LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2005

Transcription

1 LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2005 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher

2 LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2005 The 2005 Local Election Results Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher with the assistance of Galina Borisyuk, Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole and Lawrence Ware Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre University of Plymouth

3 Local Elections Handbook 2005 Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Published by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA ISBN Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... v Introduction... vii Using the Handbook...xvii Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities... 1 County Council Election Results Unitary Council Election Results Tables... 97

5 2

6 Acknowledgements We are grateful, as always, for the response to our requests for information by Returning Officers and Electoral Administrators. There is no doubt that combining elections, as has been done for the last three general elections, improves county council election turnout. It is seldom noted that it also increases the stresses and strains on an already over-stretched local government service. Few appreciate that conducting two elections simultaneously, where the qualifications for voting are different, produces limited economies of scale but lots of administrative headaches. This year was made even more difficult by the media focus on increased postal voting and the potential for electoral fraud. In our view, some of this attention bordered on the irresponsible and imposed additional and uneccessary strains on those ensuring the conduct of a free and fair election. Understandably, there were some occasions after the election was over when our simple request for a small piece of missing information appeared to be the proverbial back-breaking piece of straw. For this we can only apologise for our bad timing and hope sincerely that no domestic animal suffered from misdirected frustration. Our thanks also go to the Electoral Commission, which provided support for our collection of data, principally that concerning the numbers voting by post and in person. More electors are taking advantage of the relaxation of rules and choosing to vote by post. Clearly, there remain issues surrounding electoral registration and ballot security that need to be addressed but good policy is invariably evidence based. Policy making in this vital area of our democracy benefits from having the figures available for detailed analysis. We would also like to express our gratitude to David Cowling, Head of BBC Political Research, for sharing his data on the mayoral elections. He gives us data and we print an acknolwedgement; sounds like a fair exchange to us. v

7 We never apologise for telling people that, compared with local elections, the collection and collation of general election data are rather straightforward processes. This year is an excellent example. The UK general election consisted of contests for a mere 646 constituencies. By contrast, there were elections for 2,217 contested wards or divisions. The amount of data for each contest, parliamentary and local, is roughly the same and requires the same level of attention to detail. For this reason we decided that the people that help most in this work should emerge from the shadows and have their names revealed in alphabetical order on the inside cover. Of course, fame always has its price. So, instead of us thanking everyone we can think of, whilst accepting the blame for any errors or ommissions etc., we d like to break with tradtion and invite Galina, Brian, Dawn and Lawrence to do that instead. Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher October vi

8 Introduction Local elections in 2005 were held in England for 34 county and 3 unitary councils. These elections were held simultaneously with the UK general election on May 5 th. This is the third successive occasion that county and general elections have been held on the same day (1997 and 2001 were the previous two). In four authorities (Doncaster, Hartlepool, North Tyneside and Stoke on Trent) an election was held for mayor whilst one unitary authority, Isle of Wight, also conducted a referendum on the issue of an elected mayor. The referendum was defeated, with 37,097 (56.3%) voting No and 28,786 (43.7%) voting Yes. Details of the four mayoral elections are included below. Boundary changes were implemented for county divisions. Since 1985, all county divisions had been single-member, but these changes saw the introduction of 143 two-member and 3 three-member divisions. The net effect is a decrease in the number of divisions from 2,215 to 2,120. However, the number of county councillors has increased by 54 taking the total of 2,269. There were no boundary changes in the three unitary councils but the irregular electoral cycle means that in only one, Isle of Wight, is the result comparable to Across England, elections were scheduled for a total of 2,217 divisions (wards in the unitary authorities) and 2,396 seats. It has not proved possible on this occasion to take account of boundary changes when calculating each party s seat gains and losses. A number of councils changed hands. Northamptonshire was gained from Labour by the Conservative party but in turn it lost Cornwall to the Liberal Democrats. No further councils were exchanged directly between the parties. Six councils (Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Suffolk, Worcestershire and the Isle of Wight) moved from no overall control to Conservative majority administration. The Liberal Democrats gained control of two more counties (Devon and Somerset, from no overall control) whilst Labour lost its overall majority on Stockton-on- Tees council. vii

9 Table 1 provides the broad picture. The absence of urban local authorities means that the Conservative party is particularly favoured in this part of the local electoral cycle. More than four and a half million votes were cast in its favour. Its overall, 39.8%, placed it well ahead of the second-placed Liberal Democrats, 27.6%. However, a comparison with the previous county elections shows the limits of Conservative recovery. In 2001 the party polled 39.9% but in 2005 could only improve on that figure by a meagre one tenth of one percentage point. Although the clear lack of progress at the general election received considerable attention its failure to advance at the local level is symptomatic of a party still struggling to recover its former prominence. Labour s own vote declined five points in the county elections from 30.4% to a mere 25%. One possible point in mitigation is that it chose to contest a smaller proportion of seats (85.6%) than four years earlier (92%). Votes for Independent candidates were more or less static but there were increases both for the Greens (from 1% in 2001 to 2.3% in 2005) whose candidates challenged in one in four seats, and also for other minor parties (0.8% to 2.3%). The Conservative lead in votes is magnified when the distribution of seats is examined. The party performed better than in 2001, winning a majority of divisions (though it was fractionally short of taking the majority of seats) and winning almost twice as many seats as Labour. For Labour the distribution neatly reflected its but the Liberal Democrat vote was not as efficiently distributed. The party almost won 500 seats but its share of seats, 20.7%, was seven points lower than. Despite attracting more support the Green party won just nine seats overall, a share considerably below its vote. Some measure of Conservative lack of progress is highlighted by the fact that in exactly half of the 34 county councils its vote fell (Conservative optimists would, with justification, point out that in the other half its vote increased!). The largest decrease took place in Nottingham (-3.2%) but in Durham (where Liberal Democrats advanced), Lincolnshire and Suffolk also the party lost support. At the opposite end of the scale the vote increased by almost seven percentage points in Shropshire, due in part to more contestation, while there were notable performances in Buckinghamshire (where an absolute majority voted in favour) and Essex, the latter also swinging in the party s favour at the general election. Certainly, the electoral system, which works to the party s disadvantage at general elections, worked in its favour at the county contests. Although only one county s voters gave the party majority support Conservative councillors have an absolute majority on 23 of the 34 counties. viii

10 Table 1: Local Election Results 2005 Wards %Wards Wards %Wards Seats %Seats Seats %Seats Party Votes %Shares contested contested won won contested contested won won All authorities Conservative 4,658, , , , , Labour 2,927, , , Liberal Democrat 3,234, , , Green 268, Independent 341, Other 273, Total 11,705, , , England - County Councils Conservative 4,581, , , , , Labour 2,854, , , Liberal Democrat 3,155, , , Green 259, Independent 329, Others 261, Total 11,441, , , England - Unitary Councils Conservative 77, Labour 73, Liberal Democrat 78, Green 9, Independent 12, Others 11, Total 264, ix

11 Labour s increased in both Shropshire and Cornwall but for the remaining 32 counties the story was one of varying misery. There was an almost ten-point fall in the vote in Cambridgeshire while the decline in Bedfordshire was comparable. In parts of the East Midlands, most notably Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire, there was an above average swing against Labour. In terms of the re-distribution of vote the Liberal Democrats were the chief beneficiaries of Labour s misfortune as indeed happened at the general election. The Liberal Democrat advance in Cambridgeshire and Durham has already been noted but there was a six-point rise also in Northumberland and Warwickshire. As well as three county councils where the Liberal Democrats have majority control they are in a clear second place in a further ten authorities. The Greens best performance came in Oxfordshire, where virtually one in ten voters supported the party s candidates. The biggest contribution to this surge was made in Oxford City where more than one in five voted Green. Oxfordshire was nearly double the support in their second-placed county, Essex. Independents received their biggest support in Cornwall, where 22% of all voters eschewed party political candidates. But the general decline of Independents in county elections continues. The total in Cornwall was more than twice the proportion in Lincolnshire and even Shropshire, traditionally an Independent area of strength, there was a nine-point decline in votes, leaving them with just 8.4% overall. Table 2 shows each party s number of councillors and councils controlled following the 2005 elections. Conservative councillor numbers have recovered since the low point of the mid 1990s, whilst Labour s long period in office is clearly having a damaging effect on its local government base. However, Conservative party progress has been slowed greatly by the Liberal Democrats ability to hold on to seats that might have once been regarded as natural Conservative territory. Nevertheless, the Conservatives now control 156 councils, ahead of Labour and almost five times as many as the Liberal Democrats. The number of councils under no overall control, 142 across Britain, continue to be a significant feature of the political landscape with one in three councils run by some form of minority administration or coalition arrangement. x

12 Table 2: Councillors and Councils after the May 2005 local elections Councillors Con Lab LD Ind/Other Nat Total Scotland ,222 Wales ,264 England London ,861 Mets 546 1, ,445 Counties 1, ,269 Districts 4,837 2,116 2,377 1,246 10,576 Unitaries ,407 Great Britain 8,193 6,518 4,743 2, ,044 England & Wales 8,067 6,014 4,568 2, ,822 England 7,958 5,535 4,419 1, ,558 Councils Con Lab LD Ind/Other Nat NOC Scotland Wales England London Mets Counties Districts Unitaries Great Britain As with last year s handbook we show (Table 3; see also Appendix) various calculations for electoral turnout. Assisted by the Electoral Commission, we made considerable effort to obtain from local authorities the actual number of ballot papers included in the official count. This figure is shown as reported ballots. However, because of the existence of multimember divisions in the English counties the 2005 election provided another opportunity to check the relative accuracy of different algorithms for calculating the vote in such cases. The figure for total vote is calculated using the traditional method (counting the vote of each party s best placed candidate) whilst weighted sum of votes derives from a newer method first tested at the 2004 local elections. The overall difference between these calculations and reported vote is 42,861 and 33,413 votes respectively. Assuming that the reported figure is itself accurate, this gives an error of 0.4% for top vote and 0.3% for the weighted sum method. It does appear, from this evidence and last year s xi

13 experiment, that weighted sum is a superior algorithm. Of course, it would be better that all local authorities with multimember wards/divisions recorded and reported formally the actual number of ballot papers included in every official count. It does not appear, therefore, that the method used to calculate turnout is critical. Average turnout is 63.8% and aggregate turnout 64%. These figures are close to the general election figure although we are unable to be more precise because parliamentary constituencies do not map neatly across the English shire counties. It generally confirms what we have encountered before when general and local elections have coincided when voters complete a general election ballot they invariably complete one also for the local election. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to undertake a detailed study to examine whether there are marginal differences between in-person and postal voters in their likelihood of voting at both elections. There were just eight uncontested divisions (all single member), 0.4% of the total. With competition so fierce it is unsurprising to find that threequarters of contests featured candidates from the three main parties. Overall, the ratio of candidates to seats was 3.36, slightly higher than the ratio at the equivalent election of four years before. More than two thousand women candidates stood, 28.1% of the total candidates, and a very modest increase compared with The trend has been gently downwards for numbers of women councillors in county authorities but in 2005 the figure rose to 24.3%, a rise of one percentage point. At the beginning of the period following the 1970s local government reorganisation the proportion of women councillors was highest for the shire counties but that position is now reversed. We have no firm evidence at the moment why this should be the case. Councillors seeking re-election continue to account for a sizeable number of candidates. Overall, 1,690 sought a further four year term of office, meaning that 70.5% of seats featured a retiring councillor. Just 266 (16%) of such candidates were subsequently defeated. The biggest factor in accounting for councillor turnover continues to be voluntary resignation rather than defeat at the ballot box. Some six in ten of councillors elected this May were returning for at least a second term. xii

14 Table 3: Turnout, Contestation and Incumbency Counties Unitaries All Total wards ,217 Total seats ,396 Total electorate 17,898, ,197 18,326,514 Total electorate (contested wards only) 17,857, ,385 18,283,923 Reported ballots 11,399, ,565 11,662,289 Total vote 11,441, ,080 11,705,150 Weighted sum of votes 11,434, ,359 11,695,702 Average turnout (reported %) Average turnout (total vote %) Average turnout (weighted sum %) Agregate turnout (reported %) Agregate turnout (total vote)(%) Agregate turnout (weighted sum %) Uncontested wards Uncontested wards (%) Uncontested seats Uncontested seats (%) Wards with 3-party contest 1, ,660 Wards with party contest, as (%) of contested wards Wards with 3-party contest,as (%) of all wards Total candidates 7, ,050 Candidates/seats ratio Women candidates 2, ,259 Women candidates (%) Women elected Women elected as (%) of all elected Incumbent candidates 1, ,690 Incumbent candidates as (%) of seats Incumbent elected 1, ,424 Incumbent elected as (%) of all elected xiii

15 The Mayoral elections In four authorities the second round of mayoral elections were held, although in one case, North Tyneside, this was the third mayoral election following a by-election in June Two incumbents were re-elected. In Doncaster, Martin Winter overcame his nearest challenger, Michael Maye, Independent, who benefited particularly from the transfer of second votes. Stuart Drummond, whose election as mayor for Hartlepool in 2002 attracted considerable publicity, once again defeated his Labour rival, extending his lead after second votes were counted. In both Stoke on Trent and North Tyneside there was defeat for the incumbent. Mike Wolfe had beaten off the party challenge in Stoke on Trent whilst standing as an Independent at the 2002 election, although he had done so whilst winning only 21.3% of first votes. However, the coincidence with the general election and a greatly increased turnout contributed in part to his downfall. Labour, traditionally strong at both local and general elections, won the contest although very few votes separated the next three candidates. Linda Arkley s brief tenure as mayor of North Tyneside (she won a by-election in June 2003) was ended following her defeat by Labour s John Harrison. Ahead after the counting of first votes she was overtaken when second votes were counted, although the winning margin was just over a thousand votes. 5 May, 2005 Doncaster Mayoral election result 1st vote % 2nd vote Total vote % Martin Jon Winter * Lab 40, ,727 45, Michael Thomas Maye Ind 27, ,004 37, Raymond Michael Bartlett Con 12, Jessie Jamieson Credland CG 10, Michael Cooper Ind 7, David Owen BNP 6, Richard Peter Rolt Green 4, Electorate 213,920 Turnout: 54.5 Community Group xiv

16 5 May, 2005 Hartlepool Mayoral election result 1st vote % 2nd vote Total vote % Stuart Fraser Drummond * Ind 14, ,685 16, Carl Richardson Lab 5, ,180 6, Ian John Henry Cameron Ind 4, Stephen Allison Ind 3, Stan Kaiser 2, John Lauderdale Ind 1, Brenda Pearson Con 1, Electorate 68,874 Turnout: 51.0 Local Man, Local Issues, Hartlepool First 5 May, 2005 North Tyneside Mayoral election result 1st vote % 2nd vote Total vote % John Lawrence Langford Harrison Lab 34, ,407 40, Linda Arkley * Con 35, ,991 39, Joan Harvey LD 12, Robert Nigel Batten NF 2, Electorate 143,274 Turnout: May 2005 Stoke on Trent Mayoral election result 1st vote % 2nd vote Total vote % Mark Joseph Meredith Lab 27, ,708 36, Roger Michael Ibbs Con 16, ,919 23, Mike Wolfe * SGS 15, Steven Reginald Batkin BNP 15, Gary Chevin Ind 4, Justin Harvey Ind 1, Gary Oliver Falconer Ind 1, Electorate 181,384 Turnout 50.8 Supporting Green Shoots [Source: David Cowling, BBC Research and individual authorities] xv

17 xvi

18 Using the Handbook In 2004 there were elections in England for a total of 37 local authorities comprising 34 County councils and 3 Unitary councils. Additionally, there were four mayoral elections and a referendum on the issue of a directly elected mayor. There were no local elections at all in either Scotland or Wales. The Handbook is organised into two sections, which cover the County and Unitary councils respectively. Within these categories councils are organised alphabetically. Results are reported in alphabetical order of division/ ward name. County divisions are listed alphabetically within their respective district authorities, which are in turn in alphabetical order within county. Election results have generally been taken from figures provided by, and checked with, Electoral Administrators. Before the division/ward results we have provided a section containing aggregate data covering each local authority. Results for each authority were aggregated to produce this set of summary statistics. These include the percentage for a range of parties and Independent candidates. Where more than one councillor is elected then the vote of the best placed candidate for each party is used in calculating total vote. In contests featuring multiple Independent candidates these were grouped according to the number of seats in a division/ward. In the case of a three-member seat with six Independent candidates, therefore, the votes of the first and fourth placed Independent contribute towards the total vote figure. The number of seats contested and the number of seats won by each party is also noted. Turnout, in brackets after the name of the authority, is the average turnout in those divisions/wards which had a contested election. Table 3A in the Appendix contains details of local authority turnout that has been calculated using different methods. These methods for calculating local authority level turnout will produce slightly different figures for those authorities that have a large range for electorates and where complex patterns of contestation result in an under- or over-estimate of actual votes cast. In the majority of cases the differences between the two methods are rather small. xvii

19 In those authorities where a direct comparison with the 2001 election is possible we have also provided the percentage change for the different parties. In two of the unitary councils this has not proved practicable because of the nature of their electoral cycles. The final two lines of the summary of aggregate statistics provide information relating to the number of candidates fielded by each party as well as the number of candidates that were successfully elected. Note, that since the unitary councils are electing only a fraction of the council body that the seats won category is not an equivalent to the full council composition. In the main body of the book the results for each division/ward are listed in alphabetical order within each local authority (and within district order also for the county divisions). The figure in brackets is the electorate for The practice adopted by local authorities for calculating this figure varies but the introduction of rolling electoral registers means that this figure is a good approximation of the numbers eligible to vote on election day. Nevertheless, it has been impossible to adopt a standard definition of electorate or reliably to identify the particular procedures used by each authority. The appearance of a date in [square brackets] after the electorate indicates that the election for some reason was not held on May 5 but was contested on the later, specified date. This year there were only two such contests. The first special election was for Town Close division (Norwich, Norfolk) on 26 th May. The postponement of the Staffordshire South parliamentary election, caused by the death of Josephine Harrison, Liberal Democrat, also caused the postponement of an election to the Kinver division (South Staffordshire, Staffordshire) where she was also a candidate. This special election, along with that for the parliamentary constituency, was held on 23 rd June. These particular results have been incorporated into the aggregate statistics as though they did take place on May 5. There was also an unusual occurrence affecting the Falmouth South division (Kerrier, Cornwall). Initially the result was officially declared as Liberal Democrat 348 votes, Conservative 340, Labour 200; Independent 108. Subsequently, a ballot box that had been overlooked during the original count was located. The ballot papers in this box were counted and added to the original result. The amended result is printed within the handbook. Since the overall result was the same, with the Liberal Democrats winning the seat, there was no reason for the original declaration to be set aside and for the election to be re-run. xviii

20 Candidates are listed in descending order of vote within each division/ ward. The first initial is given; Ms. after a candidate s name indicates a woman; and * indicates that the candidate was a sitting councillor, although not necessarily for the same division/ward. Vote is the number of electors who supported each candidate and Share the proportion of the total number who cast a valid ballot supporting each candidate. The process of rounding means that some shares do not necessarily sum to 100. In the case of multi-member divisions/wards where more than one vacancy was filled we have used the vote of each party s best placed candidate in order to calculate total vote and hence party shares. Where a candidate(s) was returned unopposed then either 0 or 0.0 are used in the fields for vote, share and turnout. Below the list of candidates is a further line of data. First, we print the name of the party whose candidate finished top of the poll at the corresponding election in Recent boundary changes that were implemented for the first time in 2005 mean that it has not been possible to indicate a winning party at the previous election in a large number of cases. Next, is recorded the percentage turnout. Turnout is the proportion of the electorate that cast valid ballots at the election. In the overwhelming majority of cases in 2005 turnout is that given by the local Electoral Administrator and has thus been calculated knowing the number of valid ballot papers issued. In a relatively small number of cases we have ourselves calculated turnout from the available information but this year only for single member wards turnout data for all multimember divisions/wards has been collected from Electoral Administrators. The figure to the right of the turnout represents the lead of the winning party over the second placed party in percentage terms rounded to one decimal place. The process of rounding means that in some cases the percentage majority may not be exactly the same as the winning party s minus the second-placed party s share. Candidates standing for local election use an extensive variety of party labels that now have to be officially registered with the Electoral Commission. These have been used throughout the Handbook, leading to a proliferation of party labels. These labels, and the abbreviations we have used, are described below. xix

21 Party Label Ash Ind AshInd AyRAP BBIP BIA BNP BRG Brom Ind Con CPA CRP D Ind DevG EDem FP Green HenRG HVS IBIS Idle IKHHC ILRA Ind Ind WCA Lab LCA LD Lib MF MK MolesRA MRLP NewE NF NkRA NOTW NP PABAG Peace P Party Description Ashford Independent Ashfield Independents Aylesbury Residents Action Party Better Bedford Independent Party Billingham Independents Association British National Party Brockworth Residents Group Bromsgrove Independent Group Conservative and Unionist Party [The] Christian Peoples Alliance Community Representatives Party Derwentside Independents Devizes Guardians English Democrats Party Freedom Party [The] Green Party [The] Henley Residents Group [The] Hersham Village Society Ingleby Barwick Independent Society Idle Toad [The] Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern Independent Loughton Residents Association Independent Candidate Independent Working Class Association Labour Party [The] Legalise Cannabis Alliance Liberal Democrats Liberal Party [The] Middlewich First Mebyon Kernow - The Party for Cornwall Molesey Residents Association [The] Official Monster Raving Loony Party [The] New England Party National Front Nork Residents Association Norwich Over The Water No Party [The] People Against Bureaucracy Action Group Peace Party - Non-violence, Justice, Environment [The] Continued.../ xx

22 Party Label PF Pink P PP RA E&E Rate Rate Respect RIG RRLP S&G RA SDP Soc Lab Soc Alt SOS StAP StGHI Tew Ind TIA Truly Ind UKIP Veritas W&RRA WS WSIA WyR&R YIA Party Description People First Party Pink Party People s Party (Furness) Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell Ratepayers (Staffordshire Moorlands) Runnymede Independent Residents Group Respect - The Unity Coalition Richmondshire Independent Group [The] Rock N Roll Loony Party [The] Swanscombe and Greenhithe Residents Association Social Democratic Party Socialist Labour Party Socialist Alternative SOS! Voters Against Overdevelopment of Northampton St. Albans Party [The] St. George s Hill Independents Tewkesbury Independents Thornaby Independent Association Truly Independent English Party United Kingdom Independence Party Veritas West Ewell and Ruxley Residents Association Walton Society [The] West Suffolk Independent Alliance Party Wythall Ratepayers and Residents Association Yarm Independent Association xxi

23 xxii

24 Aggregate Statistics for: 34 County Councils 3 Unitary Councils

25 2

26 Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Bedford (64.1) % share % change candidates seats won Cambridge (60.0) % share % change candidates seats won Mid Bedfordshire (66.6) % share % change candidates seats won East Cambridgeshire (61.8) % share % change candidates seats won South Bedfordshire (64.1) % share % change candidates seats won Fenland (58.6) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Bedfordshire (64.9) % share % change candidates seats won Huntingdonshire (64.7) % share % change candidates seats won Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vale (65.6) % share % change candidates seats won Chiltern (66.5) % share % change candidates seats won South Cambridgeshire (69.1) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Cambridgeshire (63.1) % share % change candidates seats won Cheshire South Buckinghamshire (62.7) % share % change candidates seats won Chester (65.6) % share % change candidates seats won Wycombe (63.7) % share % change candidates seats won Congleton (63.0) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Buckinghamshire (64.7) % share % change candidates seats won Crewe & Nantwich (59.9) % share % change candidates seats won Ellesmere Port & Neston (62.4) % share % change candidates seats won Aggregate Statistics 1

27 Macclesfield (63.7) % share % change candidates seats won Vale Royal (60.5) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Cheshire (62.7) % share % change candidates seats won Cornwall Cumbria Allerdale (60.6) % share % change candidates seats won Barrow In Furness (56.1) % share % change candidates seats won Carlisle (57.9) % share % change candidates seats won Caradon (65.1) % share % change candidates seats won Copeland (58.6) % share % change candidates seats won Carrick (66.9) % share % change candidates seats won Eden (64.5) % share % change candidates seats won Kerrier (65.4) % share % change candidates seats won South Lakeland (69.1) % share % change candidates seats won North Cornwall (64.6) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Cumbria (61.4) % share % change candidates seats won Penwith (67.1) % share % change candidates seats won Restormel (58.3) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Cornwall (64.1) % share % change candidates seats won Derbyshire Amber Valley (63.8) % share % change candidates seats won Bolsover (54.6) % share % change candidates seats won Chesterfield (59.8) % share % change candidates seats won Local Elections Handbook 2005

28 Derbyshire Dales (68.8) % share % change candidates seats won South Hams (69.5) % share % change candidates seats won Erewash (64.2) % share % change candidates seats won Teignbridge (68.8) % share % change candidates seats won High Peak (65.0) % share % change candidates seats won Torridge (67.5) % share % change candidates seats won North East Derbyshire (61.6) % share % change candidates seats won West Devon (72.8) % share % change candidates seats won South Derbyshire (65.6) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Devon (68.3) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Derbyshire (63.1) % share % change candidates seats won Devonshire Dorset Christchurch (69.3) % share % change candidates seats won East Devon (69.5) % share % change candidates seats won East Dorset (70.1) % share % change candidates seats won Exeter (65.2) % share % change candidates seats won North Dorset (69.1) % share % change candidates seats won Mid Devon (68.1) % share % change candidates seats won Purbeck (69.4) % share % change candidates seats won North Devon (66.4) % share % change candidates seats won West Dorset (75.7) % share % change candidates seats won Aggregate Statistics 3

29 Weymouth & Portland (68.1) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Dorset (70.7) % share % change candidates seats won Durham East Sussex Eastbourne (62.9) % share % change candidates seats won Hastings (56.2) % share % change candidates seats won Chester Le Street (55.9) % share % change candidates seats won Lewes (68.4) % share % change candidates seats won Derwentside (54.9) % share % change candidates seats won Rother (67.8) % share % change candidates seats won Durham (63.4) % share % change candidates seats won Wealden (68.1) % share % change candidates seats won Easington (49.7) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for East Sussex (64.9) % share % change candidates seats won Sedgefield (58.8) % share % change candidates seats won Teesdale (61.3) % share % change candidates seats won Wear Valley (54.0) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Durham (56.4) % share % change candidates seats won Essex Basildon (60.4) % share % change candidates seats won Braintree (65.4) % share % change candidates seats won Brentwood (68.2) % share % change candidates seats won Castle Point (60.2) % share % change candidates seats won Local Elections Handbook 2005

30 Chelmsford (62.4) % share % change candidates seats won Cotswold (66.5) % share % change candidates seats won Colchester (59.9) % share % change candidates seats won Forest Of Dean (70.1) % share % change candidates seats won Epping Forest (63.5) % share % change candidates seats won Gloucester (62.7) % share % change candidates seats won Harlow (60.6) % share % change candidates seats won Stroud (70.3) % share % change candidates seats won Maldon (66.3) % share % change candidates seats won Tewkesbury (66.3) % share % change candidates seats won Rochford (64.6) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Gloucestershire (66.5) % share % change candidates seats won Tendring (63.1) % share % change candidates seats won Uttlesford (68.4) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Essex (63.2) % share % change candidates seats won Gloucestershire Hampshire Basingstoke & Deane (65.3) % share % change candidates seats won East Hampshire (66.4) % share % change candidates seats won Eastleigh (66.8) % share % change candidates seats won Cheltenham (62.0) % share % change candidates seats won Fareham (68.0) % share % change candidates seats won Aggregate Statistics 5

31 Gosport (57.1) % share % change candidates seats won East Hertfordshire (67.5) % share % change candidates seats won Hart (66.1) % share % change candidates seats won Hertsmere (62.4) % share % change candidates seats won Havant (62.5) % share % change candidates seats won North Hertfordshire (65.6) % share % change candidates seats won New Forest (64.9) % share % change candidates seats won St Albans (70.2) % share % change candidates seats won Rushmoor (59.1) % share % change candidates seats won Stevenage (59.3) % share % change candidates seats won Test Valley (66.7) % share % change candidates seats won Three Rivers (67.1) % share % change candidates seats won Winchester (72.8) % share % change candidates seats won Watford (62.4) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Hampshire (65.5) % share % change candidates seats won Welwyn Hatfield (67.7) % share % change candidates seats won Hertfordshire Broxbourne (57.6) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Hertfordshire (65.2) % share % change candidates seats won Kent Dacorum (66.3) % share % change candidates seats won Ashford (64.2) % share % change candidates seats won Local Elections Handbook 2005

32 Canterbury (63.2) % share % change candidates seats won Summary for Kent (64.3) % share % change candidates seats won Dartford (61.7) % share % change candidates seats won Dover (66.6) % share % change candidates seats won Gravesham (63.7) % share % change candidates seats won Maidstone (64.6) % share % change candidates seats won Sevenoaks (66.3) % share % change candidates seats won Shepway (68.2) % share % change candidates seats won Swale (62.8) % share % change candidates seats won Thanet (58.9) % share % change candidates seats won Tonbridge & Malling (65.2) % share % change candidates seats won Tunbridge Wells (65.4) % share % change candidates seats won Lancashire Burnley (59.1) % share % change candidates seats won Chorley (61.4) % share % change candidates seats won Fylde (60.0) % share % change candidates seats won Hyndburn (58.5) % share % change candidates seats won Lancaster (60.3) % share % change candidates seats won Pendle (63.1) % share % change candidates seats won Preston (57.0) % share % change candidates seats won Ribble Valley (66.5) % share % change candidates seats won Rossendale (60.4) % share % change candidates seats won Aggregate Statistics 7