cameron is doing as well, and in some cases exceeding Blairs position at the same stage in his leadership. But that s with ICM.
49 Crossland I agree with everything but your conclusion.
There was no such conjunction in 1970 but Heath won as the government, largely, managed to lose. There wasn’t any such conjunction in 1964 and at the end of a long period of Tory government with a toff as the new PM Home lost by a whisker.
Even 1979 was dissimilar. Then the Tories exploited the economic mess but there was not a real mass of negatives and positives such as in 1997. It was, relatively speaking, a damn close run thing as I have no doubt that the Tories would not have won in the previous autumn ( but nor would Labour have won, we would have had the LibDem dream of a hung parliament).
53. So strip out all the labour leaders as being overrepresented.
It still doesn’t look stunning for Cameron. Doesn’t the arguement that this indicate the Tories current poll rating is due to gov’t unpopularity rather than Camerons great personal popularity make sense with this data?
55 Have you a home gym. Or is gym a code for something else?
56. No, I’m a nerd.. lol. I’m going…… gone.
The Scotsman is very interesting today and Wendy Alexander seems to have confirmed English prejudice about subsidies being 11 billion to Scotland from ‘the UK’. Can this figure be true? Seems a lot to me.
The Labour party seems to have a very odd strategy for next year’s election, based on a belief the England never knows what is said in Scotland.
Good points, im no expert on the seventies but was arguing from the position that without an ‘amazing conjunction’ the tendency is for tight competions that ‘its the govt’s to lose’ and that Cameron has too much ground to make up .
I dont view this as a disaster for the Tories merely that they may need to stick with him in the same way Lab did with Kinnock
I can think of two exceptions in Camerons favour,
A complex argument around super marginals or Hoping for Events to help him.
sorry the above is a rely to ld hack
61 erm, Old Hack
:roll:
Crossland I am not sure the scenario we are discussing necessarily leads to tight elections, just not the mega change in 1997.
It was so mega that people have been reluctant to accept that their original decision is now not valid (not that they made a mistake ten years ago, but that the decision has come to the end of its shelf life). Most people, having taken a momentous decision, are very conservative in their choices and hate to change.
In 1992 the Tories should not have won, but the government refused to lose the election and the opposition refused to win it.
Id agree but basically how tight is tight and how mega is mega , which does Camerons task fit into ?
The stuff that leads to a ‘mega’ result we seem to be agreeing is not there for Cameron - at the moment im arguing that he can win a very tight fight but that is not the political landscape he is in
Over 60 seats is still tough going , hence my point about the amount of super marginals -
“In 1992 the Tories should not have won, but the government refused to lose the election and the opposition refused to win it. ”
Excellent point, I couldn’t have put it better my current belief is that all things being equal Lab has the bigger safety net
I have to go now (not to a gym !) hope to take this up another time
By-Election Results: Thursday 30th November 2006.
6.01.27pm UTC (GMT +0000) Fri 1st Dec 2006
Durham CC, Ouston and Urpeth
Lab 665 (57.7; -2.8), LD Sean Kilkenny 487 (42.3; +19.2%), [Con (0.0; -16.4)].
Majority 178. Turnout 18.6%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.
East Lindsey DC, Skegness St Clements
Lab 356 (46.7), Con 249 (32.7), UKIP 157 (20.6).
Majority 107. Turnout 20%. Lab hold. Lab elected unopposed in 2003.
East Lindsey DC, Sutton on Sea South
LD Helen Parkhurst 273 (44.5; +28.1), Ind 198 (32.3; -19.7), Lab 142 (23.2; +23.2), [Con (0.0; -31.5)].
Majority 75. Turnout 31%. LD gain from Ind. Last fought 2003.
Havant BC, Hart Plain
Con 839 (55.3; +7.1), LD John Jacobs 593 (39.1; +0.1), Lab 84 (5.6; -1.9), [Green (0.0; -5.2)].
Majority 246. Turnout 21.8%. Con gain from LD. Last fought 2006.
Maidstone BC, Parkwood
LD Rob Field 347 (57.6; +23.5), Lab 130 (21.6; -13.3), Con 125 (20.8; -10.1).
Majority 217. Turnout 19.3%. LD gain from Lab. Last fought 2006.
Newcastle City, Lemington
LD Lawrence Hunter 1180 (46.7; -12.2), Lab 815 (32.2; -11.7), BNP 383 (15.1; +15.1), Con 147 (5.8; +5.8).
Majority 365. Turnout 34.1%. LD gain from Lab. Last fought 2006.
Oswestry DC, Whittington
Con 314 (57.2; +57.2), Lab 121 (22.0; -4.1), LD Romer Hoeseason 114 (20.7; +20.7), [Ind (0.0; -73.9)].
Majority 193. Turnout 30.8%. Con gain from Ind. Last fought 2003.
Scarborough BC, Hertford
Con 736 (73.4; +18.3), BNP 267 (26.6; +26.6), [LD (0.0; -44.9)].
Majority 469. Turnout 25.1%. Con hold. Last fought 2003.
Shropshire CC, Oswestry
Con 770 (53.8; +22.4), Lab 338 (23.6; -14.7), LD Henry John Stevens 324 (22.6; -7.7).
Majority 432. Turnout 15%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.
Shropshire CC, Whittington
LD Trevor Davies 680 (54.9; +54.9), Con 559 (45.1; +18.2), [Ind (0.0; -73.1)].
Majority 121. Turnout 24.9%. LD gain from Ind. Last fought 2005.
Tewkesbury BC, Northway
LD Cynan Clucas 250 (33.3; +33.3), Con 205 (27.3; -2.7), Ind 202 (27.0; +4.5), Lab 93 (12.4; -35.2).
Majority 45. Turnout 19.9%. LD gain from Lab. Last fought 2003.
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.
Interesting discussion tonight. On 1997, never has a government been so vilified in the press and apparently so hated (wrongly in my view though I don’t think they should have won either)
At the moment labour are no where near where the Conservatives were in 1997, but neither were the Conservatives in 1993 (which is what we could be talking about here).
It is all to play for, but it has to be remembered that the Conservatives did not so much lose the election in 1997 but threw it away over the previous years with infighting scandels and debacles (like the ERM)
At the moment, Labour are in danger of being the Conservatives in 1993 being not too far behind in the polls and everything to play for hoping no one will remember the ERM/Iraq. I expect that Labour can do much to lose the next election from here and I have to say I expect them to try.
That said there is much that Cameron can do to capitalise on where Labour are now, but he has to keep his powder dry.
TV star joins lib dems.
66 - is this good news…
No idea. I never saw it.
66. Minor TV “celebrities” seem to get quite politically active those days.
65 - The big difference between then and now can be summed up in two words - Negative Equity. The Tories gained a great deal of support by encouraging home ownership. But in the early nineties this came back to bite them.
The early nineties recession hit a lot of ‘Tory’ voters. People who had not been hit by the early Eighties recession. Of course the early Eighties ‘victims’ had not forgiven the tories (they still haven’t) but they were joined by many thousands of others who were otherwise ‘natural’ tories.
69 Indeed.
70 — quite: the Tories alienated their own natural supporters.
Things is, Labour is in danger of repeating this mistake, and so are the Conservatives, again.
70,
Very true Terry, many of my friends natural tories, still speak with great bitterness about that time.
“if it isn`t hurting, its not working”
“we will drive inflation out of the system”
Embedded in their heart.
66. I see she’s spending time with John Hemming…which can have interesting results for the ladies. But the real celeb coup for the Lib Dems would be Sandi Toksvig defending Winchester.
On a local govt theme John O’s minority Tory Cabinet in Elmbridge BC has had the sense to veto plans to switch to fortnightly refuse collection. This could assist the Tories outside chance of taking overall control next May, but there won’t be a
the protest vote turnout there might well have been if the officers had got this wheeze past the Cabinet.
Unsure whether the by-election timetable question was answered (or whether anyone would read my answer). One of our councillors resigned the other week, she said she would for a while, her seat was due up for election in May. She missed the ‘deadline’ by 2 days i.e. there will be no election ecause it is within 6 months of the next round of local elections.
She is in a 3 member ward. I dn’t think though that has any bearing on things.
74. Fortnightly collection is fantastic. I am a proud proud Canterbury City Councillor who has helped establish fortnightly collection here. Our recycling rate is 43% and, with commercial cardboard recycled as of January, we’ll be up to 49%.
The Tories, in opposition, derided our fortnightly scheme. Now they are in power (thanks to a defection) they embrace it.
If you don’t have the balls to show guts to the electorate then you don’t deserve to hold a lever of power.
76 — well done for recycling all that cardboard: it’s not as if the stuff grows on trees.
77. Environmental cost of recycling cardboard is considerably less than that of manufacturing from virgin material. Ask if you need source.
In fact, recent work produced for Gummer’s environment comission shows that properly recyling commercial waste currently landfilled would give 15% reduction in total national CO2 emissions.
My understanding is that Elmbridge are genuinely interested to see if they are awarded power to levy direct charges for waste disposal on volume and weight basis (which will lead to decline in collection frequency and cost and increase in recycling performance). If they’re serious about this then that will be good for them. If they’re not then, as Chris_took suggests, they’re lacking balls - they were all for it 6 months ago.
78 — won’t direct charges (a) be regressive, and (b) increase fly-tipping?
79 — forget that, since that is not the purpose of this site.
One question that is on-topic, though perhaps there is no answer yet: what are the electoral consequences (if any) of fortnightly collection?
79. a) No charges for recycling and provision of small capacity free of charge means no cost for those that recycle.
b) no evidence that managing this (through decent enforcement) is disproportionately expensive in multi-country study carried out for Defra / Treasury but not, I’m afraid in public domain.
Currently (seem to be) in favour of introduction on basis of evidence as they understand it: milliband, bradshaw, gummer, lyons.
80. Anecdotally. Not problematic following slightly difficult introductory period. Weekly separate collection of food waste for composting is important.
I think we’ll be forgiven for ot at this time of night.
81 (b) anecdotally, there were an awful lot of dumped cars round here when declining scrap value meant disposal was no longer free.
Experience of fornightly collections in a rural area (thankfully we went to single collections a few years back - electoral pressure) = foxes & badgers getting into rubbish bins, then rats in quantity particularly in winter when they leave the fields. Locking tops on bins don’t last as bin men damage them, or leave them loose to be driven over when its windy.
Well our council tax has gone up, that cannot be denied. However, it is not because of recycling, rather it is because of theatre redevelopment, library conversion and all sorts of other major projects that Canterbury is undertaking.
Local councils can do things, big things, if there is a will. We, as a Lib-Lab group have had 26 out of 50 councillors (and are now 24 out of 50) for a few years. Ashford, where I am moving to to, did things a few years back and could do again.
I am continually disappointed by councils who pat themselves on the back for keeping council tax at 5% whilst doing absolutely nothing to affect the lives of residents. 0.5% increase or decrease may save/gain a few hundred thousand but a few hundred thousand could pay for visitor information centres or a park warden. They are little things but they make a difference.
The White Paper was a serious disappointment, we need more power locally and more local people prepared to do things.
Soapbox over, off to the cricket.
Not popular in rural constituencies if inadequate bins are provided especially if you have up to an 80 round trip to the nearest refuse site. I am an ardent fan of recycling but this defeats the purpose if we all have to increase our CO2 emissions because the council are being unrealistic about how much waste even the most conscientious householder can generate.
85 In my town they destroyed the town museum that was wonderful. Moved some displays into the library and spent six million revamping the library after it closed for a year. It was a complete waste of money and there are fewer books than before. You could drive a car through the racks of books and they are only around 5 foot high.
This was after they destroyed the cinema (that had been closed for years) to make room for a “new” job centre. More money wasted.
For some reason, some people think because something is “new” it is better. There is no reason why such vandalism should be funded by the public purse.
80. Ted. Look at experience of Hackney and Ealing where sep collection of food waste has led to decline of rat probs against all london trends and will save huge £ in context of Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.
I’m struggling to stop myself answer work qs out of work on a website that is definitely not related! If authority officers / members are seriously interested post an email
Re 70, Lurker Terry, very fair point well made, but each GE the electorate is remade. As Conservatives we have a lot of bagage we need to ditch. Cameron is doing OK in that as far as I can tell.
Its December 2nd 2006-it is precisely 9 years and 7 months since Anthony Charles Lynton Blair became PM.
The same 9 years 7 months ,from Mrs.T’s election on May 4th 1979,take us to December 4th 1988-at the time I was an ‘A’ level student,and am inclined to feel more decisive cracks were opening under Maggie’s feet than today(steep recent rise in interest rates from a low in May 1988 of 7.5% to 13% by Sept 1988)-the impensing disaster of the poll tax-I do concede that at that point the polls wer not too bad for Mrs.T -I hope posters do not mind that I try to draw reference from (reasonably)recent history
Got back a few minutes ago from the LDYS event, pleasant evening even if I didn’t meet anyone else from pb.c (I did at one point say in a loud voice ‘I’m known as tpfkar online’ but no-one picked up on it.) Spent much of the evening chatting to Tom Brake MP, and was very impressed, he was genuinely interesting and gave the impression he had time for me. And half of the people there were wearing bright red shirts….so much for standing out!
85 This post sums up very neatly what is wrong with so many politicians - the belief that they know how to spend the voters’ money better than the voters do themselves.
WRT fortnightly collection, my experience of it has been disastrous.
I have just read the link to 66. The TV “star” joining the Lib Dems is yet another of these reality show “wannabbees”, Jo Cameron from “The Apprentice.” She was renowned for being bonkers and irritating. Sir Alan Sugar summed her up when he pointed out she used to work for Rover; “no wonder Rover went bust.”
92 - I can’t see it ever working in London. Even weekly collection is generally not sufficient for dense housing.