In article ,
not.telling@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
> 
> > Lincolnshire CC, Heighington and Washingborough
> > Con 877 (61.8;+14.5), Lab 206 (14.5;-26.9), LD 137 (9.7;+9.7), 
> > BNP 126 (8.9;+8.9), UKIP 52 (3.7;-7.6), Ind 21 (1.5;+1.5) 
> > Majority 671. Turnout 26.2%. Con hold. Last fought 2007. 
> 
> 27% drop? Weren't Labour trying very hard?

I agree there is something fishy about this result. Anyone got any
background on it? Whereabouts in Lincolnshire is it?

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

>In article ,
>not.telling@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>
>> Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
>> 
>> > Lincolnshire CC, Heighington and Washingborough
>> > Con 877 (61.8;+14.5), Lab 206 (14.5;-26.9), LD 137 (9.7;+9.7), 
>> > BNP 126 (8.9;+8.9), UKIP 52 (3.7;-7.6), Ind 21 (1.5;+1.5) 
>> > Majority 671. Turnout 26.2%. Con hold. Last fought 2007. 
>> 
>> 27% drop? Weren't Labour trying very hard?
>
>I agree there is something fishy about this result. Anyone got any
>background on it? Whereabouts in Lincolnshire is it?

Just outside Lincoln, apparently:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Heighington,+Lincoln

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:52 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

> I agree there is something fishy about this result. Anyone got any
> background on it?

It seems the most significant thing is the huge drop in turnout
(bearing in mind that the main election was on general eelction day).
There was a big drop in the actual votes cast for all parties, and the
number of votes for the Conservative Party actually halved.

JohnLoony wrote:

> rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

>>I agree there is something fishy about this result. Anyone got any
>>background on it?

> It seems the most significant thing is the huge drop in turnout
> (bearing in mind that the main election was on general eelction day).
> There was a big drop in the actual votes cast for all parties,

In that case, the turnout drop isn't at all surprising.

> and the
> number of votes for the Conservative Party actually halved

That's entirely expected given the drop in turnout from a GE-type 
proportion to 21.9% (if I remember the figure correctly - I don't 
still have the thread OP). The surprising thing is how far the Labour 
vote fell, not in numbers (this was a local election without the "pull 
them to to the polls" effect of a General), but as a proportion of the 
total. CR is right - something odd going on there - maybe a very local 
(even perhaps personal) effect.

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:kuydnb7QoqTBKKPaRVnyiQA@pipex.net...
> JohnLoony wrote:
>
>> rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
>>>I agree there is something fishy about this result. Anyone got any
>>>background on it?
>
>> It seems the most significant thing is the huge drop in turnout
>> (bearing in mind that the main election was on general eelction day).
>> There was a big drop in the actual votes cast for all parties,
>
> In that case, the turnout drop isn't at all surprising.
>
>> and the
>> number of votes for the Conservative Party actually halved
>
> That's entirely expected given the drop in turnout from a GE-type 
> proportion to 21.9% (if I remember the figure correctly - I don't still 
> have the thread OP). The surprising thing is how far the Labour vote fell, 
> not in numbers (this was a local election without the "pull them to to the 
> polls" effect of a General), but as a proportion of the total. CR is 
> right - something odd going on there - maybe a very local (even perhaps 
> personal) effect.
>
Surely two thirds of the decrease in Labour share is accounted for by the 
fielding of candidates by the Lib Dems and more worryingly the BNP this 
time. Or am I missing something?

Peter

"Peter Balcombe"  wrote:
> Surely two thirds of the decrease in Labour share is accounted for by the
> fielding of candidates by the Lib Dems and more worryingly the BNP this
> time. Or am I missing something?

To a degree, the UKIP vote share fall cancels out the BNP's, and the
LibDem standing isn't enough to explain the huge Lab->Con swing.
--
Henry