As I posted earlier I received a briefing on the forthcoming local elections from a senior Tory official on Tuesday as part of an effort by the party to include the blogosphere within 'the information circle'. Listed below are some of the main points that emerged from the briefing and my own observations:
- This May's elections are the smallest set in the four year cycle in terms of the number of people entitled to vote. There are no elections in Scotland or Wales. They are mainly in English shire district councils (where 1,209 seats are being contested), English metropolitan district councils (815 seats) and London (1,861 seats). Click the graphic on the right for an enlarged pictorial view of the contested councils.
- There are also elections for four directly-elected mayors; in Hackney, Newham, Watford and Lewisham. James Cleverly, a ConservativeHome regular, is standing in Lewisham and click here for details of his launch party.
- Voting hours are being extended by two hours to 7am to 10pm - as in General Elections. This may increase turnout and will delay the announcement of results.
- The Conservatives led in the 'national equivalent vote share' in each of the last times in which May 4th's seats were contested so the party is starting from a high base.
- It hopes for the most advance in London where it currently holds 8 of 26 boroughs. It hopes to remove Labour from the chairmanship of the Association of London Government.
- In Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle - where the Tories hold no seats - expectations are low. In many seats the Tories are actually in fourth place - behind independents and old Liberal candidates (as well as Labour and the LibDems). The party hopes to reclaim second and third places in certain seats so that it has a more realistic chance of winning them in future elections.
- The LibDems are hoping to steal Solihull (where they won the General Election seat last year) and Richmond-upon-Thames (where we made spectacular gains four years ago) from the Tories.
- Top Tory targets are Bury, Coventry and Croydon. Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher - the respected local government watchers - say that 200 net councillor gains in London would indicate that the Conservatives were polling over 40% (the "minimum required for them to have even a chance of winning an overall Commons majority").
ConservativeHome hopes to cover the local elections closely. It would be great if we could have regular reports from the canvassing frontline. If you are out knocking on doors - of an evening or over a weekend - and would like to email thoughts to me please do. It would be great to get doorstep observations...
...about David Cameron and Tony Blair...
...What national issues are coming up...
...and insights into the particularities of local campaigns...
If you want to sign up to file one report as part of a wider roster of nightly postings - in a similar way to people posted on the leadership hustings - please email [email protected].
Bury a top target? Really? We have an outside shot of taking it to NOC, but after the boundary changes, things will be very difficult. But there are some impressive Conservative candidates who have been working hard.
I am going back to Bury this weekend, to get my washing done, so will know more of whats happening then.
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 16, 2006 at 13:46
I think the Lib Dems may end up being disappointed in Richmond upon Thames. The Tory council seems to be peaking at the right time with a 0% increase in council tax this year and strenous efforts even in the safe ward I live in to get their message across. The Lib Dems are also starting to suffer from the 'Remember what they were like in office' arguments, which are being ratcheted up. Also if Cameron is going to have an effect anywhere then Richmond surely should be the place as it is full of the liberal middle class he seems to be aiming at.
Posted by: Andrew M | March 16, 2006 at 15:14
Is there any particular reason why we can't have elections to all borough and district councils in one year?
Also, do town and parish council elections coincide with elections to the boroughs and districts that they are in? I've just realised I know when my borough council election is but not my town council election.
Posted by: Richard | March 16, 2006 at 15:18
"Is there any particular reason why we can't have elections to all borough and district councils in one year?"
The thinking behind it is so there are constantly experienced councillors on the councils, which if all are up for re-election at the same time is not guaranteed. However the current sytem is stupid and in much need of reform, it depresses turnout as the elections are reduced in importance, and when voters vote for a change in council, but because only 1/3 are up for re-election, a very unpopular party can still maintain control of a council for years.
It would be much simpler to just have one local election every 4 years.
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 16, 2006 at 15:56
The Liberal will, I'm afraid, take Solihull.
Posted by: Jon W | March 16, 2006 at 16:38
what on earth have we done to Solihull to warrant losing the parliamentary seat and now the council? - is it boundary changes or something else? Surely it's the sort of place we should be winning in and if we aren't then it's important to understand what on Earth we need to do to get it back.
Posted by: kingbongo | March 16, 2006 at 17:30
I wondered the exact same thing, before the last election Solihull looked like a very safe seat. I heard that our MP was lazy and the local organisation was poor, but I dont have any knowledge of the area.
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 16, 2006 at 17:38
Solihull will go NOC but the Liberals will certainly not win it outright and will not even be the largest party. To win outright they would have to win 16 out of the 17 wards and to become the largest party they would have to to win at least 10 wards.
As for what went wrong. The council have made a number of extremely unpopular decisions over recent years and frankly come accross as arrogant, condescending and uninterested in the views of ordinary people.
Posted by: Richard Allen | March 16, 2006 at 19:02
"As for what went wrong. The council have made a number of extremely unpopular decisions over recent years and frankly come accross as arrogant, condescending and uninterested in the views of ordinary people."
This is the downside of localisation - local councils, just because they are closer to the people, are not necessarily more representative than Westminster. It could of course be argued that such behaviour will lead to the ruling party being booted out but there's no guarantee that a)this will happen due to excessive party loyalty or b)the opposition will be any better.
Posted by: Richard | March 16, 2006 at 19:14
Localisation has many upsides as well. Look at the US states, they provide an arena for new thinking and trying out radical new policies. For years state governors have been coming up with new ways of funding healthcare and education, etc.
If we had greater localisation, it would be an opportunity to use local councils as shining examples of Conservative policies in action and how they can work.
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 16, 2006 at 19:41
"If we had greater localisation, it would be an opportunity to use local councils as shining examples of Conservative policies in action and how they can work."
True. And it would show up those badly performing Labour councils!
Posted by: Richard | March 16, 2006 at 19:42
This Conservative Home regular is also standing for a seat on Huntingdonshire District Council.
I stood two years ago and lost with a 21% swing to me and stand again this spring with just a 90 vote majority to overturn.
I am recording my election campaign activity on my blog.
The Lib Dem Cllr I took so cloise last time has just declared that he is not standing again. I am only partly pleased. I would have liked to have beaten him fair and square!
Posted by: Richard Bailey | March 16, 2006 at 21:02
Best of luck Richard Bailey and James Cleverly. Local government needs people like you two.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 16, 2006 at 21:09
Bury's Labour Council has been in office for 20+ years but this last year has been an utter disaster - council finances are in melt down, schools are being closed and the Labour Leader and his Deputy are widely known as Laurel & Hardy. Plus the maternity unit is about to close and the Town's main Post Office disappeared a while ago.
Posted by: Ian Lewis | March 16, 2006 at 21:16
"Bury's Labour Council has been in office for 20+ years but this last year has been an utter disaster - council finances are in melt down, schools are being closed and the Labour Leader and his Deputy are widely known as Laurel & Hardy. Plus the maternity unit is about to close and the Town's main Post Office disappeared a while ago."
Don't hold your breath. I don't know much about Bury. In fact I don't know anything about it! But I'd assume if Labour were in power for that long it's likely to be one of their safe seats which will always be Labour, no matter how useless the council is. I would love it if I was wrong about this.
Posted by: Richard | March 16, 2006 at 21:29
Bury used to be one of those seats to watch - we held both Bury South (just) & Bury North till 1997. Bury South now looks an impregnable Labour safe seat - depressing how we have been wiped out in places like that.
It would be great to recover at least at local level - fond memories from distant Easter hols staying with relatives, of a cold March Saturdays at Gigg Lane watching Bury struggle to stay up , the paper mills.. the days we held Lancashire town / borough councils aren't quite as distant and hopefully we can start the long road back this May.
Posted by: Ted | March 16, 2006 at 22:10
"Bury used to be one of those seats to watch - we held both Bury South (just) & Bury North till 1997"
It still is. I think Bury South is the perfect indicator of the country as a whole. I am prepared to bet that if you see Bury South CON GAIN on election night, there will be a Conservative government in the morning. My first political memory is being driven to school in a car covered in Vote Conservative posters, in 1992, helped keep Hazel Blears out of parliament for 5 years anyway.
Bury North on the other hand, as long as we get a good candidate, we will win back at the next election.
When it comes to local elections, the Labour council are deeply unpopular, and for quite a few years in a row now, we have won the popular vote, but thanks to boundary changes (I know I keep going on about them) they managed to hold on.
Posted by: Rob Largan | March 16, 2006 at 23:34
I can tell you what happened in Solihull. They should have selected Maggie Throup, but the old fellow would not stand down and he lost. We were lucky enough to have Mags for the 2005 election, and she knocked Kali Mountfords maj down to 1501! We couldnt keep her though, as it made sense for her to fight the next one where she is firmly established through work. I bet you anything she wins it back for us. Good Yorkshire grit, and works like stink!! I only hope Colne Valley gets another great PPC like Maggie.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 17, 2006 at 00:26
The problem we got in Plymouth for the elections is that we got to win in wards we never had just to get a majority. But at least we at least show willing.
Posted by: Peter | March 17, 2006 at 09:58