maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Feb 17, 2017 23:54:00 GMT
WOKINGHAM Emmbrook Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Liberal Democrat, 1,575 Kevin Morgan, Conservative, 879 Phil Ray, UK Independence Party, 104 Chris Everett, Labour, 79 LD 59.7% (+16.6) Con 33.3% (-10.2) UKIP 3.9% Lab 3.0% (-6.2) |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Feb 18, 2017 0:06:26 GMT
Cheshire East, Bollington - Bollington First gain from Conservative
| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2015 "top" | since 2015 "average" | since 2011 "top" | since 2011 "average" | | Bollington First | 939 | 50.6% | +13.4% | +15.5% | +27.3% | +27.0% | Conservative | 319 | 17.2% | -13.4% | -14.7% | -6.8% | -7.6% | Labour | 239 | 12.9% | -8.6% | -9.7% | -10.1% | -9.9% | Liberal Democrat | 198 | 10.7% | -0.2% | +0.1% | -2.2% | -0.7% | Green | 162 | 8.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | Independent |
|
|
|
| -17.0% | -17.5% | Total votes | 1,857 |
| 40% | 42% | 55% | 57% |
Swing Conservative to Bollington First ~ 13½% / 15% since 2015 and ~ 17% / 17¼% since 2011 Council now 51 Conservative, 16 Labour, 9 Residents, 4 Independent, 2 Liberal Democrat
Dudley, St Thomas's - Labour hold
| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2016 | since 2015 | since 2014 | since 2012 | | Labour | 1,466 | 60.6% | +0.3% | +3.2% | +9.6% | -8.4% | UKIP | 653 | 27.0% | -2.0% | +4.5% | -5.4% | +10.2% | Conservative | 249 | 10.3% | -0.4% | -5.4% | -3.1% | +0.1% | Green | 52 | 2.1% | from nowhere | -2.3% | -1.1% | -1.8% | Total votes | 2,420 |
| 73% | 41% | 71% | 78% |
Swing UKIP to Labour ~1¼% since 2016 and 7½% since 2014 but Labour to UKIP ~¾% since 2015 and 9¼% since 2012
Council now 35 Labour, 29 Conservative, 8 UKIP
East Staffordshire, Burton - Liberal Democrat hold
| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2015 | since 2011 | since 2007 | Liberal Democrat | 271 | 52.7% | +5.4% | +5.6% | +5.7% | Labour | 127 | 24.7% | -5.2% | -7.0% | -9.1% | UKIP | 60 | 11.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | Conservative | 56 | 10.9% | -11.9% | -10.3% | -8.2% | Total votes | 514 |
| 43% | 61% | 77% |
Swing Labour to Liberal Democrat ~ 5¼% since 2015,~ 6¼% since 2011 and ~7½% since 2007
Council now 25 Conservative, 13 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat
Forest of Dean, Lydbrook & Ruardean - Green gain from UKIP
| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2015 "top" | since 2015 "average" | since 2011 "top" | since 2015 "average" | Green | 360 | 35.3% | +19.3% | +18.4% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Conservative | 248 | 24.3% | +7.9% | +7.6% | +10.1% | +11.2% | Labour | 231 | 22.7% | +0.3% | +2.5% | -7.0% | -6.4% | UKIP | 113 | 11.1% | -10.0% | -9.7% | -9.1% | -9.7% | Liberal Democrat | 67 | 6.6% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | Independent |
|
| -24.0% | -25.3% | -35.9% | -37.0% | Total votes | 1,019 |
| 26% | 28% | 38% | 39% |
Swing not meaningful
Council now 21 Conservative, 13 Labour, 7 Independent, 5 UKIP, 2 Green
Oldham, Failsworth East, Labour hold
| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2016 | since 2015 | since 2014 | since 2012 B | since 2012 | | Labour | 829 | 58.4% | -7.3% | +4.0% | +11.3% | -20.7% | -26.5% | Conservative | 360 | 25.4% | +1.6% | +8.2% | +12.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | UKIP | 166 | 11.7% | from nowhere | -12.0% | -23.3% | -2.1% | from nowhere | Green | 49 | 3.5% | -4.3% | +0.2% | -0.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Liberal Democrat | 16 | 1.1% | -1.8% | -0.4% | +0.1% | -6.1% | -14.0% | Total votes | 1,420 |
| 66% | 30% | 63% | 94% | 76% |
Swing Labour to Conservative ~4½% since 2016 and 2.1% since 2015
Council now 46 Labour, 9 Liberal Democrat, 2 Conservative, 2 Independent, 1 UKIP
Uttlesford, Elsenham & Henham - 2 residents gain from Liberal Democrat| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2015 "top" | since 2015 "average" | | Residents * | 824+716 | 59.6% | +32.4% | -31.6% | Liberal Democrats | 316+259 | 22.1% | -24.5% | -23.5% | Conservative | 141+120 | 10.0% | -11.0% | -11.3% | UKIP | 68+64 | 5.1% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Labour | 39+28 | 2.6% | -2.5% | -2.5% | Green | 8+6 | 0.5% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Total votes | 2,599 |
| 60% | 62% |
* top candidate in by-election stood as sole Independent in 2015 Swing Liberal Democrat to Residents Independent 28½% / 27½% since 2015 Council now 23 Conservative, 11 Residents, 4 Liberal Democrat, 1 Independent Wokingham, Emmbrook - Liberal Democrat gain from Conservative| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2016 | since 2015 | since 2014 | since 2012 | Liberal Democrat | 1,575 | 59.7% | +16.6% | +25.0% | +22.6% | +46.1% | Conservative | 879 | 33.3% | -10.2% | -9.9% | -4.2% | -22.9% | UKIP | 104 | 3.9% | from nowhere | -5.1% | -11.5% | -11.5% | Labour | 79 | 3.0% | -6.2% | -5.4% | -6.9% | -11.7% | Green |
|
| -4.2% | -4.7% |
|
| Total votes | 2,637 |
| 93% | 53% | 91% | 123% |
Swing Conservative to Liberal Democrat ~13½% since 2016 and 2014, ~17½% since 2015 and 34½% since 2012
- the new Councillor was the Liberal Democrat candidate in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and was a Parliamentary candidate in 2015.
Council now 46 Conservative, 6 Liberal Democrat, 1 Labour, 1 Independent
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 18, 2017 0:12:07 GMT
that seems to suggest that the LibDems are still in top form against both Conservatives and Labour whatever happens against the nimby party This might not have been the case in Burton or Wokingham this week, but... I'm afraid that all too often in my local experience, Lib Dems do well when they are the NIMBYs (or at least appear to be on their side). When this tactic isn't employed by independents, it seems to be passed off as 'pavement politics'. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Feb 18, 2017 0:43:06 GMT
The green belt certainly ought to be reviewed every 15 years or so. If it's felt there's a need to take a few bites out of it, that can be compensated for elsewhere (i.e. the green belt can move outwards very slowly). I think green belt should be used to slow expansion, not to stop it.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 18, 2017 9:00:53 GMT
that seems to suggest that the LibDems are still in top form against both Conservatives and Labour whatever happens against the nimby party This might not have been the case in Burton or Wokingham this week, but... I'm afraid that all too often in my local experience, Lib Dems do well when they are the NIMBYs (or at least appear to be on their side). When this tactic isn't employed by independents, it seems to be passed off as 'pavement politics'. yes its true that one person's nimbyism is the next person's pavement politics, and the line between them is fine. I'm sure some Lib Dems have stepped over the line at some point, I suspect we nearly all of us (not just Lib Dems) have. (Actually I know some Lib Dems who have taken what seems like a cussed delight in standing up to the prevailing view of their constituents and still get elected in spite of it). Most of us(whatever party) try to factor in the opinions of our constituents and don't set out needlessly to antagonise them. To my mind you cross the line if (a) you try to dump your local problem on to another community,and/or (b) you claim to be able to solve problems not under your control to solve My understanding (not from first hand) is that both of those conditions may have been breached at Uttlesford |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Feb 18, 2017 12:05:48 GMT
You can also end up with contradictory policies that can make you look stupid to the public at large .
For example , a supposedly pro environment party makes a big fuss about keeping road verges tightly mown " for safety reasons " . Doing so would however destroy the only colonies of the Small Blue butterfly in the area as the repetitive mowing will kill off the Kidney Vetch on which their caterpillars feed .
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,021
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 18, 2017 12:58:03 GMT
After Imogen getting ontothe council and Rachel Shepherd-DuBey already being on there, are there any other wife/wife teams on any council we know of?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Feb 18, 2017 14:24:16 GMT
More still water in Wokingham. Liberal wave this time. 2 Resident Group waves, one Green wave. "Riding along on the crest of a wave..." Tories all at sea. Labour stuck in the mud. Might change a bit after next week.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 18, 2017 18:03:55 GMT
The green belt certainly ought to be reviewed every 15 years or so. If it's felt there's a need to take a few bites out of it, that can be compensated for elsewhere (i.e. the green belt can move outwards very slowly). I think green belt should be used to slow expansion, not to stop it. That's utterly sensible. Ever thought of getting involved in politics? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 18, 2017 18:06:59 GMT
After Imogen getting ontothe council and Rachel Shepherd-DuBey already being on there, are there any other wife/wife teams on any council we know of? No. But the recent Madeley (Staffs) byelection was (I am informed) won by the (male) partner of the ward's other (male) councillor. Not sure if they're married/ in a civil partnership, or just living in sin.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 18:48:50 GMT
After Imogen getting ontothe council and Rachel Shepherd-DuBey already being on there, are there any other wife/wife teams on any council we know of? No. But the recent Madeley (Staffs) byelection was (I am informed) won by the (male) partner of the ward's other (male) councillor. Not sure if they're married/ in a civil partnership, or just living in sin. "Fabulous here!" |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Feb 18, 2017 19:37:10 GMT
I think it is all what I call slack water. The national opinion polls may or may not be right showing a big Tory lead for a General Election. But everyone's vote is very soft in many areas.
If someone comes along to make a big wave in these local by-elections, and no-one else is doing much, they win the seat - here we have two LD wins, 2 residents group wins (3 seats), and a Green win. No Tories again and Labour win in two safe stuck-in-the-mud sorts of areas with no serious opposition. UKIP continue to flop in most places.
For us LDs the good news is that the hard resistance to good campaigns by us continues to dissipate. The bad news is that there is no automatic swing to us.
The parliamentary by-elections on Thursday may or may not show something different and they may or may not reset the national picture. I have no real idea what is going to happen.
I think Copeland will be more "normal" than Stoke Central and may be a tightish contest between Labour and Conservative, not least because it's a remote and traditional part of the world. I guess that Labour will hold on, perhaps because we are able to pick up enough Tory votes in the Keswick/Lake District part of the seat.
In Stoke, who will bother to vote? Turnout 25-30%? Someone wins with
6-7000 votes? The national media have obviously gone to report it with preconceived notions that it's tight between Labour and UKIP and adapt what they see there to fit with those preconceptions. But the people who go to talk to "real voters" seem to be saying that loads of people will not bother to vote for anyone.
In particular there seems to be little hard evidence (as opposed to media expectation and invention) that UKIP are mounting a vigorous campaign on the ground.
???I really would not know who to put money on if I ever bet on elections, which I do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 18, 2017 19:59:22 GMT
In Stoke, who will bother to vote? Turnout 25-30%? Someone wins with 6-7000 votes? The national media have obviously gone to report it with preconceived notions that it's tight between Labour and UKIP and adapt what they see there to fit with those preconceptions. But the people who go to talk to "real voters" seem to be saying that loads of people will not bother to vote for anyone. In particular there seems to be little hard evidence (as opposed to media expectation and invention) that UKIP are mounting a vigorous campaign on the ground. ???I really would not know who to put money on if I ever bet on elections, which I do not. As somebody on here has already said (Armchair Critic ?) the candidates for Labour and UKIP seem to be in a contest to see who can lose the most support - a sort of political slow cycle race. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 18, 2017 20:57:48 GMT
In Stoke, who will bother to vote? Turnout 25-30%? Someone wins with 6-7000 votes? The national media have obviously gone to report it with preconceived notions that it's tight between Labour and UKIP and adapt what they see there to fit with those preconceptions. But the people who go to talk to "real voters" seem to be saying that loads of people will not bother to vote for anyone. In particular there seems to be little hard evidence (as opposed to media expectation and invention) that UKIP are mounting a vigorous campaign on the ground. ???I really would not know who to put money on if I ever bet on elections, which I do not. As somebody on here has already said (Armchair Critic ?) the candidates for Labour and UKIP seem to be in a contest to see who can lose the most support - a sort of political slow cycle race. People keep saying that, but a few embarrassing (and often rather ancient) tweets don't really compare to Nuttall's wondrous litany - do they? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 18, 2017 21:24:12 GMT
As somebody on here has already said (Armchair Critic ?) the candidates for Labour and UKIP seem to be in a contest to see who can lose the most support - a sort of political slow cycle race. People keep saying that, but a few embarrassing (and often rather ancient) tweets don't really compare to Nuttall's wondrous litany - do they? I think that they are considerably worse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 21:35:00 GMT
As somebody on here has already said (Armchair Critic ?) the candidates for Labour and UKIP seem to be in a contest to see who can lose the most support - a sort of political slow cycle race. People keep saying that, but a few embarrassing (and often rather ancient) tweets don't really compare to Nuttall's wondrous litany - do they? Gareth Snell - at least via his Twitter persona - comes across as a bit of a knob: lightweight, uncouth and unpleasant. I think Nuttall's problem is worse, if only because it keeps ramifying, and paints a consistent picture which is not helpful to a politician. Also, he wholly lacks the capacity of a Farage or Trump to bluster his way out of trouble. However, the interesting question is how much awareness of the candidates' failings is there among the minority of the electorate who will actually vote? To the extent these stories have impinged on their consciousness, how much weight will they give them compared to wider political issues? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 18, 2017 21:45:36 GMT
People keep saying that, but a few embarrassing (and often rather ancient) tweets don't really compare to Nuttall's wondrous litany - do they? Gareth Snell - at least via his Twitter persona - comes across as a bit of a knob: lightweight, uncouth and unpleasant. Nuttall's problem is worse, and he wholly lacks the capacity of a Farage or Trump to bluster his way out of trouble. However, the interesting question is how much awareness of the candidates' failings is there among the minority of the electorate who will actually vote? To the extent these stories have impinged on their consciousness, how much weight will they give them compared to wider political issues? In retrospect maybe Nuttall shouldn't have listened to the siren voices telling him to stand in this by election to prove his political virility, but it must have been difficult to resist. this is a good question. I suspect the minutiae will escape most people or they will ignore it - the general impression will be enough. After the first one (in either case) unless something much,much worse comes out people have factored it in and made their decision. Slightly different, but this harks back to Trump - liberals thought that every extra remark that was dug up would detach another group of people from supporting him. It didn't - as they were much the same those that found it offensive, still found it offensive and those that didn't ignored the rest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2017 22:03:27 GMT
Gareth Snell - at least via his Twitter persona - comes across as a bit of a knob: lightweight, uncouth and unpleasant. Nuttall's problem is worse, and he wholly lacks the capacity of a Farage or Trump to bluster his way out of trouble. However, the interesting question is how much awareness of the candidates' failings is there among the minority of the electorate who will actually vote? To the extent these stories have impinged on their consciousness, how much weight will they give them compared to wider political issues? In retrospect maybe Nuttall shouldn't have listened to the siren voices telling him to stand in this by election to prove his political virility, but it must have been difficult to resist. this is a good question. I suspect the minutiae will escape most people or they will ignore it - the general impression will be enough. After the first one (in either case) unless something much,much worse comes out people have factored it in and made their decision. Slightly different, but this harks back to Trump - liberals thought that every extra remark that was dug up would detach another group of people from supporting him. It didn't - as they were much the same those that found it offensive, still found it offensive and those that didn't ignored the rest. I suspect there's one important difference: Trump's outrageousness was seen by those susceptible to his message as a sign of authenticity and strength. It actually energised them, and they cheered him on in his relentless trolling of people they hated. In Stoke we have two candidates who demonstrate competing varieties of weakness. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 18, 2017 22:06:01 GMT
In retrospect maybe Nuttall shouldn't have listened to the siren voices telling him to stand in this by election to prove his political virility, but it must have been difficult to resist. this is a good question. I suspect the minutiae will escape most people or they will ignore it - the general impression will be enough. After the first one (in either case) unless something much,much worse comes out people have factored it in and made their decision. Slightly different, but this harks back to Trump - liberals thought that every extra remark that was dug up would detach another group of people from supporting him. It didn't - as they were much the same those that found it offensive, still found it offensive and those that didn't ignored the rest. I suspect there's one important difference: Trump's outrageousness was seen by those susceptible to his message as a sign of authenticity and strength. It actually energised them, and they cheered him on in his relentless trolling of people they hated. In Stoke we have two candidates who demonstrate competing varieties of weakness. Quite so - it actually became an advantage, especially in a presidential election where issues of localism and succeeding somebody more popular didn't come into it. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 18, 2017 22:46:35 GMT
This might not have been the case in Burton or Wokingham this week, but... I'm afraid that all too often in my local experience, Lib Dems do well when they are the NIMBYs (or at least appear to be on their side). When this tactic isn't employed by independents, it seems to be passed off as 'pavement politics'. yes its true that one person's nimbyism is the next person's pavement politics, and the line between them is fine. I'm sure some Lib Dems have stepped over the line at some point, I suspect we nearly all of us (not just Lib Dems) have. (Actually I know some Lib Dems who have taken what seems like a cussed delight in standing up to the prevailing view of their constituents and still get elected in spite of it). Most of us(whatever party) try to factor in the opinions of our constituents and don't set out needlessly to antagonise them. To my mind you cross the line if (a) you try to dump your local problem on to another community,and/or (b) you claim to be able to solve problems not under your control to solve My understanding (not from first hand) is that both of those conditions may have been breached at Uttlesford A fair response. In my case there were a couple of local examples that spring to mind which to me clearly go beyond 'pavement politics' and cross the line into NIMBYism. One relates to a supposed 'green Lib Dem' former MP cheerleading those who opposed a wind farm development nearby, and the other involves a local councillor opposing the development of almost 1,000 much-needed new homes* and a supermarket at the edge of my parish. However, I of course accept that the situation differs across the country. Yes, it seems there's little doubt there were promises made in Uttlesford that cannot actually be carried out by two district councillors, but the localist micro-party will almost certainly never have justify themselves at a higher level of government, unlike the Lib Dems. *ETA: It's been pointed out by LD members on this forum that housing was going to be Tigger's main hook before Brexit came along. |
|
