|
|
Post by November_Rain on Sept 7, 2024 14:09:51 GMT
Thank you Pete. It was obviously the wards that make up Bristol Central were strong Green, the Tories vote very strong in Bishopsworth for Bristol South (most of their votes were from there) and the Lib Dems strong in Hengrove & Whitchurch Park in the same constituency (Lib Dem candidate one of the three local councillors). Throw in the Lib Dems strongest in the new constituency won by them, and Thornbury & Yate. Wells & Mendip Hills really is an odd constituency. I think Yatton and Congresbury would have been better off in Weston-super-Mare and I'd have ditched Hutton & Locking for W&MH.
What were the best Independent / Other wards in the region?
|
|
aslaw
Non-Aligned
Posts: 24
|
Post by aslaw on Sept 7, 2024 14:38:40 GMT
 | | Lab | Con | Grn | LD | Ref | Ind | Oth | | | | | | | | | | | | | Northavon | 24.7% | 29.9% | 5.6% | 25.7% | 14.1% |
|
| | | Kingswood | 45.3% | 25.7% | 8.1% | 5.2% | 14.6% | 0.5% | 0.6% | |
| | | | | | | | | | South Gloucestershire | 32.3% | 28.3% | 6.6% | 18.1% | 14.3% | 0.2% | 0.2% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Bristol | 42.6% | 11.1% | 31.3% | 5.7% | 7.4% | 1.2% | 0.7% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Bath | 18.3% | 15.5% | 12.6% | 41.5% | 7.6% | 4.0% | 0.5% | | | Wansdyke | 30.4% | 27.2% | 7.1% | 20.2% | 13.5% | 1.3% | 0.3% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Bath & NE Somerset | 24.9% | 21.8% | 9.6% | 29.9% | 10.8% | 2.6% | 0.4% | |
| | | | | | | | | | North Somerset | 33.0% | 30.7% | 6.1% | 15.8% | 13.7% | 0.6% | 0.1% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Avon | 34.9% | 21.4% | 16.0% | 15.2% | 11.0% | 1.0% | 0.4% | |
Great map, but your figures for South Gloucestershire are very doubtful. Perhaps if you swopped the Labour and LibDem percentages it might be more accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 7, 2024 14:45:38 GMT
| | Lab | Con | Grn | LD | Ref | Ind | Oth | | | | | | | | | | | | | Northavon | 24.7% | 29.9% | 5.6% | 25.7% | 14.1% |
|
| | | Kingswood | 45.3% | 25.7% | 8.1% | 5.2% | 14.6% | 0.5% | 0.6% | |
| | | | | | | | | | South Gloucestershire | 32.3% | 28.3% | 6.6% | 18.1% | 14.3% | 0.2% | 0.2% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Bristol | 42.6% | 11.1% | 31.3% | 5.7% | 7.4% | 1.2% | 0.7% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Bath | 18.3% | 15.5% | 12.6% | 41.5% | 7.6% | 4.0% | 0.5% | | | Wansdyke | 30.4% | 27.2% | 7.1% | 20.2% | 13.5% | 1.3% | 0.3% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Bath & NE Somerset | 24.9% | 21.8% | 9.6% | 29.9% | 10.8% | 2.6% | 0.4% | |
| | | | | | | | | | North Somerset | 33.0% | 30.7% | 6.1% | 15.8% | 13.7% | 0.6% | 0.1% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Avon | 34.9% | 21.4% | 16.0% | 15.2% | 11.0% | 1.0% | 0.4% | |
Great map, but your figures for South Gloucestershire are very doubtful. Perhaps if you swopped the Labour and LibDem percentages it might be more accurate. All of Filton & Bradley Stoke plus parts of Bristol NE and NE Somerset & Hanham are in South Gloucestershire. I am sure the Lab vote in those would outweigh the LD vote in Thornbury & Yate. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 9, 2024 11:05:21 GMT
I have a bit less confidence in my results the further West we go - partly because of a relative absence of useful local election data, more so because I often don't know the areas involved. I've been to one or two of the larger towns in Somerset but can't really fathom the rural areas, so it's difficult to know if a result 'feels' wrong, in the way I am able to in parts of the country I know well.  | | LD | Con | Ref | Lab | Grn | Ind | Oth | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sedgemoor | 22.8% | 29.7% | 19.9% | 21.5% | 4.1% | 1.7% | 0.3% | | | Mendip | 43.9% | 23.6% | 13.4% | 7.8% | 8.9% | 2.4% | | | | South Somerset | 45.5% | 26.4% | 16.2% | 6.2% | 5.1% | 0.7% |
| | | Taunton Deane | 47.2% | 25.5% | 16.0% | 7.2% | 3.9% |
| 0.2% | | | West Somerset | 35.1% | 35.3% | 16.9% | 8.3% | 4.4% |
| 0.0% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Somerset | 40.3% | 26.8% | 16.3% | 9.9% | 5.4% | 1.1% | 0.1% | |
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 9, 2024 11:16:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2024 16:20:54 GMT
Southampton as it used to be. Test is clearly the more Conservative seat. Itchen still better for Labour then.
I guess Rates were what peopled used to pay instead of council tax (pre-1993)?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 9, 2024 16:54:07 GMT
Southampton as it used to be. Test is clearly the more Conservative seat. Itchen still better for Labour then. I guess Rates were what peopled used to pay instead of council tax (pre-1993)? Yes. The rate was set by each local council as a percentage of the “rateable value” of the house, in other words the amount of income a house owner could get by renting out rooms. The system was set up in the old days when most people lived in homes which they rented. The theory was that the landlord charged rent from the tenants, and then paid a percentage of that rental income to the council. After many decades it evolved into a system whereby big houses paid more money, and smaller houses paid less money. But the system was still ostensibly based on the idea that the rates were paid to the council by the landlord, based on the notional idea that the landlord (the owner of the house) was renting it out to someone, and paying from that income. It also meant that the rateable value of a house had to be re-set every few decades to make adjustments in response to changes in the rental market. In the early/mid 1980s, a revaluation of “rateable value” of houses was long overdue, and was causing anguish among people who realised they would suddenly have to pay more money even though their house was still the same size. Therefore Margaret Thatcher’s government decided to change the system so that local authorities would be funded by people, nit by households - hence the “Community Charge” or “Poll Tax”. It was introduced in Scotland first, a year before England and Wales, because the Rates system was particularly out of date there. The Poll Tax was a complete disaster because it was a flat rate per person, not related to income. When the Poll Tax was abolished, it was replaced by a new “Council Tax” based on the value of the house rather than vague hypothetical ideas about rental income. In other words, it’s fairer in the sense that people who live in big houses tend to have bigger incomes anyway. I’m not an expert so others will adjust my explanation if I’ve got the details wrong |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 9, 2024 17:03:00 GMT
P.S. in the old days it was common for local groups of councillors to be called “Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association” or similar. In Croydon the last R.R. councillors were defeated in Thornton Heath ward in 1986, when they lost to three Labour candidates. It was the last ward not to have explicitly “Conservative” candidates standing.
The Ratepayers & Residents councillors (in various groups and combinations, from different wards, not always one monolithic group) usually (but not always) were in alliance with Conservative councillors. In Croydon the number of “Residents” councillors gradually diminished and were gradually replaced by “Conservative” councillors over several decades. There were a few (but not many) wards in which Residents’ candidates and Conservative candidates stood against each other.
No doubt in other areas the patterns were different, and “Ratepayers” councillors shouldn’t always be assumed to be a proxy label for de-facto Conservatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 9, 2024 17:33:30 GMT
I have a bit less confidence in my results the further West we go - partly because of a relative absence of useful local election data, more so because I often don't know the areas involved. I've been to one or two of the larger towns in Somerset but can't really fathom the rural areas, so it's difficult to know if a result 'feels' wrong, in the way I am able to in parts of the country I know well. | | LD | Con | Ref | Lab | Grn | Ind | Oth | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sedgemoor | 22.8% | 29.7% | 19.9% | 21.5% | 4.1% | 1.7% | 0.3% | | | Mendip | 43.9% | 23.6% | 13.4% | 7.8% | 8.9% | 2.4% | | | | South Somerset | 45.5% | 26.4% | 16.2% | 6.2% | 5.1% | 0.7% |
| | | Taunton Deane | 47.2% | 25.5% | 16.0% | 7.2% | 3.9% |
| 0.2% | | | West Somerset | 35.1% | 35.3% | 16.9% | 8.3% | 4.4% |
| 0.0% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Somerset | 40.3% | 26.8% | 16.3% | 9.9% | 5.4% | 1.1% | 0.1% | |
That is, as I would expect, excellent. As you say it’s a bit difficult when those wards haven’t been contested for 5 years, From my knowledge, I think the only ones that I would even start a debate on are - Im not sure the Conservatives carried anywhere in Yeovil constituency. In my mind it’s hard to believe the LDs won West Poldens, but they must have. How close do you have Burnham Central?- I wonder if the LDs might have been close there. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 9, 2024 17:35:38 GMT
P.S. in the old days it was common for local groups of councillors to be called “Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association” or similar. In Croydon the last R.R. councillors were defeated in Thornton Heath ward in 1986, when they lost to three Labour candidates. It was the last ward not to have explicitly “Conservative” candidates standing. The Ratepayers & Residents councillors (in various groups and combinations, from different wards, not always one monolithic group) usually (but not always) were in alliance with Conservative councillors. In Croydon the number of “Residents” councillors gradually diminished and were gradually replaced by “Conservative” councillors over several decades. There were a few (but not many) wards in which Residents’ candidates and Conservative candidates stood against each other. No doubt in other areas the patterns were different, and “Ratepayers” councillors shouldn’t always be assumed to be a proxy label for de-facto Conservatives. There is a chapter in King and Nugent's 1979 book "Respectable rebels - middle class campaigns in Britain in the 1970s" about Ratepayers Associations and candidates. Worth a read for the picture at that time, although obviously the concept goes back a lot further. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Sept 9, 2024 17:45:11 GMT
I have a bit less confidence in my results the further West we go - partly because of a relative absence of useful local election data, more so because I often don't know the areas involved. I've been to one or two of the larger towns in Somerset but can't really fathom the rural areas, so it's difficult to know if a result 'feels' wrong, in the way I am able to in parts of the country I know well. | | LD | Con | Ref | Lab | Grn | Ind | Oth | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sedgemoor | 22.8% | 29.7% | 19.9% | 21.5% | 4.1% | 1.7% | 0.3% | | | Mendip | 43.9% | 23.6% | 13.4% | 7.8% | 8.9% | 2.4% | | | | South Somerset | 45.5% | 26.4% | 16.2% | 6.2% | 5.1% | 0.7% |
| | | Taunton Deane | 47.2% | 25.5% | 16.0% | 7.2% | 3.9% |
| 0.2% | | | West Somerset | 35.1% | 35.3% | 16.9% | 8.3% | 4.4% |
| 0.0% | |
| | | | | | | | | | Somerset | 40.3% | 26.8% | 16.3% | 9.9% | 5.4% | 1.1% | 0.1% | |
That is, as I would expect, excellent. As you say it’s a bit difficult when those wards haven’t been contested for 5 years, From my knowledge, I think the only ones that I would even start a debate on are - Im not sure the Conservatives carried anywhere in Yeovil constituency. In my mind it’s hard to believe the LDs won West Poldens, but they must have. How close do you have Burnham Central?- I wonder if the LDs might have been close there. Both those Yeovil wards were virtually neck and neck. I had expecetd the Conservatives to be ahead in Blackdown ward as from memory that used to be their best ward on that seat, but they weren't all that close there. I have the the Lib Dems third in Burnham Central but its a three way marginal for second place (more or less 30/20/20/20) |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 9, 2024 18:15:28 GMT
Both those Yeovil wards were virtually neck and neck. I had expecetd the Conservatives to be ahead in Blackdown ward as from memory that used to be their best ward on that seat, but they weren't all that close there. I have the the Lib Dems third in Burnham Central but its a three way marginal for second place (more or less 30/20/20/20) I have heard that the LDs did a bit better in Burnham and Highbridge and polled poorly ( more than usual) in Bridgwater and fell back ( against the trend) in North Petherton. My working assumption is that of the 55 unitary council divisions, the LDs carried them all except Con: Dulverton & Exmoor, Cannington, N Petherton, Huntspill, Burnham North, Bridgwater E & Bawdrip, Highbridge & Burnham S (7) Lab: Bridgwater N, Bridgwater S (2) Bridgwater W- probably narrowly Lab, but close. Watchet and Stogursey- LD/ Con close |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,787 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 9, 2024 20:48:56 GMT
I guess Rates were what peopled used to pay instead of council tax (pre-1993)? ... Therefore Margaret Thatcher’s government decided to change the system so that local authorities would be funded by people, nit by households - hence the “Community Charge” or “Poll Tax”. It was introduced in Scotland first, a year before England and Wales, because the Rates system was particularly out of date there. The Poll Tax was a complete disaster because it was a flat rate per person, not related to income. And we're now at the point where the Council Tax valuation is even more out of date than the Rateable Value valuation was when it was abolished. *ANYTHING* that is based on property values /has/ to have frequent revaluations.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 9, 2024 20:55:21 GMT
... Therefore Margaret Thatcher’s government decided to change the system so that local authorities would be funded by people, nit by households - hence the “Community Charge” or “Poll Tax”. It was introduced in Scotland first, a year before England and Wales, because the Rates system was particularly out of date there. The Poll Tax was a complete disaster because it was a flat rate per person, not related to income. And we're now at the point where the Council Tax valuation is even more out of date than the Rateable Value valuation was when it was abolished. *ANYTHING* that is based on property values /has/ to have frequent revaluations. Why does it have to be? It’s based on house values as they were in 1990 (or based on what a similar house would have been in 1990). Why any need to base it on property values in 2024? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 9, 2024 21:04:20 GMT
Note that Rates revaluations were always unpopular. They were supposed to happen every five years if possible and absolutely never more than every 10 years, but frequently ended up getting delayed to stop the government being made unpopular. There had been a revaluation in 1934 which ended up lasting well beyond the end of the war, and the 1956 revaluation used the value of property as it had been in 1939. They then happened in 1963 and 1973 (to take effect at the same time as local government reorganisation).
Early moves for a rates revaluation began just before the change of government in 1979. One of the more amusing stories about Mrs Thatcher was that her Environment Secretary, one Michael Heseltine, went to her early in the new government and said "Margaret, we've got a big problem coming up with the rates revaluation". Thatcher just replied "There's no problem. We're not doing it." The DoE cancelled it and put out a press release telling people to rip up the forms they had been sent. And so the 1973 rating roll continued until 1990.
Scotland was different - the law only allowed rates revaluations to be delayed by one year at most. The 1984 revaluation was massively unpopular and was blamed for the Conservative poll collapse; it also converted Willie Whitelaw to favouring an end to the rates. So when the Poll Tax was proposed, almost all the Scottish Tories supported it, and introducing it quickly before the 1989 revaluation became a deadline. Can't remember how that worked out, though.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,802
|
Post by john07 on Sept 9, 2024 21:07:14 GMT
And we're now at the point where the Council Tax valuation is even more out of date than the Rateable Value valuation was when it was abolished. *ANYTHING* that is based on property values /has/ to have frequent revaluations. Why does it have to be? It’s based on house values as they were in 1990 (or based on what a similar house would have been in 1990). Why any need to base it on property values in 2024? It’s a major problem. Certain properties will increase in value at a faster rate than others. Leaving things as they are is probably the line of least resistance. Revaluation will lead to winners and losers. The winners will feel smug and say nothing. The losers will moan long and loud. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,787
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 9, 2024 21:23:08 GMT
And we're now at the point where the Council Tax valuation is even more out of date than the Rateable Value valuation was when it was abolished. *ANYTHING* that is based on property values /has/ to have frequent revaluations. Why does it have to be? It’s based on house values as they were in 1990 (or based on what a similar house would have been in 1990). Why any need to base it on property values in 2024? Because you're paying tax in 2024.
The mortgage I got in 2008 was 60% loan to value based on the value of the property in 2008, not 350% loan to value based on the value in 1992 when I bought it.
Edit: Here's a thought! Assess my income tax based on my income in 1992!
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,138
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 9, 2024 21:35:04 GMT
Here's a thought! Assess my income tax based on my income in 1992!
That's the year I turned eight, so I fully support the proposal to make that the general cut-off year until such time as the tax system is equitably reformed. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Sept 10, 2024 1:35:08 GMT
And we're now at the point where the Council Tax valuation is even more out of date than the Rateable Value valuation was when it was abolished. *ANYTHING* that is based on property values /has/ to have frequent revaluations. Why does it have to be? It’s based on house values as they were in 1990 (or based on what a similar house would have been in 1990). Why any need to base it on property values in 2024? If we based everything on the values of the 1990s I'd be very happy. Setting Council Tax prices in aspic for 30+ years makes very little sense, particularly in an age of so many 3/4/5+ bedroom homes being built on rabbit warren estates for 6-figure sums, a factor which hardly existed at the time of the original valuations. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,802
|
Post by john07 on Sept 10, 2024 1:45:38 GMT
Try telling that to someone whose rateable value has gone up by 800% and who probably thinks that he will have to pay eight times as much as before.
I don’t know what the answer to that is.
|
|
