Local Council by-elections 10th January 2019.

[Tony Otim]

We begin the year in East Sussex with two vacancies caused by the death of the same independent councillor.

EAST SUSSEX CC; Bexhill West (Ind died)
Candidates:
BASTIN, Geoffrey Bernard (UKIP)
EARL-WILLIAMS, Deirdre Celia (Independent)
GRAY, Polly Janet (Green)
KENWARD, Martin (Conservative)
THOMAS, Richard Beverly (Liberal Democrat)
WALKER, Jacque (Labour)

2017: Ind 2056; Con 1356; Lab 290; LD 227; UKIP 148

The Conservative candidate was runner up here in 2017 and is sitting councillor for Kewhurst ward on Rother DC which is mainly in this division. The independent was elected to Rother DC Collington ward ( partially in this division) in a by-elections in 2016 having previously been conservative councillor for Sackville ward from 2003 - 2015 when she lost as an Indy.



ROTHER DC; Bexhill St Mark’s (Ind died)
Candidates:
FORTE, Gino (Conservative)
HARMER, Kathy (Independent)
WALKER, John Brian George (Labour)
ZIPSER, John Kamil (UKIP)

2015: Ind 1312, 808; Con 1148, 671; UKIP 608; Lab 318
2011: Ind 1005; Con 980, 837; LD 494; Lab 213
2007: Con 1136, 990; LD 605; Lab 133
May 06 by: Con 863; LD 538; UKIP 185; Lab 92
2003: Con 1236, 1106; LD 359

There was a Lib Dem listed on the SOPN whose nomination was withdrawn (she was also candidate in 2006, 2007 and 2011). The Indy whose death caused both these by-elections was the top-elected Conservative in 2003. He then resigned in 2006, prompting the by-election, didn’t stand in 2007, but topped the poll in 2011 and 2015 as an independent. The second independent elected in 2003, topped the poll in 2007 and kept her seat in 2011, but was the unsuccessful second indy in 2015. The Labour candidates here and in the county seat share the same address.

[Chris from Brum]

I was wondering if the Indy in the county election is perhaps the widow of the deceased councillor, Stuart Earl?

[Tony Otim]

Jan 3, 2019 12:53:03 GMT Chris from Brum said:

I was wondering if the Indy in the county election is perhaps the widow of the deceased councillor, Stuart Earl?

She is indeed and also a district councillor (see additional info above)

[timmullen1]

Andrew’s 2019 debut: britainelects.com/2019/01/09/previews-10-jan-2019/

[ElectionMapsUK]

Are they counting tonight?

[finsobruce]

Jan 10, 2019 22:57:40 GMT ElectionMapsUK said:

Are they counting tonight?

Do they miss us tonight?

Are they sorry we drifted apart...

oops, sorry wrong song.

[middleenglander]

There were two by-elections for Rother District on 27 October 2016. Both results were declared shortly before midnight. However I have been unable to find any indication when the count is for yesterday's by-elections.

[timmullen1]

Jan 11, 2019 0:13:59 GMT middleenglander said:

There were two by-elections for Rother District on 27 October 2016. Both results were declared shortly before midnight. However I have been unable to find any indication when the count is for yesterday's by-elections.

I suppose being a dual election may have persuaded them to move to a Friday count.

[andrewteale]

Rother, St Marks: Ind hold
Ind 1000 C 521 Lab 79 UKIP 58

[andrewteale]

I have a report that Bexhill West is an independent hold as well, with approximate figures of Ind 1760 and C 1000.

[Khunanup]

Jan 11, 2019 1:26:19 GMT andrewteale said:

I have a report that Bexhill West is an independent hold as well, with approximate figures of Ind 1760 and C 1000.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

If you think that's a strong third place, I can do you a really good deal on a prominent central London bridge.

[Merseymike]

Always find it interesting when a good and well respected independent councillor can manage to establish voting for an independent as something which can continue after their departure.

When I was small, I recall a doughty Independent councillor who was in terms of her appearance very much like Victoria Wood's posh lady. The ward was politically Tory usually though the Liberals also won sometimes. Labour always third.
What many people didn't know was that in terms of national politics she was a Labour voter. The Tories certainly knew that but didn't use it against her as they rightly worked out it wouldn't go down well to do so.

[Chris from Brum]

Jan 11, 2019 9:25:00 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

If you think that's a strong third place, I can do you a really good deal on a prominent central London bridge.

It's ALDC, they do like to puff up LD performances wherever possible.  "Clear" third place may have been better.  But it certainly beats losing over half your vote share and dropping into fourth place only just ahead of the Greens

[markgoodair]

Jan 11, 2019 9:21:58 GMT Khunanup said:

Jan 11, 2019 1:26:19 GMT andrewteale said:

I have a report that Bexhill West is an independent hold as well, with approximate figures of Ind 1760 and C 1000.

IND 51.9% +1.5%
CON 31.5% -1.8%
LIB DEM 7.7% +2.1%
LAB 3.3% -3.8%
GREEN 3.2% +3.2%
UKIP 2.4% -1.2%

[yellowperil]

Jan 11, 2019 9:31:57 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Jan 11, 2019 9:25:00 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

If you think that's a strong third place, I can do you a really good deal on a prominent central London bridge.

It's ALDC, they do like to puff up LD performances wherever possible.  "Clear" third place may have been better.  But it certainly beats losing over half your vote share and dropping into fourth place only just ahead of the Greens

Well ,quite, strong was never going to be the right word. But there could be argued there were two contests going on here, the real one between the Tories and the Indy, won comfortably by the latter, and the fun one, a 4 way fight for the minor places. Lib Dems won that minor consolation prize, which could be significant if ever the Indy grip on this division starts to falter, and probably is useful in relation to the district wards. Quite a creditable performance especially in the light of the candidate withdrawal in St Marks ( anyone know what that was about ,by the way?) 

[Merseymike]

Jan 11, 2019 11:05:33 GMT yellowperil said:

Jan 11, 2019 9:31:57 GMT Chris from Brum said:

It's ALDC, they do like to puff up LD performances wherever possible.  "Clear" third place may have been better.  But it certainly beats losing over half your vote share and dropping into fourth place only just ahead of the Greens

Well ,quite, strong was never going to be the right word. But there could be argued there were two contests going on here, the real one between the Tories and the Indy, won comfortably by the latter, and the fun one, a 4 way fight for the minor places. Lib Dems won that minor consolation prize, which could be significant if ever the Indy grip on this division starts to falter, and probably is useful in relation to the district wards. Quite a creditable performance especially in the light of the candidate withdrawal in St Marks ( anyone know what that was about ,by the way?) 

When an independent wins so comfortably those minor party sub-contests just aren't relevant
The problem the LibDems have -still - is that outside a few seats they aren't going to be viewed as national contenders. Local elections, sure, but that doesn't make a lot of difference in national terms and can be quite easily list. Look at Maidenhead where they looked like serious contenders and can still come second in many wards but niw third at national level.

[The Bishop]

LibDems only stood in one contest, but likely did some campaigning for it. Labour contested both, but perhaps as paper candidates only?

[yellowperil]

Jan 11, 2019 11:13:48 GMT Merseymike said:

Jan 11, 2019 11:05:33 GMT yellowperil said:

Well ,quite, strong was never going to be the right word. But there could be argued there were two contests going on here, the real one between the Tories and the Indy, won comfortably by the latter, and the fun one, a 4 way fight for the minor places. Lib Dems won that minor consolation prize, which could be significant if ever the Indy grip on this division starts to falter, and probably is useful in relation to the district wards. Quite a creditable performance especially in the light of the candidate withdrawal in St Marks ( anyone know what that was about ,by the way?) 

When an independent wins so comfortably those minor party sub-contests just aren't relevant
The problem the LibDems have -still - is that outside a few seats they aren't going to be viewed as national contenders. Local elections, sure, but that doesn't make a lot of difference in national terms and can be quite easily list. Look at Maidenhead where they looked like serious contenders and can still come second in many wards but niw third at national level.

In one sense it would be foolish to deny there is some truth in what you say.  But I think it betrays certain weaknesses of thought, if I may say so, which typifies the "major" parties.  "Relevance" is thought of  in terms of national not local politics, being a "national contender" is all that matters. But changes at local level can really still be significant, I would certainly want to contend, and can sometimes come about relatively quickly.Nevertheless the other limitation in your approach seems to me  rather short-termist. Lib Dems have to put down roots and hope for results over a substantial period of time - the lifetime of a particular activist, maybe. If it takes that long so be it, and if it doesn't work, well we have done our best. Instant results are the ones that are illusory.

[Merseymike]

Jan 11, 2019 11:51:51 GMT yellowperil said:

Jan 11, 2019 11:13:48 GMT Merseymike said:

When an independent wins so comfortably those minor party sub-contests just aren't relevant
The problem the LibDems have -still - is that outside a few seats they aren't going to be viewed as national contenders. Local elections, sure, but that doesn't make a lot of difference in national terms and can be quite easily list. Look at Maidenhead where they looked like serious contenders and can still come second in many wards but niw third at national level.

In one sense it would be foolish to deny there is some truth in what you say.  But I think it betrays certain weaknesses of thought, if I may say so, which typifies the "major" parties.  "Relevance" is thought of  in terms of national not local politics, being a "national contender" is all that matters. But changes at local level can really still be significant, I would certainly want to contend, and can sometimes come about relatively quickly.Nevertheless the other limitation in your approach seems to me  rather short-termist. Lib Dems have to put down roots and hope for results over a substantial period of time - the lifetime of a particular activist, maybe. If it takes that long so be it, and if it doesn't work, well we have done our best. Instant results are the ones that are illusory.

And of course when the LibDems have done well nationally it is on the back of local success. However it doesn't happen everywhere. When I lived in Liverpool Walton they held a majority of councillors but they never came anywhere near winning nationally.
And once they have lost that impetus it's hard to get it back. Look at how far behind they are in some seats they once held and not long ago.
Some seats where they are close may not be so with a different candidate? Will they win St Ives without Andrew George, for example, given Labour's success in some parts of the seat and the lack of LibDem presence in other Cornish seats? Labour are now much more likely to win in two of the seats and the Tories look pretty safe in the others.