It’s that time on Thursday night again and I can tell you that we have gained a council seat – this time, on Wells City Council, from the Independent. Congratulations to Rob Ayres and his team.
Liberal Democrats gain St Cuthbert's ward, Wells City Council from Independent. Great work! Full results to follow. pic.twitter.com/3lxZ4yOD2J
— ALDC (@ALDC) March 2, 2017
It was knife edge stuff – just 21 votes in it:
St Cuthbert's Ward – Wells City Council
LD Rob Ayres 341 [42.6%]
Conservative 320 [40.1%]
Green 137 [17.1%]
Liberal Democrats gain from ind— ALDC (@ALDC) March 3, 2017
In Kersal ward in Salford, the Tories won a seat from Labour. We stood there for the first time. Well done to Adam Slack, who laid some foundations for us and got us 1.9% in a ward we didn’t stand in last time.
Kersal (Salford) result:
CON: 42.0% (-1.4)
LAB: 27.3% (-21.5)
IND: 17.5% (+17.5)
UKIP: 9.0% (+9.0)
GRN: 2.4% (-3.4)
LDEM: 1.9% (+1.9)— Britain Elects (@britainelects) March 2, 2017
The Tory vote actually went down as Labour’s collapsed. That might explain the UKIP rise. Other than that, we were the only party whose vote went up.
We didn’t stand in this by-election in Christchurch, but the Tories saw a fall in their vote (as did Labour and UKIP) as an Independent surged.
Mudeford & Friars Cliff (Christchurch) result:
CON: 46.8% (-9.0)
IND: 34.7% (+34.7)
LAB: 6.8% (-9.6)
UKIP: 6.3% (-21.4)
GRN: 5.4% (+5.4)— Britain Elects (@britainelects) March 2, 2017
Two more results from Redcar are awaited – one is a Lib Dem defence in the Newcomen ward, the other a Conservative defence.
UPDATE: The Redcar results are now in. And it’s a good solid hold for Laura Benson in Newcomen ward.
Newcomen (Redcar & Cleveland) result:
LDEM: 46.0% (+6.3)
LAB: 28.0% (-5.8)
UKIP: 16.5% (-1.9)
IND: 5.6% (+5.6)
IND: 3.9% (-4.2)
LDem HOLD.— Britain Elects (@britainelects) March 3, 2017
What is also good to see is that we advanced by 4.4% in the Hutton ward of the same council.
Hutton (Redcar & Cleveland) result:
CON: 57.4% (+3.6)
LDEM: 21.8% (+4.4)
LAB: 12.2% (-16.6)
UKIP: 8.6% (+8.6)
Con HOLD.— Britain Elects (@britainelects) March 3, 2017
A solid performance in the north east.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Learning from the Zen masters
Maybe the cancellation of Time Team is the event after which everything started going wrong
West End street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Will Trump's free speech demands endanger British children?
Low Fell action day
Yeovil Yokel
Mike Peters
Robert Brown
Peter Wrigley
Jenny Barnes
30 Comments
Actually, this was a gain from the “Wells Independents” and not from an Independent Councillor. “Wells Independents” are a minor party registered with the Electoral Commission, in parish/town/city council elections. They field candidates like any other party (except this time they messed up their nomination papers so their candidate wasn’t validly nominated). They shouldn’t be confused with actual Independents who stand without party backing.
Our vote went up! from nil. Kersall confirms the recent and not too far away Failsworth result, an almost identical response. There is very clearly an awful lot to do if we are to get an across the board response from the electoral horrors of the coalition.
I am hopeful Redcar may be better. Where we have had a recent strongish history we poll quite well to very well, where were not strong we still poll virtually nil. That scenario offers hope for the Gorton by election.
“We were the only party whose vote went up”. And we got 1.9% !! Really, who do you think you are kidding ? It would have been better to say nothing.
I’m sorry, but this type of euphoric response simply draws guffaws from our opponents and incredulity from our supporters. Clearly no substantial work was done and it sounds like a paper candidate scenario yet again. If it is possible to get ten signatures on a nomination paper even a bit of canvassing effort will get more than 39 votes.
The party really needs to get a grip on this type of situation. Either fight properly or don’t fight at all.
Theakes: Labour have been working Redcar very hard as a quick look on Twitter will reveal, they clearly think they can win what has at times been a quite marginal seat/split ward. I think the seat we are defending is one where our respected sitting councillor sadly died in office. Kersal is a very unrepresentative seat, 41% Jewish with the Tory Candidate a local Rabbi. By and large these elections are ‘local’ and so you cannot discern trends from individual contests. You can however when you look at the results over a longer period, and the increase in vote share for Lib Dems bodes well for the May elections. The most important thing is that voters have the opportunity to vote for a Lib Dem candidate, even in black hole areas, where we have little or no organisation.
I have to dis agree strongly with David Raw about paper candidates. In areas where we have been absent a paper candidate can be a vital first step, even if hardly anyone votes for us they see that we are standing – given that a lot of voters still think that we died in 2015 that is vital. We should be aiming to stand everywhere & paper candidates are a first step.
And despite the big Labour push it is a comfortable hold in Redcar with a further Lab to LD swing
Good start at Redcar. Suggests we might get BOTH seats in that ward next time, in some respects this hold feels a bit like a gain.
Hutton result, bit disappointing. Based on last years by election in the ward this result is a good advance for Cons and we fall back a few points. Labour beginning to disappear in the ward.
Overall, a dissapointing week of results but it looks like normal variation on an improving trend. We are set for substantial gains on May 5th with the strong possibility that our “Equivalent Vote Share” could put us in 2nd place, ahead of Labour. That might get some more journalists to sit up & take notice.
paul barker is right to point out that we should always stand a paper candidate where we have little or no local organisation. We are continually exhorted to do so by ALDC and others.
It appears to me that there is a strengthening of the Conservative vote in actual elections, not just opinion polls, but at the expense of Labour.
Please also see The Times page 1, 2 “Thousands of Labour members quit over Corbyn leadership” Seemingly accurate figures have been leaked from Labour’s NEC.
“More than 15,465 people have quit since the middle of December”
Resignations go into the figures promptly, people who declined to renew lapse after six months. Jeremy Corbyn MP (Labour, Islington North) set a target of one million members which now seems unlikely to be achieved. The three-line whip on Article 50 caused a loss of 7,000 members (Ed Miliband MP had said this was “a reasonable thing to do”).
“Grassroots Momentum has set up its own website”
Most weeks I look at the analysis of seats being contested and think there isn’t much opportunity for us and each time I am pleasantly surprised! So I suppose whether you think these results are disappointing or rewarding depends on whether you’re an optimist or a pessimist. We are steadily improving week on week from a place of near annihilation which surely must be such a relief to all members that we could be allowed a little over reaction on a Lib Dem site.
Well done to everyone and please keep standing paper candidates because one day those wards could well be won by us and I speak from experience.
This week sort of bucks one trend – only one winning candidate got more than 50% – the Conservative in Hutton. In recent months the number of council by-elections winners getting more than 50% of the vote in their gains or defences has increased dramatically. This applies to all political groups including Labour and Independents.
This is different from the pattern twelve months ago. It worries me because, while I don’t really know what it means, I have a hunch that it is one of the least noticed effects of the Referendum.
Last June people were offered a binary yes/no choice, reminding those of a certain age of the “yes-no interlude” in a panel game of yesteryear. Can it be that many people think that important voting can now only be seen in binary terms as in the old slogan “It’s a two-horse race”? Or does it reflect a decline in the use of candidates to reflect political choice and a desire to vote for the winner whatever they represent?
At least some voters approached the Referendum not simply as an opinion poll (which it was) but as a vote that wouldn’t make a difference to anything (which it also was). And I suspect that the high turnout included some voters whose only previous voting activity related to Saturday evening television talent competitions (including dancing).
Our democracy is far from perfect but perhaps we are still discovering the corrupting effect of a Referendum, the responsibility for which lies firmly on the shoulders of David Cameron.
I may, of course, be needlessly worried about the high winning margins. They could simply be the magnification of majorities encouraged by the use of phone banks!
The seat we held in Redcar was Chris Abbott’s seat – a stalwart from years back, former leader of the Council and the man more responsible than anyone for our progress in Redcar and taking the parliamentary seat in 2010. This result is a good memorial for a Liberal to be remembered. (He was also a Yorkshire Nationalist who grew up in Whitby!)
David Raw is wrong. It is ALWAYS vital to put up a candidate. If you are minded to vote LD & then find no LD on the ballot paper you may not bother to vote the next time. It’s letting down our supporters & denying them a voice.
@ Paul Barker, Michael Cole and alan.
I’m sorry you disagree with me on paper candidates, but I’m afraid you produce no empirical evidence to show that getting 1.9% (39 votes) leads on to great things. The most likely outcome of 1.9% is that the ten souls who signed the nomination papers will feel let down and disillusioned and a derisory vote makes it harder to build up a viable organisation in the future. Can you tell me otherwise ?
There is also an important principle at stake. We must respect for the electorate if they are to respect us as serious politicians.
A main Liberal Democrat brand is ‘we can be trusted to try harder’. Paper candidates fly in the face of that. They deceive the electorate by giving the false impression we are serious in wanting their votes and in wishing to represent them. There is a huge moral difference between genuine activity and a false impression of activity.
Am I speaking from experience ?
Well, I was elected five times and gained a seat three times. I led the Liberal Group on South Lakeland (Westmorland), and on Eden District – and was a Cabinet member in Scotland. I always fought to win – by personal effort and by personal canvassing. There is no other way. Anything less is non-serious and playing at politics. To sum up, standing for election is a form of social contract and a matter of mutual trust and respect between the candidate and the electorate.
A personal memory : I was once extremely moved in Cumbria seeing an old man of ninety refuse a lift but walking well over a mile to vote for me in pouring rain. He trusted and said that I had made an effort to represent him – in return I felt obliged to repay that trust by representing him to the best of my abilities. I had to go that extra mile – as he did. Would he and I have felt that if I was a paper candidate ?
Anything less is playing at politics, self indulgent and achieves very little. There is a mutual social contract with the electorate and we have to be seen to deserve their vote.
Dear David
When we put up a candidate we have no idea how many votes he or she will attract. What we do know for certain is that, despite the conceit of most politicians, most people vote for the party not the person. We also know for certain that some people are liberally inclined. That is why we strive to give as many of them as possible in our constituency the opportunity to vote LD by nominating paper candidates. If we only stood candidates who wanted to win, most of the time the electors would have no LD on the ballot paper. What message would that send to the electorate? It’s not about ego, but about giving those liberally inclined the opportunity to express their views.
@ alan ” If we only stood candidates who wanted to win, most of the time the electors would have no LD on the ballot paper”. Oh dear, what a commentary on the attitude of some modern Liberal Democrats. Do you think that’s how Tim Farron and the Lib Dem councillors controlling South Lakeland got elected.
If you don’t want to win what’s the point ? If you don’t want to win aren’t you deceiving those members of the electorate who do vote for you ? If you don’t want to win do you believe the Liberal Democrat Party is a serious party or not and do you believe your non-activity will ever develop into anything better ?
You say, “When we put up a candidate we have no idea how many votes he or she will attract”. Well, what I know is that if you show respect to the electorate and get out knocking on doors you will always get more votes than if you don’t and build a future base for improvement.
If a football team or a cricket team or an army or a business showed the same sort of diffidence about winning they would soon be a laughing stock. They would be better joining a book club or a knitting circle.
Get serious.
@David Raw:
1) Where do you suggest we start to build in places where we have little or no local organisation ? Sometimes a paper campaign attracts one or two people who form a nucleus for the future.
2) Even a vote share of 1.9% adds to the LD share of the national vote and increases (OK marginally) our media time and credibility.
3) In my borough we have to concentrate our efforts in two or three wards. If we do not have a ‘full slate’ across the borough we are criticised by our opponents as not being ‘serious’ contenders.
@Michael Cole “Even a vote share of 1.9% adds to the LD share of the national vote and increases (OK marginally) our media time and credibility.”
I’m sure that is valuable on a national day of elections, but in a by-election, when a single seat receives more publicity, media coverage (even locally) of a low vote might damage credibility.
@Michael Cole What experience do you have, Michael ? Have you run an election or stood in one and how did you get on ? Have you ever won an election ?
You start with a committed candidate with a sense of public service. Anything less is La La land or the Natural Law Party. If you play at it you will convince nobody.
Try this : NATURAL LAW PARTY 1994 Election Broadcast – YouTube.
@David Raw: I have stood as a council candidate (polling 24%) and also a few times as a paper candidate when we normally poll about 10%. Are you really suggesting that we should not stand ? I have been constituency Chairman and have held various other posts.
Instead of questioning my credentials, please reply to my 3 points.
@Peter Watson: “… in a by-election, when a single seat receives more publicity, media coverage (even locally) of a low vote might damage credibility.”
Council by-elections almost never receive more than local coverage. Our 30+ gains since May 2016 get scant national coverage.
I take your point about credibility, but even a fully committed candidate may receive a low vote. If we do not field any candidate in a by-election we can still be criticised in local media for being completely absent from the list.
ALDC (and ALC before that) has always urged us to “ALWAYS STAND A CANDIDATE”. I believe that they have good reason to do so.
@ Michael Cole “Are you really suggesting that we should not stand ?”
Yes – for all the reasons I gave earlier that you haven’t replied to, and because you had no intention of serving the electorate when you were a paper candidate. If you didn’t tell the electorate you were a paper candidate then you deceived them about the utility and integrity of voting for you. That happens to matter and is even more important than the result being seen by the electors as derisory.
One last question. Can you show any evidence that your paper candidacy of 10% got followed up by development work that increased the strength of the party later and was followed by an increased vote later ?
It appears that David Raw still does not understand the principle behind always putting up a candidate which is recommended by the party. Perhaps if I share our local experience it might help him to understand.
When I joined the Liberal party over 30 years ago there had never been a single Liberal councillor in my borough. A donkey with a blue ribbon would always be elected. (The Tories did nothing. They did not have to)
I myself had never been able to vote Liberal in local elections as there had been no liberal candidates. I was forced to vote Labour or Tory or abstain. What sort of message did this send about the party?
Eventually I decided to do something about it & I joined the local party. As a result of my efforts & those of other local activists we managed to stand as many as 38 candidates on one occasion for the 40 seats on the borough council, although most of these were paper candidates. Almost everyone in the borough had the opportunity to vote LD.
David would deny them that chance.
I also wonder if David has ever heard of targeting.
A few party members in my borough had been very serious, like David, about getting elected, but always failed. After I joined the local party we decided to target just one ward, rather than spread ourselves too thinly. Some candidates were opposed to this & refused to help in our target ward. However the majority of members were not seeking personal glory and were happy to help in our target ward rather than their own. We wanted liberal values to be represented on the council. It was not about personal glory.
We consequently won our first 3 seats by a tiny majority. It was a lesson learned & more followed. However if we had all followed David’s advice we would still have had no councillors & liberally minded voters would have a wasted trip to the polling station.
@alan: I applaud your good sense. You rightly point out the importance of targeting. Your narrative very effectively refutes David Raw’s arguments.
@ David Raw: Have you ever been a member of ALDC or of its predecessor ALC ? It’s common knowledge that they have a wide and long experience of contesting council elections. I think you should show them and their opinions more respect.
You have again failed to answer my 3 points. I can only assume that you have no rational reply.
I think you should re-think your views on this matter.
@ Michael Cole It’s quite clear you don’t understand the point about having respect for the electorate, Mr Cole, and the rest is froth.
Just in passing, ALC was set up in a constituency where I was a candidate and it was funded by my late friend Richard Wainwright……..
End of.
Two points. David Raw: “either fight properly or don’t fight at all”. Mark Pack: keeps stressing we should fight everywhere so people get used to our presence. I incline to Mark’s position with a few reservations. Say we’re preparing a serious attack on another seat at the normal elections. Along comes an unwinnable by-election nearby. Our resources are limited. Divert to the by-election and delay that survey in the winnable seat? Not fight at all so the impression spreads in the whole area that we’re marginal? Or put up a candidate and not fight hard?
Second point: in that Hutton result, we must have overtaken Labour, whose result was downright awful.