RSS
insider_research

Insider Research

Understanding the heart of Westminster

Saturday 6th June 2009 | 09:52

Local Elections Results: Analysis

An analysis of the local election results against consensus expectations in Westminster shows that the big surprise has been been poor performance of the Liberal Democrats

PoliticsHome
  • Analysis by

Last week, PoliticsHome published a results card for the local elections which took an average of the expectations of 100 of the most prominent political commentators, politicians, strategists and academics in the UK. The card can be downloaded by clicking HERE.

Against expectations, this is how each of the parties actually fared in terms of seats gained or lost: (results used, shown above, are courtesy of Sky News. Sky results were chosen ahead of those provided by the BBC because they include projected gains and losses from the new unitary authorities.)

Note: this is not an analysis of the absolute positions of the parties or their success or failure; it purely shows how they fared against expectations. The Labour losses and Conservative gains were of the anticipated order of magnitude. The only true surprise was that the Liberal Democrats, instead of gaining seats, lost seats.

Labour: -329 seats, no councils.
WORSE THAN EXPECTED

 

Conservatives: +285 seats
TOP END OF EXPECTED RANGE
(vote share within expected range)


Liberal Democrats: -48 seats
MUCH WORSE THAN EXPECTED
(vote share within expected range)

 


Leave a comment...


Comments

Sort by Time posted Most popular Replies Expand all Collapse all
Chris
11:01 | 06 Jun 2009

How does combining EU elections and local elections on the same day affect voting?

Areas where no Local elections were taking place have reported turnouts as low as 20%.

 

Shaun Nichols
11:10 | 06 Jun 2009

The Lib Dems finished 5% ahead of Labour on vote share so give them credit for that!

And the net loss of seats for the Lib Dems is -4 (as reported by the BBC) not -48.

slothrop
11:34 | 06 Jun 2009
BBC saying Lib Dems only down 4 seats - what is this based on? Would also argue that anyone expecting big Lib Dem gains hadn't really been looking at the seats up for grabs
tim stokes
11:45 | 06 Jun 2009
I have to disagree here - 28% for the Lib Dems - much worse than expected ?!!! What on earth were we expecting them to get
Stephen Tall
12:01 | 06 Jun 2009
A nonsense analysis. The Tories were right at the bottom end of the expected range of vote share, the Lib Dems right at the top end of vote share - yet you call the Lib Dems' results the biggest disappointment, bigger apparently than Labour's disastrous showing! A different analysis here: http://tiny.cc/MaOgx
RobertD
12:26 | 06 Jun 2009

The Tories won 30 out of 34 councils, are the largest group on 2 of the three No Overall Control and 2nd largest on the third NOC and the one council won by the Lib Dems. They won 65% of all the seats available. Four of the councils now have no Labour councillors, and on only four ot the 34 councils are Labour the second largest group after the Tories.

Which part of WIPEOUT does Gordon not understand.  

Peter Dunphy
15:06 | 06 Jun 2009
I think the -48 (From Sky) is based on losses from representation in previous versions of Councils operating under new boundaries/structures - Wiltshire, Cornwall, Shropshire. The BBC decided to make no change calculation for these authorities.
Ed Randall
14:05 | 06 Jun 2009
How can this site be taken seriously? The Lib Dem's net loss is 4 seats and their share of the national vote - as projected by the BBC - is 28% - the highest it has been, with Labour clearly in third place. Any Liberal Democrat who is not delighted with these results, even with losses in the South West, needs their head examining.
A Lenton-Thompson
20:15 | 06 Jun 2009

Come on everyone- read the comment below the table and you'd see:

"Note: this is not an analysis of the absolute positions of the parties or their success or failure; it purely shows how they fared against expectations. The Labour losses and Conservative gains were of the anticipated order of magnitude. The only true surprise was that the Liberal Democrats, instead of gaining seats, lost seats."

David E. Jones
20:42 | 06 Jun 2009

I was stuck in a traffic jam this morning on the M25 listening to Ken Livingstone on the radio attempting to spin the line that there was a 2 per cent swing to the Labour party at the local elections on Thursday and that there was no appetite for a Cameron-led Tory government.  In the light of your poll - is poor old Ken living in a little Marxist dream-world of his own?

Mike
21:03 | 06 Jun 2009

Labour on 23% (down 1% from last year)

Tories on 38% (down 6% from last year, and the same percentage as they got under Michael Howard in 2004 - the year before they lost a GE)

Lib Dems on 28% - 5 points ahead of Labour, and the only main party to actually increase its vote share since last year

I don't understand how this can in any way be spun as being disappointing for the Lib Dems?

OK, so the Lib Dems lost some seats and suffered in the south-west, but these elections were in the shires - the Tory heartlands - and the percentage of the Tories' projected vote actually went down, and not just by a little bit - 6%!!

So overall, it looks to me like the Lib Dems were the only mainstream party to actually do fairly well in these elections.  

Probably because they've been the least bad in the whole expenses scandal, and ahead of the curve on the economic crisis and constitutional reform. Good luck to them I say! I, for one, will definitely consider voting for them come the GE (whenever that may be....)

 

ayld
11:21 | 07 Jun 2009

As you can see from the link given by PoliticsHome, its from Murdoch's finest, which wrongly places the two minority administrations we had (Devon and Cornwall) as being ours beforehand, and also shows losses from unitary councils that didn't exist before which is untrue as they're not equivalent.

It's not great news for the Lib Dems - but in those areas at least we've taken the flak both for people like Richard Younger-Ross and for not being able to stop the unitary authorities being imposed.