Party strengths in the London Boroughs

21 views
Skip to first unread message

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 5, 2006, 6:26:39 PM5/5/06
to
BARKING (from 1979, BARKING and DAGENHAM): 49 (1964-78); 48 (1978-94);
51 (1994-)

1964: Lab 45, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1968: Lab 32, C 13, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1971: Lab 45, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1974: Lab 45, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1978: Lab 42, C 3, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 3.
1982: Lab 37, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 3, C 3, L 3, Ind 2.
1986: Lab 35, L 5, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 3, C 3, Ind 2.
1990: Lab 44, Chadwell Heath Residents Association 3, L Dem 1.
1994: Lab 47, Chadwell Heath Residents Association 3, L Dem 1.
1998: Lab 47, Chadwell Heath Residents Association 3, L Dem 1.
2002: Lab 42, Chadwell Heath Residents Association 4, L Dem 3, C 2.
2006: Lab 38, BNP 12, C 1.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 8.
1968: Lab 8.
1971: Lab 8.
1974: Lab 8.

Total:

1964: Lab 53, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1968: Lab 40, C 13, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1971: Lab 53, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.
1974: Lab 53, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4.

BARNET: 56 (1964-68); 60 (1968-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: C 37, Lab 13, L 6.
1968: C 56, Lab 3, L 1.
1971: C 43, Lab 17.
1974: C 42, Lab 17, Hadley Ward Residents Association 1.
1978: C 49, Lab 10, Hadley Ward Residents Association 1.
1982: C 48, Lab 12.
1986: C 39, Lab 18, SDP 2, L 1.
1990: C 39, Lab 18, L Dem 3.
1994: C 29, Lab 25, L Dem 6.
1998: C 28, Lab 26, L Dem 6.
2002: C 33, Lab 24, L Dem 6.
2006: C 37, Lab 20, L Dem 6.

Aldermen:

1964: C 6, Lab 2, L 1.
1968: C 7, Lab 2, L 1.
1971: C 7, Lab 2, L 1.
1974: C 8, Lab 2.

Total:

1964: C 43, Lab 15, L 7.
1968: C 63, Lab 5, L 2.
1971: C 50, Lab 19, L 1.
1974: C 50, Lab 19, Hadley Ward Residents Association 1.

BEXLEY: 56 (1964-74); 59 (1974-78); 62 (1978-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: Lab 39, C 17.
1968: C 55, Ind 1.
1971: Lab 32, C 24.
1974: C 37, Lab 22.
1978: C 43, Lab 18, Ind C 1.
1982: C 41, Lab 14, L 7.
1986: C 36, Lab 15, L 10, SDP 1.
1990: C 35, Lab 18, L Dem 9.
1994: C 24, Lab 24, L Dem 14.
1998: C 32, Lab 24, L Dem 6.
2002: Lab 32, C 30, L Dem 1.
2006: C 54, Lab 9.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 7, C 2.
1968: Lab 5, C 4.
1971: Lab 5, C 4.
1974: Lab 5, C 4.

Total:

1964: Lab 46, C 19.
1968: C 59, Lab 5, Ind 1.
1971: Lab 37, C 28.
1974: C 41, Lab 27.

BRENT: 60 (1964-78); 66 (1978-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: Lab 34, C 26.
1968: C 49, Lab 11.
1971: Lab 38, C 22.
1974: Lab 35, C 25.
1978: Lab 39, C 27.
1982: Lab 33, C 30, L 3.
1986: Lab 43, C 20, L 3.
1990: C 31, Lab 29, L Dem 6.
1994: C 33, Lab 28, L Dem 5.
1998: Lab 43, C 19, L Dem 4.
2002: Lab 35, C 19, L Dem 9.
2006: L Dem 27, Lab 21, C 15.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 44, C 26.
1968: C 54, Lab 16.
1971: Lab 43, C 27.
1974: Lab 45, C 25.

BROMLEY: 60

1964: C 38, Lab 15, L 7.
1968: C 52, Lab 5, L 3.
1971: C 41, Lab 15, L 4.
1974: C 44, Lab 14, L 2.
1978: C 48, Lab 12.
1982: C 52, Lab 5, SDP 2, L 1.
1986: C 44, Lab 10, L 4, SDP 2.
1990: C 43, Lab 11, L Dem 6.
1994: C 32, L Dem 21, Lab 7.
1998: C 28, L Dem 25, Lab 7.
2002: C 41, L Dem 13, Lab 6.
2006: C 49, L Dem 7, Lab 4.

Aldermen:

1964: C 7, Lab 2, L 1.
1968: C 10.
1971: C 8, Lab 2.
1974: C 8, Lab 2.

Total:

1964: C 45, Lab 17, L 8.
1968: C 62, Lab 5, L 3.
1971: C 49, Lab 17, L 4.
1974: C 52, Lab 16, L 2.

CAMDEN: 60 (1964-78); 59 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

1964: Lab 34, C 26.
1968: C 42, Lab 18.
1971: Lab 49, C 11.
1974: Lab 48, C 12.
1978: Lab 33, C 26.
1982: Lab 33, C 26.
1986: Lab 44, C 13, L 2.
1990: Lab 42, C 15, L Dem 2.
1994: Lab 47, C 7, L Dem 5.
1998: Lab 43, C 10, L Dem 6.
2002: Lab 35, C 11, L Dem 8.
2006: L Dem 20, Lab 18, C 14, GP 2.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 8, C 2.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 42, C 28.
1968: C 47, Lab 23.
1971: Lab 54, C 16.
1974: Lab 58, C 12.

CROYDON: 60 (1964-78); 70 (1978-)

1964: C 30, Lab 21, RA 6, Ind 3.
1968: C 47, RA 6, Ind 5, Lab 1, L 1.
1971: C 30, Lab 27, Ind 3.
1974: C 40, Lab 17, Ratepayers and Residents Association 3.
1978: C 56, Lab 11, Ratepayers and Residents Association 3.
1982: C 62, Lab 5, Ratepayers and Residents Association 3.
1986: C 44, Lab 26.
1990: C 41, Lab 29.
1994: Lab 40, C 30.
1998: Lab 38, C 31, L Dem 1.
2002: Lab 37, C 32, L Dem 1.
2006: C 43, Lab 27.

Aldermen:

1964: C 5, Lab 3, RA 2.
1968: C 7, Lab 2, RA 1.
1971: C 8, Lab 2.
1974: C 7, Lab 3.

Total:

1964: C 35, Lab 24, RA 8, Ind 3.
1968: C 54, RA 7, Ind 5, Lab 3, L 1.
1971: C 38, Lab 29, Ind 3.
1974: C 47, Lab 20, Ratepayers and Residents Association 3.

EALING: 60 (1964-78); 70 (1978-94); 71 (1994-2002); 69 (2002-)

1964: Lab 34, C 26.
1968: C 53, Lab 5, Southall Residents Association 2.
1971: Lab 40, C 20.
1974: Lab 36, C 24.
1978: C 41, Lab 28, Ind 1.
1982: C 37, Lab 30, L 3.
1986: Lab 47, C 20, L 3.
1990: C 40, Lab 30.
1994: Lab 48, C 20, L Dem 3.
1998: Lab 53, C 15, L Dem 3.
2002: Lab 48, C 17, L Dem 4.
2006: C 37, Lab 29, L Dem 3.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 44, C 26.
1968: C 58, Lab 10, Southall Residents Association 2.
1971: Lab 45, C 25.
1974: Lab 46, C 24.

ENFIELD: 60 (1964-82); 66 (1982-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: Lab 31, C 29.
1968: C 51, Lab 9.
1971: C 32, Lab 28.
1974: C 30, Lab 29, L 1.
1978: C 41, Lab 19.
1982: C 47, Lab 19.
1986: C 38, Lab 28.
1990: C 34, Lab 32.
1994: Lab 41, C 25.
1998: Lab 43, C 23.
2002: C 39, Lab 24.
2006: C 34, Lab 27, Save Chase Farm 2.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 10.
1974: C 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 41, C 29.
1968: C 56, Lab 14.
1971: C 42, Lab 28.
1974: C 40, Lab 29, L 1.

GREENWICH: 60 (1964-78); 62 (1978-2002); 51 (2002-)

1964: Lab 49, C 11.
1968: C 38, Lab 22.
1971: Lab 55, C 5.
1974: Lab 52, C 8.
1978: Lab 45, C 17.
1982: Lab 43, C 16, L 2, SDP 1.
1986: Lab 44, C 12, SDP 4, L 2.
1990: Lab 44, C 12, SDP 4, L Dem 2.
1994: Lab 47, C 8, Ind SD 4, L Dem 3.
1998: Lab 52, C 8, L Dem 2.
2002: Lab 38, C 9, L Dem 4.
2006: Lab 36, C 13, L Dem 2.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 9, C 1.
1968: C 6, Lab 4.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 9, C 1.

Total:

1964: Lab 58, C 12.
1968: C 44, Lab 26.
1971: Lab 60, C 10.
1974: Lab 61, C 9.

HACKNEY: 60 (1964-2002); 57 (2002-)

1964: Lab 60.
1968: C 31, Lab 27, L 2.
1971: Lab 60.
1974: Lab 60.
1978: Lab 59, C 1.
1982: Lab 50, L 7, C 3.
1986: Lab 53, L 5, C 2.
1990: Lab 48, L Dem 8, C 4.
1994: Lab 44, L Dem 10, C 6.
1998: Lab 29, L Dem 17, C 12, GP 2.
2002: Lab 45, C 9, L Dem 3.
2006: Lab 44, C 9, L Dem 3, GP 1.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 70.
1968: C 36, Lab 33, L 2.
1971: Lab 65, C 5.
1974: Lab 70.

HAMMERSMITH (from 1978, HAMMERSMITH and FULHAM): 60 (1964-78); 50
(1978-2002); 46 (2002-)

1964: Lab 53, C 7.
1968: C 54, Lab 6.
1971: Lab 58, C 2.
1974: Lab 48, C 10, L 2.
1978: C 24, Lab 24, L 2.
1982: Lab 25, C 23, L 2.
1986: Lab 40, C 9, L 1.
1990: Lab 28, C 22.
1994: Lab 33, C 15, L Dem 2.
1998: Lab 36, C 14.
2002: Lab 28, C 18.
2006: C 33, Lab 13.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 9, C 1.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 62, C 8.
1968: C 59, Lab 11.
1971: Lab 63, C 7.
1974: Lab 58, C 10, L 2.

HARINGEY: 60 (1964-1978); 59 (1978-2002); 57 (2002-)

1964: Lab 41, C 19.
1968: C 53, Lab 7.
1971: Lab 41, C 19.
1974: Lab 40, C 19, NIP & RA 1.
1978: Lab 42, C 17.
1982: Lab 33, C 26.
1986: Lab 42, C 16, L 1.
1990: Lab 42, C 17.
1994: Lab 57, C 2.
1998: Lab 54, L Dem 3, C 2.
2002: Lab 42, L Dem 15.
2006: Lab 30, L Dem 27.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 51, C 19.
1968: C 58, Lab 12.
1971: Lab 46, C 24.
1974: Lab 51, C 19.

HARROW: 56 (1964-1978); 63 (1978-)

1964: C 36, Lab 20.
1968: C 56.
1971: Lab 27, C 26, L 2, Headstone Ratepayers Association 1.
1974: C 39, Lab 14, RA 2, Headstone Ratepayers Association 1.
1978: C 46, Lab 12, RA 3, Headstone Ratepayers Association 1, L 1.
1982: C 41, L 13, Lab 6, RA 3.
1986: C 32, L 18, Lab 9, RA 3, Ind RA 1.
1990: C 36, Lab 13, L Dem 11, RA 3.
1994: L Dem 29, C 17, Lab 14, RA 3.
1998: Lab 32, C 20, L Dem 9, RA 2.
2002: Lab 31, C 29, L Dem 3.
2006: C 38, Lab 24, L Dem 1.

Aldermen:

1964: C 6, Lab 3.
1968: C 8, Lab 1.
1971: C 4, Lab 4, L 1.
1974: C 4, Lab 4, L 1.

Total:

1964: C 42, Lab 23.
1968: C 64, Lab 1.
1971: Lab 31, C 30, L 3, Headstone Ratepayers Association 1.
1974: C 43, Lab 18, RA 2, Headstone Ratepayers Association 1, L 1.

HAVERING: 55 (1964-78); 63 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

1964: Lab 27, C 16, Ind RA 12.
1968: C 35, Ind RA 13, Lab 7.
1971: Lab 30, C 13, Ind RA 12.
1974: Lab 26, C 20, RA 9.
1978: C 38, Lab 12, Rainham Residents Association 6, Ind RA 4,
Hornchurch Residents Association 3.
1982: C 37, Lab 12, L 5, Hornchurch Residents Association 4, Ind RA 4,
RA 1.
1986: C 28, Lab 20, Hornchurch Residents Association 6, L 5, Ind RA 4.
1990: Lab 25, C 19, RA 13, L Dem 6.
1994: Lab 31, RA 17, C 11, L Dem 4.
1998: Lab 29, RA 17, C 14, L Dem 3.
2002: C 26, RA 18, Lab 9, L Dem 1.
2006: C 34, RA 13, Ind 3, Lab 2, BNP 1, L Dem 1.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 4, C 3, Ind RA 2.
1968: C 6, Ind RA 2, Lab 1.
1971: Lab 5, C 4.
1974: Lab 5, C 3, RA 1.

Total:

1964: Lab 31, C 19, Ind RA 14.
1968: C 41, Ind RA 15, Lab 8.
1971: Lab 35, C 17, Ind RA 12.
1974: Lab 31, C 23, RA 10.

HILLINGDON: 60 (1964-78); 69 (1978-2002); 65 (2002-)

1964: Lab 36, C 24.
1968: C 60.
1971: Lab 36, C 24.
1974: Lab 32, C 28.
1978: C 55, Lab 14.
1982: C 57, Lab 10, L 2.
1986: Lab 34, C 28, L 7.
1990: C 35, Lab 34.
1994: Lab 43, C 25, Ind Lab 1.
1998: C 34, Lab 31, L Dem 4.
2002: C 31, Lab 27, L Dem 7.
2006: C 45, Lab 18, L Dem 2.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 7, C 3.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 43, C 27.
1968: C 65, Lab 5.
1971: Lab 41, C 29.
1974: Lab 42, C 28.

HOUNSLOW: 60

1964: Lab 48, C 12.
1968: C 53, Lab 7.
1971: Lab 47, C 13.
1974: Lab 37, C 23.
1978: Lab 36, C 24.
1982: Lab 33, C 27.
1986: Lab 40, C 17, SDP 3.
1990: Lab 44, C 15, L Dem 1.
1994: Lab 49, C 6, L Dem 5.
1998: Lab 44, C 11, L Dem 4, Isleworth Community 1.
2002: Lab 36, C 15, L Dem 5, Community 3, ABC 1.
2006: Lab 24, C 23, Community 6, L Dem 5, Independent Alliance 2.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 58, C 12.
1968: C 58, Lab 12.
1971: Lab 52, C 18.
1974: Lab 47, C 23.

ISLINGTON: 60 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 48 (2002-)

1964: Lab 60.
1968: C 47, Lab 10, Ind 3.
1971: Lab 60.
1974: Lab 60.
1978: Lab 50, C 2.
1982: Lab 51, SDP 1.
1986: Lab 36, SDP 15, L 1.
1990: Lab 49, L Dem 3.
1994: Lab 39, L Dem 12, C 1.
1998: Lab 26, L Dem 26.
2002: L Dem 38, Lab 10.
2006: L Dem 24, Lab 23, GP 1.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 70.
1968: C 52, Lab 15, Ind 3.
1971: Lab 65, C 5.
1974: Lab 70.

KENSINGTON and CHELSEA: 60 (1964-74); 61 (1974-78); 54 (1978-)

1964: C 46, Lab 14.
1968: C 57, Lab 3.
1971: C 39, Lab 21.
1974: C 45, Lab 16.
1978: C 39, Lab 13, Golborne Community Hundred 2.
1982: C 39, Lab 15.
1986: C 39, Lab 15.
1990: C 39, Lab 15.
1994: C 39, Lab 15.
1998: C 39, Lab 15.
2002: C 42, Lab 12.
2006: C 45, Lab 9.

Aldermen:

1964: C 8, Lab 2.
1968: C 9, Lab 1.
1971: C 9, Lab 1.
1974: C 7, Lab 3.

Total:

1964: C 54, Lab 16.
1968: C 66, Lab 4.
1971: C 48, Lab 22.
1974: C 52, Lab 19.

KINGSTON-upon-THAMES: 60 (1964-78); 50 (1978-2002); 48 (2002-)

1964: C 40, Lab 20.
1968: C 59, Lab 1.
1971: C 40, Lab 20.
1974: C 39, Lab 15, L 6.
1978: C 44, Lab 6.
1982: C 40, L 7, Lab 3.
1986: C 24, L 18, Lab 4, SDP 4.
1990: C 25, L Dem 18, Lab 7.
1994: L Dem 26, C 18, Lab 6.
1998: C 21, L Dem 19, Lab 10.
2002: L Dem 30, C 15, Lab 3.
2006: L Dem 25, C 21, Lab 2.

Aldermen:

1964: C 9, Lab 1.
1968: C 9, Lab 1.
1971: C 9, Lab 1.
1974: C 9, Lab 1.

Total:

1964: C 49, Lab 21.
1968: C 68, Lab 2.
1971: C 49, Lab 21.
1974: C 48, Lab 16, L 6.

LAMBETH: 60 (1964-78); 64 (1978-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: Lab 42, C 18.
1968: C 57, Lab 3.
1971: Lab 51, C 9.
1974: Lab 46, C 14.
1978: Lab 42, C 22.
1982: Lab 32, C 27, SDP 4, L 1.
1986: Lab 40, C 21, SDP 2, L 1.
1990: Lab 40, C 20, L Dem 4.
1994: Lab 24, L Dem 24, C 16.
1998: Lab 41, L Dem 18, C 5.
2002: Lab 28, L Dem 28, C 7.
2006: Lab 39, L Dem 17, C 6, GP 1.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 9, C 1.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 51, C 19.
1968: C 62, Lab 8.
1971: Lab 56, C 14.
1974: Lab 56, C 14.

LEWISHAM: 60 (1964-78); 67 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

1964: Lab 45, C 15.
1968: C 44, Lab 16.
1971: Lab 56, C 4.
1974: Lab 49, C 11.
1978: Lab 44, C 23.
1982: Lab 41, C 26.
1986: Lab 50, C 17.
1990: Lab 58, C 6, L Dem 3.
1994: Lab 63, L Dem 3, C 1.
1998: Lab 61, L Dem 4, C 2.
2002: Lab 45, L Dem 4, C 2, GP 1, Local Education Action for Parents 1,
SP 1.
2006: Lab 26, L Dem 17, GP 6, C 3, SP 2.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 8, C 2.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 53, C 17.
1968: C 49, Lab 21.
1971: Lab 61, C 9.
1974: Lab 59, C 11.

MERTON: 54 (1964-78); 57 (1978-2002); 60 (2002-)

1964: Lab 26, C 24, RA 4.
1968: C 46, Lab 4, RA 4.
1971: Lab 29, C 21, RA 4.
1974: C 29, Lab 22, RA 3.
1978: C 39, Lab 15, RA 3.
1982: C 44, Lab 13.
1986: C 29, Lab 25, RA 3.
1990: Lab 29, C 22, Ind RA 3, RA 3.
1994: Lab 40, C 10, Ind RA 3, L Dem 3, RA 1.
1998: Lab 39, C 12, L Dem 3, Ind RA 3.
2002: Lab 32, C 25, Ind RA 3.
2006: C 30, Lab 27, Ind RA 3.

Aldermen:

1964: C 5, Lab 3, RA 1.
1968: C 7, Lab 1, RA 1.
1971: Lab 6, C 3.
1974: Lab 5, C 4.

Total:

1964: C 29, Lab 29, RA 5.
1968: C 53, Lab 5, RA 5.
1971: Lab 35, C 24, RA 4.
1974: C 33, Lab 27, RA 3.

NEWHAM: 60

1964: Lab 50, RA 7, L 3.
1968: Lab 30, RA 21, C 6, L 3.
1971: Lab 53, RA 7.
1974: Lab 51, RA 9.
1978: Lab 57, RA 3.
1982: Lab 54, L 3, SDP 3.
1986: Lab 60.
1990: Lab 57, C 2, L Dem 1.
1994: Lab 59, L Dem 1.
1998: Lab 60.
2002: Lab 59, CPA 1.
2006: Lab 54, CPA 3, RU 3.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: Lab 10.
1971: Lab 10.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 60, RA 7, L 3.
1968: Lab 40, RA 21, C 6, L 3.
1971: Lab 63, RA 7.
1974: Lab 61, RA 9.

REDBRIDGE: 60 (1964-78); 63 (1978-94); 62 (1994-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: C 45, Lab 15.
1968: C 55, Lab 5.
1971: C 42, Lab 18.
1974: C 45, Lab 15.
1978: C 50, Lab 13.
1982: C 51, Lab 12.
1986: C 45, Lab 17, L 1.
1990: C 42, Lab 18, L Dem 3.
1994: Lab 29, C 24, L Dem 9.
1998: Lab 30, C 23, L Dem 9.
2002: C 33, Lab 21, L Dem 9.
2006: C 34, Lab 19, L Dem 9, BNP 1.

Aldermen:

1964: C 8, Lab 2.
1968: C 8, Lab 2.
1971: C 8, Lab 2.
1974: C 8, Lab 2.

Total:

1964: C 53, Lab 17.
1968: C 63, Lab 7.
1971: C 50, Lab 20.
1974: C 53, Lab 17.

RICHMOND-upon-THAMES: 54 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

1964: C 41, Lab 12, RA 1.
1968: C 54.
1971: C 37, Lab 14, L 3.
1974: C 36, L 10, Lab 8.
1978: C 34, L 18.
1982: C 26, L 24, SDP 2.
1986: L 43, SDP 6, C 3.
1990: L Dem 48, C 4.
1994: L Dem 43, C 7, Lab 2.
1998: L Dem 34, C 14, Lab 4.
2002: C 39, L Dem 15.
2006: L Dem 36, C 18.

Aldermen:

1964: C 7, Lab 2.
1968: C 9.
1971: C 9.
1974: C 8, Lab 1.

Total:

1964: C 48, Lab 14, RA 1.
1968: C 63.
1971: C 46, Lab 14, L 3.
1974: C 44, L 10, Lab 9.

SOUTHWARK: 60 (1964-78); 64 (1978-2002); 63 (2002-)

1964: Lab 54, C 6.
1968: Lab 33, C 27.
1971: Lab 58, C 2.
1974: Lab 56, C 4.
1978: Lab 56, C 8.
1982: Lab 53, C 8, Ind Lab 3.
1986: Lab 43, L 14, C 6, SDP 1.
1990: Lab 37, L Dem 21, C 6.
1994: Lab 34, L Dem 27, C 3.
1998: Lab 33, L Dem 27, C 4.
2002: L Dem 30, Lab 28, C 5.
2006: Lab 28, L Dem 28, C 6, GP 1.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: Lab 10.
1971: Lab 10.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 64, C 6.
1968: Lab 43, C 27.
1971: Lab 68, C 2.
1974: Lab 66, C 4.

SUTTON: 51 (1964-78); 56 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

1964: C 30, Lab 17, RA 4.
1968: C 41, Lab 7, Residents and Ratepayers 3.
1971: C 25, Lab 21, Residents and Ratepayers 5.
1974: C 28, Lab 13, L 6, Residents and Ratepayers 4.
1978: C 47, Lab 7, L 2.
1982: C 46, Lab 7, L 3.
1986: C 21, L 18, SDP 10, Lab 7.
1990: L Dem 32, C 18, Lab 6.
1994: L Dem 47, Lab 5, C 4.
1998: L Dem 46, C 5, Lab 5.
2002: L Dem 43, C 8, Lab 3.
2006: L Dem 32, C 22.

Aldermen:

1964: C 5, Lab 3.
1968: C 7, Lab 1.
1971: C 6, Lab 2.
1974: C 5, Lab 2, L 1.

Total:

1964: C 35, Lab 20, RA 4.
1968: C 48, Lab 8, Residents and Ratepayers 3.
1971: C 31, Lab 23, Residents and Ratepayers 5.
1974: C 33, Lab 15, L 7, Residents and Ratepayers 4.

TOWER HAMLETS: 60 (1964-78); 50 (1978-2002); 51 (2002-)

1964: Lab 55, Com 3, RA 2.
1968: Lab 57, Com 3.
1971: Lab 60.
1974: Lab 60.
1978: Lab 43, L 7.
1982: Lab 31, L 18, Ind 1.
1986: L 25, Lab 24, SDP 1.
1990: L Dem 30, Lab 20.
1994: Lab 43, L Dem 7.
1998: Lab 41, L Dem 9.
2002: Lab 35, L Dem 16.
2006: Lab 26, RU 12, C 7, L Dem 6.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: Lab 10.
1971: Lab 10.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 65, Com 3, RA 2.
1968: Lab 67, Com 3.
1971: Lab 70.
1974: Lab 70.

WALTHAM FOREST: 48 (1964-78); 57 (1978-2002); 60 (2002-)

1964: Lab 36, RA 9, C 3.
1968: C 44, Lab 4.
1971: Lab 39, C 9.
1974: Lab 36, C 12.
1978: Lab 36, C 21.
1982: Lab 26, C 25, L 6.
1986: Lab 31, C 16, L 7, SDP 3.
1990: Lab 30, C 16, L Dem 11.
1994: Lab 27, C 16, L Dem 14.
1998: Lab 30, C 15, L Dem 12.
2002: Lab 29, C 18, L Dem 13.
2006: Lab 26, L Dem 19, C 15.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 8.
1968: C 4, Lab 4.
1971: C 4, Lab 4.
1974: Lab 8.

Total:

1964: Lab 44, RA 9, C 3.
1968: C 48, Lab 8.
1971: Lab 43, C 13.
1974: Lab 44, C 12.

WANDSWORTH: 60 (1964-78); 61 (1978-2002); 60 (2002-)

1964: Lab 47, C 13.
1968: C 48, Lab 12.
1971: Lab 53, C 7.
1974: Lab 48, C 12.
1978: C 36, Lab 25.
1982: C 33, Lab 27, L 1.
1986: C 31, Lab 30.
1990: C 48, Lab 13.
1994: C 45, Lab 16.
1998: C 50, Lab 11.
2002: C 50, Lab 10.
2006: C 51, Lab 9.

Aldermen:

1964: Lab 10.
1968: C 5, Lab 5.
1971: C 5, Lab 5.
1974: Lab 10.

Total:

1964: Lab 57, C 13.
1968: C 53, Lab 17.
1971: Lab 58, C 12.
1974: Lab 58, C 12.

WESTMINSTER: 60

1964: C 41, Lab 19.
1968: C 55, Lab 5.
1971: C 37, Lab 23.
1974: C 37, Lab 23.
1978: C 39, Lab 19, Ind 2.
1982: C 43, Lab 16, Ind 1.
1986: C 32, Lab 27, Ind 1.
1990: C 45, Lab 15.
1994: C 45, Lab 15.
1998: C 47, Lab 13.
2002: C 48, Lab 12.
2006: C 48, Lab 12.

Aldermen:

1964: C 7, Lab 3.
1968: C 10.
1971: C 7, Lab 3.
1974: C 7, Lab 3.

Total:

1964: C 48, Lab 22.
1968: C 65, Lab 5.
1971: C 44, Lab 26.
1974: C 44, Lab 26.

TOTALS:

1964: Lab 1,112, C 676, RA 33, L 16, Ind RA 12, Chadwell Heath
Ratepayers Association 4, Com 3, Ind 3. Total 1,859.

1968: C 1,438, Lab 350, RA 31, Ind RA 13, L 10, Ind 9, Chadwell Heath
Ratepayers Association 4, Com 3, Residents and Ratepayers 3, Southall
Residents Association 2. Total 1,863.

1971: Lab 1,221, C 597, Ind RA 12, RA 11, L 9, Residents and Ratepayers
5, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 4, Ind 3, Headstone Ratepayers
Association 1. Total 1,863.

1974: Lab 1,090, C 713, L 27, RA 23, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers
Association 4, Residents and Ratepayers 4, Ratepayers and Residents
Association 3, Hadley Ward Residents Association 1, Headstone Ratepayers
Association 1, NIP & RA 1. Total 1,867.

1978: C 960, Lab 882, L 30, RA 9, Rainham Residents Association 6, Ind
RA 4, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 3, Hornchurch Residents
Association 3, Ind 3, Ratepayers and Residents Association 3, Golborne
Community Hundred 2, Ind C 1, Hadley Ward Residents Association 1,
Headstone Ratepayers Association 1. Total 1,908.

1982: C 984, Lab 781, L 111, SDP 13, Hornchurch Residents Association 4,
Ind 4, Ind RA 4, RA 4, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 3, Ind Lab
3, Ratepayers and Residents Association 3. Total 1,914.

1986: Lab 957, C 685, L 195, SDP 54, Hornchurch Residents Association 6,
RA 6, Ind RA 5, Chadwell Heath Ratepayers Association 3, Ind 3. Total
1,914.

1990: Lab 925, C 731, L Dem 229, RA 19, SDP 4, Chadwell Heath Residents
Association 3, Ind RA 3. Total 1,914.

1994: Lab 1,042, C 519, L Dem 324, RA 21, Ind SD 4, Chadwell Heath
Residents Association 3, Ind RA 3, Ind Lab 1. Total 1,917.

1998: Lab 1,050, C 538, L Dem 301, RA 19, Chadwell Heath Residents
Association 3, Ind RA 3, GP 2, Isleworth Community 1. Total 1,917.

2002: Lab 866, C 653, L Dem 309, RA 18, Chadwell Heath Residents
Association 4, Community Group 3, Ind RA 3, ABC 1, CPA 1, GP 1, Local
Education Action for Parents 1, SP 1. Total 1,861.

2006: C 785, Lab 684, L Dem 317, RU 15, BNP 14, RA 13, GP 12, Community
Group 6, CPA 3, Ind 3, Ind RA 3, Independent Alliance 2, Save Chase Farm
2, SP 2. Total 1,861.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

Tim Roll-Pickering

unread,
May 5, 2006, 7:32:00 PM5/5/06
to
David Boothroyd wrote:

> BARKING (from 1979, BARKING and DAGENHAM): 49 (1964-78); 48 (1978-94);
> 51 (1994-)

> 2002: Lab 42, Chadwell Heath Residents Association 4, L Dem 3, C 2.


> 2006: Lab 38, BNP 12, C 1.

At a glance it looks as though the BNP gains were more at the expense of
opposition parties than Labour. Is this the case or did they gain from
Labour who in turn compensated by gaining elsewhere (similar to "RESPECT" in
Tower Hamlets).

> BEXLEY: 56 (1964-74); 59 (1974-78); 62 (1978-2002); 63 (2002-)

> 1964: Lab 39, C 17.
> 1968: C 55, Ind 1.
> 1971: Lab 32, C 24.

Can such a turnover be matched?

> HACKNEY: 60 (1964-2002); 57 (2002-)

> 1964: Lab 60.
> 1968: C 31, Lab 27, L 2.
> 1971: Lab 60.

> ISLINGTON: 60 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 48 (2002-)

> 1964: Lab 60.
> 1968: C 47, Lab 10, Ind 3.
> 1971: Lab 60.

Just how often do parties materialise from nothing to take full control and
then dematerialise again at the next election?

> HAVERING: 55 (1964-78); 63 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

> 1974: Lab 26, C 20, RA 9.


> 1978: C 38, Lab 12, Rainham Residents Association 6, Ind RA 4,
> Hornchurch Residents Association 3.

Was this just a rebranding (the Epsom & Ewell RA often use the local ward
name for candidatures) or a split in the RA?

> HILLINGDON: 60 (1964-78); 69 (1978-2002); 65 (2002-)

> 1964: Lab 36, C 24.
> 1968: C 60.
> 1971: Lab 36, C 24.

Next someone will confirm that the same 36 seats changed hands each time!

> KENSINGTON and CHELSEA: 60 (1964-74); 61 (1974-78); 54 (1978-)

> 1978: C 39, Lab 13, Golborne Community Hundred 2.


> 1982: C 39, Lab 15.
> 1986: C 39, Lab 15.
> 1990: C 39, Lab 15.
> 1994: C 39, Lab 15.
> 1998: C 39, Lab 15.

Did *anything* change hands in this period?

> REDBRIDGE: 60 (1964-78); 63 (1978-94); 62 (1994-2002); 63 (2002-)

Why was a seat axed in 1994?

> RICHMOND-upon-THAMES: 54 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

> 1964: C 41, Lab 12, RA 1.
> 1968: C 54.
> 1971: C 37, Lab 14, L 3.
> 1974: C 36, L 10, Lab 8.
> 1978: C 34, L 18.
> 1982: C 26, L 24, SDP 2.
> 1986: L 43, SDP 6, C 3.
> 1990: L Dem 48, C 4.
> 1994: L Dem 43, C 7, Lab 2.
> 1998: L Dem 34, C 14, Lab 4.
> 2002: C 39, L Dem 15.
> 2006: L Dem 36, C 18.

One where Labour was wiped out in the 1970s and they've never come back...

> SUTTON: 51 (1964-78); 56 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

> 1964: C 30, Lab 17, RA 4.
> 1968: C 41, Lab 7, Residents and Ratepayers 3.
> 1971: C 25, Lab 21, Residents and Ratepayers 5.
> 1974: C 28, Lab 13, L 6, Residents and Ratepayers 4.
> 1978: C 47, Lab 7, L 2.
> 1982: C 46, Lab 7, L 3.
> 1986: C 21, L 18, SDP 10, Lab 7.
> 1990: L Dem 32, C 18, Lab 6.
> 1994: L Dem 47, Lab 5, C 4.
> 1998: L Dem 46, C 5, Lab 5.
> 2002: L Dem 43, C 8, Lab 3.
> 2006: L Dem 32, C 22.

Never exactly a Labour stronghold by any stretch but they've been wiped out
here when even in 1968 they maintained a presence.

> TOWER HAMLETS: 60 (1964-78); 50 (1978-2002); 51 (2002-)

> 1964: Lab 55, Com 3, RA 2.
> 1968: Lab 57, Com 3.

Were these the only Labour gains of 1968?


Paul Hyett

unread,
May 6, 2006, 7:17:08 AM5/6/06
to
In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 5 May 2006, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote :

>
>TOTALS:
>
>1964: Lab 1,112, C 676, RA 33, L 16, Ind RA 12, Chadwell Heath
>Ratepayers Association 4, Com 3, Ind 3. Total 1,859.
>
>1968: C 1,438, Lab 350, RA 31, Ind RA 13, L 10, Ind 9, Chadwell Heath
>Ratepayers Association 4, Com 3, Residents and Ratepayers 3, Southall
>Residents Association 2. Total 1,863.
>
What on *earth* happened to Labour in 1968?!

They were virtually wiped out, and barely even managed to maintain
control in any of their super-ultra-safe boroughs!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

JNugent

unread,
May 6, 2006, 8:18:20 AM5/6/06
to

"The Pound In Your Pocket" (late 1967). I bet Wilson really wished he hadn't
used that phrase in a Prime Ministerial broadcast when "explaining" his opting
for devaluation, talking down to the electorate who had re-elected him a year
before as though they were a bunch of primary school pupils. Many voters (all
then over 21) clearly remembered the previous Labour devaluation in 1948, as
recent then as (say) the space shuttle disaster is now.

Labour were being wiped out everywhere in local elections in 1968. As one
Conservative commentator said at the time, "...with swings like this, we'd take
Huyton".

It was happening again in 1978/79 under Jim "What Crisis?" Callaghan. The
Conservatives even took the seat containing Liverpool in the first direct MEP
elections.

Goalie of the Century

unread,
May 6, 2006, 8:25:46 AM5/6/06
to
In message <qguge2DL...@blueyonder.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
<p...@invalid.invalid> writes

It was about six months after this, which the Tory press reported rather
less objectively.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/19/newsid_3208000/3208396.stm>

1967: Wilson defends 'pound in your pocket'

The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, has defended his decision to devalue
the pound saying it will tackle the 'root cause' of Britain's economic
problems.

The government announced last night it was lowering the exchange rate so
the pound is now worth $2.40, down from $2.80, a cut of just over 14%.

The decision came after weeks of increasingly feverish speculation and a
day in which the Bank of England spent GBP 200m trying to shore up the
pound from its gold and dollar reserves.

In a radio and television broadcast this evening, the Prime Minister
said devaluation would enable Britain to ' break out from the
straitjacket' of boom and bust economics.

The only alternative, he said, was to borrow heavily from governments
abroad - but the only loans on offer were short-term ones.

The government inherited a GBP 800m deficit from the Conservatives when
it was elected three years ago.

Mr Wilson said Labour had managed to reduce the deficit, but the cost of
hostilities in the Middle East, the closure of the Suez Canal and the
disruption to exports through the dock strikes had contributed to the
strain on sterling.

He said: 'Our decision to devalue attacks our problem at the root and
that is why the international monetary community have rallied round.

'From now the pound abroad is worth 14% or so less in terms of other
currencies. It does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain,
in your pocket or purse or in your bank, has been devalued.

'What it does mean is that we shall now be able to sell more goods
abroad on a competitive basis.'

Defence cuts

The government hopes a boost for British exports in turn will lead to
increased production and more jobs at home.

The bank lending rate has been raised to 8% and there will be cuts of
GBP 100m in defence spending and in some capital expenditure programmes.

Although there are likely to be increases in the cost of some goods
imported from abroad, such as certain foods, the government hopes this
will not feed into excessive wage demands.

Conservative leader Edward Heath has also appeared on television to
reply to Mr Wilson's broadcast.

He accused the Labour Government of failing in one of its foremost
duties - to safeguard the value of the country's money.

He said: 'Having denied 20 times in 37 months that they would ever
devalue the pound, they have devalued against all their own arguments.'
--
Goalie of the Century
http://www.crowsnest.co.uk

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 6, 2006, 11:55:48 AM5/6/06
to
In article <aoCdnew-laeWCcHZ...@pipex.net>,

JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>
> It was happening again in 1978/79 under Jim "What Crisis?" Callaghan. The
> Conservatives even took the seat containing Liverpool in the first direct MEP
> elections.

That was because the Labour candidate was actually a Militant Tendency
member.

Mike

unread,
May 6, 2006, 12:22:53 PM5/6/06
to

"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-F1760F....@news.news.demon.net...


> In article <aoCdnew-laeWCcHZ...@pipex.net>,
> JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:
>>
>> It was happening again in 1978/79 under Jim "What Crisis?" Callaghan. The
>> Conservatives even took the seat containing Liverpool in the first direct
>> MEP
>> elections.
>
> That was because the Labour candidate was actually a Militant Tendency
> member.
>

Odd comment since the Liverpool Labour party had better election results in
the period when Militant Tendency came to the fore than any other in recent
history. Or am I wrong Dave?


David Boothroyd

unread,
May 6, 2006, 1:42:52 PM5/6/06
to
In article <11469325...@echo.uk.clara.net>,

"Mike" <holt...@claranet.com> wrote:
> Or am I wrong Dave?

You are definitely wrong to call me Dave.

Mike

unread,
May 6, 2006, 3:13:20 PM5/6/06
to
That a side, am I correct on the substantive issue, that Liverpool Labour
party had better election results in the period when Militant Tendency was
to the fore?

"Mike" <holt...@claranet.com> wrote in message
news:11469325...@echo.uk.clara.net...

Mike

unread,
May 6, 2006, 3:21:13 PM5/6/06
to
That a side, am I correct on the substantive issue, that Liverpool Labour
party had better election results in the period when Militant Tendency was
to the fore?


"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:david-DA5E4C....@news.news.demon.net...

Apologies for my earlier near miss.


Chris Read

unread,
May 6, 2006, 4:22:36 PM5/6/06
to

>"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

>> David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> > BARKING (from 1979, BARKING and DAGENHAM): 49 (1964-78); 48 (1978-94);
> > 51 (1994-)
>
> > 2002: Lab 42, Chadwell Heath Residents Association 4, L Dem 3, C 2.
> > 2006: Lab 38, BNP 12, C 1.
>
> At a glance it looks as though the BNP gains were more at the expense of
> opposition parties than Labour. Is this the case or did they gain from
> Labour who in turn compensated by gaining elsewhere (similar to "RESPECT"
in
> Tower Hamlets).

The latter.

All BNP gains were from Labour, but Labour gained from the Tories in
Longbridge; the Residents in Chadwell Heath and the Lib Dems in Eastbury.

For completeness, the solitary Tory remaining was a gain from Labour in
Eastbrook.

Eastbury ward was declared Labour x 3, but the council website indicates
this result was incorrect, and may be subject to legal challenge. Anyone
know the story here? As someone who knows this ward quite well, the BNP vote
looks suspiciously low given the trend elsewhere in the borough.

The Tories had some bad publicity about one of their previous councillors in
Longbridge, and this, along with the UKIP intervention, probably lost them
three seats here.


Chris

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 6, 2006, 4:37:29 PM5/6/06
to
In article <11469428...@doris.uk.clara.net>,

"Mike" <holt...@claranet.com> wrote:
>
> That a side, am I correct on the substantive issue, that Liverpool Labour
> party had better election results in the period when Militant Tendency was
> to the fore?

Aside from the definitional problems, in that Militant was in reality a
different party attempting to suborn the Labour Party to its cause,
and therefore "Labour" candidates in Liverpool were not actually
Labour Party candidates, the answer is still no.

The time of Militant control of the Council (not the Labour group) is
from 1983, when Labour won an overall majority, to 1986, when the leading
Militants were finally thrown out of the Labour Party. During this time
the highest number of councillors in the "Labour" group was 57 from May
1984 to May 1985.

This total was exceeded between May 1990 and May 1991 when Labour had
67 councillors.

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 6, 2006, 4:39:45 PM5/6/06
to
In article <PbWdnZo1FeU...@bt.com>,

"Chris Read" <chri...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Eastbury ward was declared Labour x 3, but the council website indicates
> this result was incorrect, and may be subject to legal challenge. Anyone
> know the story here? As someone who knows this ward quite well, the BNP vote
> looks suspiciously low given the trend elsewhere in the borough.

It was a pretty basic clerical error - the correct result is exactly
the same as the one declared except that the BNP candidate got 1,000
votes more. In other words, the "1," from the front of the BNP
candidates' figures was lost when writing up the result.

I suppose it's a sort of payback for the Kingstanding result in
Birmingham.

JohnLoony

unread,
May 6, 2006, 5:06:14 PM5/6/06
to

David Boothroyd wrote:
> It was a pretty basic clerical error - the correct result is exactly
> the same as the one declared except that the BNP candidate got 1,000
> votes more. In other words, the "1," from the front of the BNP
> candidates' figures was lost when writing up the result.
>
> I suppose it's a sort of payback for the Kingstanding result in
> Birmingham.


I noticed from the B&D results that

(a) The BNP candidates were almost all ahead of other parties
(b) they mostly had 2 candidates in each ward which they contested
(c) they would almost certainly have won all 3 seats in each ward if
there had been a 3rd candidate
(d) They would probably have won far more seats if they had had enough
candidates - perhaps even an overwhelming majority of the borough's
seats
(e) But only a few hundred votes fewer in each ward (i.e. a swing away
from the BNP of only a few %) would have unseated almost all of them.

It sounds to me like another clear argument for the stability of PR
instead of the haphazard and distorted upheavals of FPTP.

JNugent

unread,
May 6, 2006, 5:10:37 PM5/6/06
to
David Boothroyd wrote:

> JNugent <not.t...@isp.com> wrote:

>>It was happening again in 1978/79 under Jim "What Crisis?" Callaghan. The
>>Conservatives even took the seat containing Liverpool in the first direct MEP
>>elections.

> That was because the Labour candidate was actually a Militant Tendency
> member.

I was a member of the electorate and remember absolutely nothing of any stories
of the MT in that election - I never even heard that phrase until the 1980s -
and I'm interested in politics.

Gloria Hooper won right across the sub-region. The result was no more than a
reflection of what was happening in other parts of the region and the country.
She would have won no matter who the Labour candidate had been.

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 6, 2006, 5:09:47 PM5/6/06
to
In article <4c25jiF...@individual.net>,

"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
> David Boothroyd wrote:
>
> > HILLINGDON: 60 (1964-78); 69 (1978-2002); 65 (2002-)
>
> > 1964: Lab 36, C 24.
> > 1968: C 60.
> > 1971: Lab 36, C 24.
>
> Next someone will confirm that the same 36 seats changed hands each time!

Yes, it was exactly the same wards involved.

> > KENSINGTON and CHELSEA: 60 (1964-74); 61 (1974-78); 54 (1978-)
>
> > 1978: C 39, Lab 13, Golborne Community Hundred 2.
> > 1982: C 39, Lab 15.
> > 1986: C 39, Lab 15.
> > 1990: C 39, Lab 15.
> > 1994: C 39, Lab 15.
> > 1998: C 39, Lab 15.
>
> Did *anything* change hands in this period?

No, apart from Labour regaining the two Golborne seats in 1982.

> > REDBRIDGE: 60 (1964-78); 63 (1978-94); 62 (1994-2002); 63 (2002-)
>
> Why was a seat axed in 1994?

There was an external boundary change along the southern boundary with
Barking and Dagenham - half of Goodmayes ward was removed to form the
new Becontree ward in Barking, and so the remaining part of the ward
went from three seats to two. At the same time in Barking and Dagenham,
Marks Gate ward was increased from one seat to two.

> > RICHMOND-upon-THAMES: 54 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)
>

> One where Labour was wiped out in the 1970s and they've never come back...

Labour did reasonably well in 1964 when Richmond consisted of single-
member wards and it was easier to concentrate campaigning strength.
When there is no reason for a tactical squeeze on Labour to the Liberal
Democrats, Labour does much better in Richmond than otherwise - see GLA
elections 2004 and the European Parliament in 1999.

> > SUTTON: 51 (1964-78); 56 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)
>

> Never exactly a Labour stronghold by any stretch but they've been wiped out
> here when even in 1968 they maintained a presence.

In 1973, Labour won the Carshalton seat on the GLC.

> > TOWER HAMLETS: 60 (1964-78); 50 (1978-2002); 51 (2002-)
>
> > 1964: Lab 55, Com 3, RA 2.
> > 1968: Lab 57, Com 3.
>
> Were these the only Labour gains of 1968?

Yes. In the Poplar Millwall ward.

Chris Read

unread,
May 6, 2006, 5:56:17 PM5/6/06
to

"JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> I noticed from the B&D results that
>
> (a) The BNP candidates were almost all ahead of other parties
> (b) they mostly had 2 candidates in each ward which they contested
> (c) they would almost certainly have won all 3 seats in each ward if
> there had been a 3rd candidate
> (d) They would probably have won far more seats if they had had enough
> candidates - perhaps even an overwhelming majority of the borough's
> seats

Unlikely. They targetted very effectively. I suspect they could have posed a
challenge in River and Thames, but elsewhere wards are too ethnically mixed
(eg Gascoigne and Abbey) or middle class (eg Longbridge, Chadwell Heath,
Whalebone, Eastbrook) to make BNP success likely.

> (e) But only a few hundred votes fewer in each ward (i.e. a swing away
> from the BNP of only a few %) would have unseated almost all of them.

Yes, but true of a very large number of wards held by all parties, including
those where the BNP finished a close second.

> It sounds to me like another clear argument for the stability of PR
> instead of the haphazard and distorted upheavals of FPTP.

Eh? The BNP would still have gained substantial representation in B&D under
PR.


Chris


JohnLoony

unread,
May 6, 2006, 7:37:08 PM5/6/06
to

Chris Read wrote:

> "JohnLoony" <john....@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > It sounds to me like another clear argument for the stability of PR
> > instead of the haphazard and distorted upheavals of FPTP.
>
> Eh? The BNP would still have gained substantial representation in B&D under
> PR.


Of course it would. That was my whole point. For in case you are not
very good at following my logic, I will repeat the same point again:

If the BNP had contested every seat in every ward then it could have
possibly won most of the seats, despite being only just ahead of the
other parties in each ward. Under FPTP, this would mean possibly 80%
of the seats on the basis of 30% or 40% of the votes.

A swing of a few % away from the BNP would have unseated all the BNP
candidates, thereby resulting in 0% of the seats on the basis of 20% or
30% of the votes.

Therefore PR would be fairer, more balanced, less haphazard, less
distorted and more stable than FPTP in both cases.

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
May 6, 2006, 9:11:00 PM5/6/06
to
In article <4c25jiF...@individual.net>,
T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> > HACKNEY: 60 (1964-2002); 57 (2002-)
>
> > 1964: Lab 60.
> > 1968: C 31, Lab 27, L 2.
> > 1971: Lab 60.
>
> > ISLINGTON: 60 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 48 (2002-)
>
> > 1964: Lab 60.
> > 1968: C 47, Lab 10, Ind 3.
> > 1971: Lab 60.
>
> Just how often do parties materialise from nothing to take full
> control and then dematerialise again at the next election?

I'm not aware of any other examples.

> > 1964: Lab 55, Com 3, RA 2.
> > 1968: Lab 57, Com 3.
>
> Were these the only Labour gains of 1968?

Yes, though I thought there was at least one Labour gain from Communist
there in 1968, part of the general swing to the right that year.

> > RICHMOND-upon-THAMES: 54 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)
>
> > 1964: C 41, Lab 12, RA 1.
> > 1968: C 54.
> > 1971: C 37, Lab 14, L 3.
> > 1974: C 36, L 10, Lab 8.
> > 1978: C 34, L 18.
> > 1982: C 26, L 24, SDP 2.
> > 1986: L 43, SDP 6, C 3.
> > 1990: L Dem 48, C 4.
> > 1994: L Dem 43, C 7, Lab 2.
> > 1998: L Dem 34, C 14, Lab 4.
> > 2002: C 39, L Dem 15.
> > 2006: L Dem 36, C 18.
>
> One where Labour was wiped out in the 1970s and they've never come
> back...

Huh? Apart from 1994/8?

--
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

Tim Roll-Pickering

unread,
May 6, 2006, 10:45:39 PM5/6/06
to
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

>> > 1964: Lab 55, Com 3, RA 2.
>> > 1968: Lab 57, Com 3.

>> Were these the only Labour gains of 1968?

> Yes, though I thought there was at least one Labour gain from Communist
> there in 1968, part of the general swing to the right that year.

Maybe a by-election victory?

>> > RICHMOND-upon-THAMES: 54 (1964-78); 52 (1978-2002); 54 (2002-)

>> > 1964: C 41, Lab 12, RA 1.
>> > 1968: C 54.
>> > 1971: C 37, Lab 14, L 3.
>> > 1974: C 36, L 10, Lab 8.
>> > 1978: C 34, L 18.
>> > 1982: C 26, L 24, SDP 2.
>> > 1986: L 43, SDP 6, C 3.
>> > 1990: L Dem 48, C 4.
>> > 1994: L Dem 43, C 7, Lab 2.
>> > 1998: L Dem 34, C 14, Lab 4.
>> > 2002: C 39, L Dem 15.
>> > 2006: L Dem 36, C 18.

>> One where Labour was wiped out in the 1970s and they've never come
>> back...

> Huh? Apart from 1994/8?

Oh yeah - I must have missed those ones.

On BBC1's Election 2006 Tony King was talking about "the two party system
breaking down" when the powercut hit (maybe this was no coincidence?).
Looking at a good number of the London results the number of third party
wipeouts (Residents in Barking & Dagenham, Lib Dems in Barking & Dagenham,
Bexley and Croydon, Labour in Sutton) makes me wonder if some of these could
be coming back. Indeed if it hadn't been for one solitary Conservative
victory the BNP would have a monopoly of opposition on Barking & Dagenham
council - and my instinct tells me that not all their councillors will be
incompetent absentees who cause early by-elections.


Paul Hyett

unread,
May 7, 2006, 5:15:45 AM5/7/06
to
In uk.politics.electoral on Sat, 6 May 2006, David Boothroyd
<da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote :
>

>> > KENSINGTON and CHELSEA: 60 (1964-74); 61 (1974-78); 54 (1978-)
>>
>> > 1978: C 39, Lab 13, Golborne Community Hundred 2.
>> > 1982: C 39, Lab 15.
>> > 1986: C 39, Lab 15.
>> > 1990: C 39, Lab 15.
>> > 1994: C 39, Lab 15.
>> > 1998: C 39, Lab 15.
>>
>> Did *anything* change hands in this period?
>
>No, apart from Labour regaining the two Golborne seats in 1982.

Why *so* stable?

I'd have thought, at the very least, demographic changes would require
redrawing of boundaries that'd alter things a bit.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 7, 2006, 6:44:42 AM5/7/06
to
In article <lDRTmpJ0...@blueyonder.co.uk>,

Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In uk.politics.electoral on Sat, 6 May 2006, David Boothroyd
> <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote :
> >
> >> > KENSINGTON and CHELSEA: 60 (1964-74); 61 (1974-78); 54 (1978-)
> >>
> >> > 1978: C 39, Lab 13, Golborne Community Hundred 2.
> >> > 1982: C 39, Lab 15.
> >> > 1986: C 39, Lab 15.
> >> > 1990: C 39, Lab 15.
> >> > 1994: C 39, Lab 15.
> >> > 1998: C 39, Lab 15.
> >>
> >> Did *anything* change hands in this period?
> >
> >No, apart from Labour regaining the two Golborne seats in 1982.
>
> Why *so* stable?

The Labour wards were five in North Kensington containing largely
council housing and the Notting Hill afro-caribbean community, and
South Stanley at the very bottom of Chelsea which contained the
Worlds End Estate. All were safe. Most of the Conservative wards
were in Chelsea or South Kensington and were almost entirely wealthy.
The one marginal Conservative-held ward was Earls Court where there
is a cosmopolitan population, but it never quite went either to the
Alliance in the 1980s or Labour in the 1990s.

> I'd have thought, at the very least, demographic changes would require
> redrawing of boundaries that'd alter things a bit.

In 2002, the switch to three seat wards forced an expansion of South
Stanley and the area taken in was Cheyne Walk, some of the safest
Conservative area, and that made a marginal ward which was won by the
Conservatives. Meanwhile the gentrification of Notting Hill saw the
Conservatives come close in St Charles Ward, which they have won
this time. Notting Barns ward now seems close too.

ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
May 7, 2006, 7:45:11 AM5/7/06
to
In article <4c55amF...@individual.net>,
T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> On BBC1's Election 2006 Tony King was talking about "the two party
> system breaking down" when the powercut hit (maybe this was no
> coincidence?). Looking at a good number of the London results the
> number of third party wipeouts (Residents in Barking & Dagenham, Lib
> Dems in Barking & Dagenham, Bexley and Croydon, Labour in Sutton)
> makes me wonder if some of these could be coming back. Indeed if it
> hadn't been for one solitary Conservative victory the BNP would have
> a monopoly of opposition on Barking & Dagenham council - and my
> instinct tells me that not all their councillors will be incompetent
> absentees who cause early by-elections.

According to the BBC, as of last Thursday Islington is a Tory-free zone
for the first time too. But DB's figures say they lost their last cllr
in '98. Who is right? (I suspect DB is).

Ian Ridley
"The principle of liberalism is trust in the people, qualified
by prudence. The principle of conservatism is mistrust of the
people, qualified by fear", - W.E. Gladstone.

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 7, 2006, 5:15:14 PM5/7/06
to
In article <JOednZ-rypJaQMDZ...@pipex.net>,

ik...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>
> According to the BBC, as of last Thursday Islington is a Tory-free zone
> for the first time too. But DB's figures say they lost their last cllr
> in '98. Who is right? (I suspect DB is).

In fact, only three of the twelve elections to the London Borough
of Islington have ever resulted in the election of any Conservative
councillors.

Coli...@aol.com

unread,
May 9, 2006, 8:32:36 AM5/9/06
to

David Boothroyd wrote:
> BARKING (from 1979, BARKING and DAGENHAM): 49 (1964-78); 48 (1978-94);
> 51 (1994-)
>
> 2006: Lab 38, BNP 12, C 1.
>

David, is it not the case that the composition in B&D is in fact Lab
39, BNP 11, C 1 ?

On checking the council web site, the BNP had 13 candidates, of which 1
failed (narrowly) to be elected in Village ward, whilst another only
[!] polled 102 votes in Eastbury ward.

Ah-ha. I've just spotted the following for Eastbury:

"I Rob Whiteman, the Returning Officer for the Local Elections for the
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, hereby give notification that
the election result for the Eastbury Ward, as declared by me on the
night of the count, was discovered immediately afterwards to be
inaccurate due to a clerical error.

I explained this to the election agents at the time and It was agreed
to seek legal clarification of the matter in the morning.

The legal position is that as the result had been declared it must
stand until such time as a petition is made to the High Court by the
affected candidate for it to be amended to reflect the correct
position.

I will issue further statements in due course clarifying the position."

So, presumably, the BNP in Eastbury perhaps got enough votes to be
elected. Looks like Kingstanding (Birmingham) in reverse.

The voting patterns in B&D are very interesting...... Labour mopped up
most of the other parties (Conservatives, Lib Dems, Residents) by clean
sweeps in wards like Chadwell Heath, Longbridge and Whalebone, whilst
losing seats on its flanks to the BNP.

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 9, 2006, 3:59:26 PM5/9/06
to
In article <1147177956.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,

Coli...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So, presumably, the BNP in Eastbury perhaps got enough votes to be
> elected. Looks like Kingstanding (Birmingham) in reverse.

What actually happened was that the "1," from the front of the BNP
total was accidentally removed. They really had 1,102 and were
elected. I've given the composition that should have been declared
instead of the one that actually was.



> The voting patterns in B&D are very interesting...... Labour mopped up
> most of the other parties (Conservatives, Lib Dems, Residents) by clean
> sweeps in wards like Chadwell Heath, Longbridge and Whalebone, whilst
> losing seats on its flanks to the BNP.

To an extent this mirrors Tower Hamlets where Labour regained part
of Bow for the first time since 1978, as the Lib Dem vote collapsed;
while in the heart of Spitalfields and Bethnal Green, losing seats
to RESPECT (that other fascist party).

Tim Roll-Pickering

unread,
May 9, 2006, 8:32:21 PM5/9/06
to
David Boothroyd wrote:

> RESPECT (that other fascist party).

Ah - good to see your side is willing to say so about this one.


JohnLoony

unread,
May 9, 2006, 10:03:47 PM5/9/06
to

David Boothroyd wrote:
> ... RESPECT (that other fascist party).


I have recently been reading a lot of material written by Stalinists
who would denounce Respect as Trotskyite and therefore revisionist and
therefore capitalist-restorationist and therefore tending to
imperialism and social fascism. Presumably your analysis of Respect
would not necessarily be along the same line of thought.

Colin Rosenstiel

unread,
May 10, 2006, 11:42:00 AM5/10/06
to
In article <david-A31F1F....@news.news.demon.net>,
da...@election.demon.co.uk (David Boothroyd) wrote:

> In article <1147177956.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> Coli...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > So, presumably, the BNP in Eastbury perhaps got enough votes to be
> > elected. Looks like Kingstanding (Birmingham) in reverse.
>
> What actually happened was that the "1," from the front of the BNP
> total was accidentally removed. They really had 1,102 and were
> elected. I've given the composition that should have been declared
> instead of the one that actually was.

You just can't get the staff these days! That's two such cock-ups in the
same round of elections. <sigh>

David Boothroyd

unread,
May 10, 2006, 5:20:53 PM5/10/06
to
In article <4ccqkoF...@individual.net>,

You need to read "Anti-totalitarianism" by Oliver Kamm - some on the
democratic left were the strongest opponents of totalitarian left.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages