By-election results from last two weeks

THIS WEEK'S RESULTS (7 August)

Conservatives held three seats in Maldon & East Chelmsford, Richmond (Yorks) and Nottingham South.

More details soon.

LAST WEEK'S RESULTS (31 July)

• Louth Wolds – Lincolnshire CC (Louth and Horncastle) – Con hold.  Con vote 50% + 13%, Lab 4% from nowhere, LD 15% -18%, IND 18% no change. BNP 11% from nowhere, UKIP 3% -9%
• Whickham South and Sunniside – Gateshead MBC (Blaydon) – LD hold.  Con vote 10% -8%, Lab 18% +4%, LD 73% +4%.
• Kirtlington – Cherwell DC (Henley) – Con hold unopposed.  LD had 27% previously.
• Oadby Uplands – Oadby and Wigston DC (Harborough) – LD hold.  Con vote 45% +16%, Lab did not stand -18%, LD 55% +2%.
• Witnesham – Suffolk Coastal DC (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) – Con hold.  Con vote 54% -28%, Lab did not stand -18%, LD 46% -from nowhere.
• Pentyrch – Cardiff UA (Pontypridd) – Con hold.   Con vote 42% +8%, Lab 41% +10%, LD 7% -1%, Ind did not stand  -7%, PC 8% -10%.

Comments

[Lee Martin]

The Whickham South & Sunniside result shows the problem we have in urban towns and cities where we've been wiped off the Council altogether. The ward is a prosperous middle class enclave and was once true blue.
Given a determined local candidate, a lot of hard work and some sound advice seats like this would start returning to their natural political home.

[Ross]

The results of last week look rather grim for the Tories, not that we should read anything in to local by-election statistics.

A vote share of 73% (and increasing at the expense of blue not red) suggests Whickham and Sunniside South is the "natural" territory of the Lib Dems, Mr Martin. I think it's quite arrogant for any party to assume "natural" ownership of any elector's support let alone that of a whole ward.

[David]

Ross, I think you are (deliberately?) misunderstanding Lee's point. He makes it quite clear that a local candidate and hard work is the only way back for the Tories in Whickham. I fail to see how that can be construed as arrogant?

Whickham may now look like natural territory for the Lib Dems, but it wasn't always so, and in many areas such wards would still be the natural territory of the Tories.

And apart from Whickham, how were last week's results grim for the Tories? They look pretty impressive to me.

[Ross]

I appreciate your point David, and I agree with Lee Martin's comments about what's required to win seats at such a micro level. The thrust of my point though was that we shouldn't terming areas "natural" territory for one party or the other as though we are still living in the 1950s or 1980s.

In terms of the grimness of the results, I based my assessment on this analysis:

Louth Wolds – good result

Whickham South and Sunniside – Tory vote almost halved

Kirtlington – no election so neither good nor bad in terms of Tory performance

Oadby Uplands – good given that nine of every ten previously Labour votes went Tory, but in line with polling expectations

Witnesham – Tory vote down 28%, LDs almost snatching a seat where they previously did not stand

Pentyrch – Swing of 1% from Conservative to
Labour

Given the national polls, not exactly a stellar performance.

[Matt Wright]

By-elections at such an ultra local level (district councils) are prone to all manner of local issues. If we were looking at a big sample, then some conclusions could be drawn. Maybe across say 30 or 40 local council by-elections.

[Andrew S]

"The results of last week look rather grim for the Tories, not that we should read anything in to local by-election statistics."

Sounds just like Labour after their recent council elections drubbing!

[Ben, Newark]

The result in Nottingham South - Wollaton West ward - is interesting because the Conservative share rose quite a lot and even the Labour vote share went up a bit, but the Lib Dem and UKIP votes collapsed. Wollaton West is a safe Conservative ward, made vacant by the death of the sitting councillor.

[anon]

A bit more on this week's results:

Maldon North ward in Maldon district council - caused by the resignation of Conservative councillor Brian Mead.

Result was a Conservative hold with a good increase in the Conservative share of the vote. Greens came second with no Labour or LibDem opponent.

Wollaton West ward in Nottingham city council - caused by the death of former Conservative group leader Michael Cowan.

Result was a Conservative hold with a reasonable increase in share of the vote.

Newsham with Eppleby ward in Richmondshire district council - caused by the resignation of Hamish Newhouse.

Result was a Conservative hold in a ward previously uncontested. Labour did not fight and the LibDems fought it for the first time. Richmondshire is the council which made headlines recently for its policy of making residents walk 2 miles to drop off their rubbish bags. Losing this seat would have resulted in the loss of overall control on the council.

All newly elected councillors (all Conservative!) serve until 2011.

[Anon]

Why did Hamish Newhouse resign so soon after being elected?

[Jimmy Russell]

What's going on in Richmondshire? Why did the sitting Councillor stand down?

Bloody risky having an unneccessary by-election at this time.

[Legal Eagle]

Sounds like a strange situation where an unnecessary by-election is called in William Hague's patch where we would have lost control of the Council if we had lost the by-election. This area has a strong tradition of Independent Councillors being elected so the national picture would not have necessarily protected us.

Would be interested to hear the reasons for such a by-election taking place.

[Ron McDonald]

I think Councillors who spark unnecessary by-elections should be liable for the cost of the recontest.

Its unfair that the ratepayer has to pick up the tab.

[F Mulder]

Presumably then this was less of a 'resignation' more of an ousting of dead weight. Risky, but brave given the previous one-seat majority.

[Taxpayer]

I hope he hasn't taken his personal allowance from his short "councillorship?"

[Tim Montgomerie]

The last four comments are all from the same IP address. Whoever you are, please don't use different names. I will ban you if you do so again.

[Irate in Richmondshire]

there's clearly something not quite right about the Richmondshire by-election!

F Mulder - if youo're right it shows real guts by the leader if she risked control of her council by ditching a bad councillor - let it be a message to underperforming councillors everywhere i say!

[Gareth Knight]

Some of these posts do raise an important point about the cost of councillors who mysteriously step down, be it through poor attendance or poor performance.

In essence, a councillor can legally take his or her allowance and a degree of expenses for six months while doing absolutely nothing. If they therefore become disqualified or resign just short of that time period or are seen by their group as being detrimental to the group, is there not a case for them not only paying for the cost to the party of the by-election but made to pay the actual cost to the council of the by-election itself.

At the very least such people should be expelled from the party and barred from public office for a number of years. If this was a company director who had gone bankrupt, that person cannot be a director of any company for some time - shouldn't the same apply when it comes to public money and public service?