|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Feb 17, 2017 0:27:07 GMT
Elsenham & Henham:
RES 59.3% (+32.1)
LDEM 22.5% (-24.2)
CON 10.0% (-11.0)
UKIP 4.8% (+4.8)
LAB 2.8% (-2.3)
GRN 0.6% (+0.6)
Top vote method.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,766
|
Post by mboy on Feb 17, 2017 0:57:34 GMT
Owch. Resident steamroller.
From LDV:
|
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Feb 17, 2017 2:05:42 GMT
Sitting here in Sydney some 11 hours ahead of the UK, I would make several observations:- a. It is a whole lot easier looking at figures in mid/late morning by strolling in from sunbathing than lying in bed waiting for late night results.  b. I have some sympathy with MBoy for his comments about Lib Dem performance in the run up to these by-elections vis-a-vis Richmond. c. MBoy should however beware, there seems to be an anti-establishment thread running through these results-Forest of Dean, Bollington and Saffron Walden. Do the LDs do well where they are the nearest to anti-establishment option? I, for one, will not be making projections for Stoke Central and Copeland on the back of tonight (sorry this morning). I'll just return to my glass of red and 33 degrees |
|
|
|
Post by into_oblivion on Feb 17, 2017 2:35:00 GMT
Elsenham and Henham: 2 x Residents4Uttlesford gain from Liberal Democrat Not wholly surprising. There are hyper-local trends that affected this result, specifically that Uttlesford is being taken over by an oddly well-organised Resident's Group! Residents 4 Uttlesford are in the vein of the Loughton Residents Association, taking around 9 seats on the DC at the last full council election (2015). It seems as if nothing can stand in the way of the residents... not even Tim Farron! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 17, 2017 7:30:29 GMT
Owch. Resident steamroller. From LDV: [br Yes, this explains why councillors of all parties tend to routinely oppose all housing developments... It is easy to dismiss this as NIMBYism, and where all new housing is opposed it certainly is.. But it is also true that virtually all new proposals are developer led because most council planning departments do not have the resources to rationally allocate land to development. Hence the proposals reflect patterns of land ownership and greed rather than what is best for a community or district... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 17, 2017 8:14:18 GMT
a disappointing night for LibDems,certainly,but a great night for anti-establishment parties generally. Unlucky for the LibDems to hit upon a double election in one of the few places they might be seen as the establishment. I would think the LibDems should certainly worry if hey show signs of weakening when the main opponent is Conservatives or Labour - ok in Burton- so tonight's result in Wokingham becomes critical,I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by froome on Feb 17, 2017 8:44:55 GMT
From Britain Elects Lydbrook & Ruardean (Forest of Dean) result: GRN: 35.3% (+27.9) LDEM: 24.3% (+24.3) LAB: 22.7% (-2.0) UKIP: 11.1% (-12.2) CON: 6.6% (-11.6) Even I was not expecting this...but then again with such a close result in that ward in 2015, anything could have happened. Unexpected yes, but the local Greens realised that the seat could be won, and campaigned accordingly. It is worth noting that: a) There was no Independent candidate. b) None of the candidates lived in the ward. I suspect that if either of the above had been different, there would have been a different result. Although the Labour vote only went down slightly, they ought to be concerned at ceding second place to the Conservatives, which shows how much the Forest is moving away from Labour demographically. But an important result for us and we will now have group status here, and well placed for the county elections in May. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 9:00:06 GMT
a disappointing night for LibDems,certainly,but a great night for anti-establishment parties generally. Unlucky for the LibDems to hit upon a double election in one of the few places they might be seen as the establishment. I would think the LibDems should certainly worry if hey show signs of weakening when the main opponent is Conservatives or Labour - ok in Burton- so tonight's result in Wokingham becomes critical,I would say. I'm not sure how Residents Associations count as anti-establishment tbh. The Greens possibly. The Lib Dems in Uttlesford have just been out localised . If they fail to win Wokingham it would be a huge shock - all they have to do is fall over the line - but even then it would hardly be the end of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Feb 17, 2017 9:04:13 GMT
Yellowperil, I'm not sure the Lib Dems can be described as the establishment in Uttlesford. They only have 4 cllrs out of 39 (please see Middleenglander's report above). Just that others are more 'anti-establishment'
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 9:08:32 GMT
Owch. Resident steamroller. From LDV: [br Yes, this explains why councillors of all parties tend to routinely oppose all housing developments... It is easy to dismiss this as NIMBYism, and where all new housing is opposed it certainly is.. But it is also true that virtually all new proposals are developer led because most council planning departments do not have the resources to rationally allocate land to development. Hence the proposals reflect patterns of land ownership and greed rather than what is best for a community or district... I'm not sure it's an issue of planners not having resources - it isn't really their job. Or rather you can write planning documents suggesting such things, but all applications have to be entered individually and are almost bound to run into trouble from residents who don't want any more development. Extra social housing or private starter homes may well be in the best interest of the community but people will oppose them just the same. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,766
|
Post by mboy on Feb 17, 2017 9:38:20 GMT
That's true, but ion the "good old days" (which actually werent that good) it was more normal for a council to come forward with a well developed and consulted "master plan" for a big development, and then work to find a developer willing to develop it. That tended to produce better designed estates.
|
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826 
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 10:02:52 GMT
[br Yes, this explains why councillors of all parties tend to routinely oppose all housing developments... It is easy to dismiss this as NIMBYism, and where all new housing is opposed it certainly is.. But it is also true that virtually all new proposals are developer led because most council planning departments do not have the resources to rationally allocate land to development. Hence the proposals reflect patterns of land ownership and greed rather than what is best for a community or district... I'm not sure it's an issue of planners not having resources - it isn't really their job. Or rather you can write planning documents suggesting such things, but all applications have to be entered individually and are almost bound to run into trouble from residents who don't want any more development. Extra social housing or private starter homes may well be in the best interest of the community but people will oppose them just the same. Housing development needs to be community led, and have full community involvement from started to finish. House builders arnt philanthropist, they arnt interested in the needs of the community, their objective is to make as much money from the land they buy up. Of course people are going to protest, even if the houses builders say we will include x number of 'affordable homes', what an expression, that one expression 'affordable homes', sings out whats wrong with our housing market, all houses should be affordable. What we need is for an end to land banking, a break up of large houses builders, more help for self builders and community land trusts. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 17, 2017 10:07:00 GMT
I'm not sure it's an issue of planners not having resources - it isn't really their job. Or rather you can write planning documents suggesting such things, but all applications have to be entered individually and are almost bound to run into trouble from residents who don't want any more development. Extra social housing or private starter homes may well be in the best interest of the community but people will oppose them just the same. Housing development needs to be community led, and have full community involvement from started to finish. House builders arnt philanthropist, they arnt interested in the needs of the community, their objective is to make as much money from the land they buy up. Of course people are going to protest, even if the houses builders say we will include x number of 'affordable homes', what an expression, that one expression 'affordable homes', sings out whats wrong with our housing market, all houses should be affordable. What we need is for an end to land banking, a break up of large houses builders, more help for self builders and community land trusts. but what if the community objects to the community building houses? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Feb 17, 2017 10:14:38 GMT
Shouldn't we already have the Wokingham results by now? It's a small ward and it's quite compact, shouldn't take long to count.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 17, 2017 10:29:26 GMT
Shouldn't we already have the Wokingham results by now? It's a small ward and it's quite compact, shouldn't take long to count. Ask again in about 12 hours.. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 10:42:41 GMT
Housing development needs to be community led, and have full community involvement from started to finish. House builders arnt philanthropist, they arnt interested in the needs of the community, their objective is to make as much money from the land they buy up. Of course people are going to protest, even if the houses builders say we will include x number of 'affordable homes', what an expression, that one expression 'affordable homes', sings out whats wrong with our housing market, all houses should be affordable. What we need is for an end to land banking, a break up of large houses builders, more help for self builders and community land trusts. but what if the community objects to the community building houses? Where development meets local needs there will be far fewer angry protesters, where developments are community led, either self build, local cooperatives or small builders who know the local area and have the areas interests at heart, then the vast majority will be supportive. NIMBYism should in many ways be celebrated, it is anti-globalisation on a human and community scale, lets not get sucked into the argument that big housing developments will help the family living in 2 rooms with water running down the walls, the homes built will be open market homes that will do nothing to solve the crisis of people in real housing need. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Feb 17, 2017 10:45:49 GMT
Shouldn't we already have the Wokingham results by now? It's a small ward and it's quite compact, shouldn't take long to count. Ask again in about 12 hours.. Oh. Thanks Pete. Perhaps my husband is right and I should get my eyes checked. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 17, 2017 10:46:10 GMT
but what if the community objects to the community building houses? Where development meets local needs there will be far fewer angry protesters, where developments are community led, either self build, local cooperatives or small builders who know the local area and have the areas interests at heart, then the vast majority will be supportive. NIMBYism should in many ways be celebrated, it is anti-globalisation on a human and community scale, lets not get sucked into the argument that big housing developments will help the family living in 2 rooms with water running down the walls, the homes built will be open market homes that will do nothing to solve the crisis of people in real housing need. But the people moving to new "open market homes" will be vacating other homes which may well be suitable for the example of the family which you gave. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 17, 2017 10:47:21 GMT
Housing development needs to be community led, and have full community involvement from started to finish. House builders arnt philanthropist, they arnt interested in the needs of the community, their objective is to make as much money from the land they buy up. Of course people are going to protest, even if the houses builders say we will include x number of 'affordable homes', what an expression, that one expression 'affordable homes', sings out whats wrong with our housing market, all houses should be affordable. What we need is for an end to land banking, a break up of large houses builders, more help for self builders and community land trusts. but what if the community objects to the community building houses? Buy the land. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 10:56:53 GMT
Where development meets local needs there will be far fewer angry protesters, where developments are community led, either self build, local cooperatives or small builders who know the local area and have the areas interests at heart, then the vast majority will be supportive. NIMBYism should in many ways be celebrated, it is anti-globalisation on a human and community scale, lets not get sucked into the argument that big housing developments will help the family living in 2 rooms with water running down the walls, the homes built will be open market homes that will do nothing to solve the crisis of people in real housing need. But the people moving to new "open market homes" will be vacating other homes which may well be suitable for the example of the family which you gave. If the housing market worked in the interests of everyone, then that would happen, but unfortunately the housing system works in favour of powerful vested interests, economics textbooks describe the workings of the perfect market, unfortunately real life and economics textbooks are very different. |
|
