Cheshire CC, Gowy
Con 1863 (50.4;+2.1), LD 1419 (38.4;+5.7), Lab 307 (8.3;-10.8), 
UKIP 107 (2.9;+2.9)
Majority 444. Turnout not known. Con hold. Last fought 2005.

Chester-le-Street DC, Chester Central
Lab 324 (59.4;-11.1), Con 89 (16.3;-13.2), LD 81 (14.9;+14.9), 
BNP 51 (9.4;+9.4)
Majority 235. Turnout 25.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Dover DC, Aylesham
Lab 661 (79.7;+11.4), Con 108 (13.0;-12.6), Ind 59 (7.1;+0.9), 
Ind 1 (0.1; +0.1)
Majority 553. Turnout 23.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Dover DC, Maxton, Elms Vale and Priory
Labour 365 (33.7;-3.3), LD 274 (25.3;+6.1), Con 252 (23.3;-8.2), 
Ind 70 (6.5;-5.8), UKIP 65 (6.0;+6.0), Ind 56 (5.2;+5.2)
Majority 91. Turnout 20.2%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Kent CC, Dover Town
Lab 1860 (44.5;-5.8), Con 1348 (32.2;+4.1), LD 420 (10.0;-11.6), 
Ind 300 (7.2;+7.2), UKIP 256 (6.1;+6.1)
Majority 512. Turnout 19.5%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.

Mansfield DC, Lindhurst
Lab 339 (35.6;+13.8), Mansfield Independent Forum 302 (31.7;+0.7), 
LD 215 (22.6;+22.6), Con 61 (6.4;-8.4), Green 35 (3.7;-3.8)
[Ind 0 (0.0;-24.9)]
Majority 37. Turnout 27.1%. Lab gain from Ind. Last fought 2007.

Northamptonshire CC, Lloyds
Lab 1093 (53.5;-8.7), Con 375 (18.3;-2.7), LD 311 (15.2;-1.6), 
BNP 265 (13.0;+13.0)
Majority 718. Turnout 30.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.

Portsmouth UA, Nelson
Lab 791 (35.0;+3.2), Con 682 (30.2;+3.3), LD 548 (24.2;-2.9), 
UKIP 90 (4.0;+4.0), Green 78 (3.5;-2.9), English Democrats 71 (3.1;-4.4)
Majority 109. Turnout 22.4%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Sunderland MBC, Washington East
Con 1196 (49.9;+9.8), Lab 994 (41.5;+2.2), LD 206 (8.6;-5.6)
[BNP 0 (0.0;-6.3)]
Majority 202. Turnout 27.6%. Con gain from Lab. Last fought 2007.


Information courtesy of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors
www: http://www.aldc.org. 
Also available at http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge

In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel 
 wrote :
>
>Dover DC, Aylesham
>Lab 661 (79.7;+11.4), Con 108 (13.0;-12.6), Ind 59 (7.1;+0.9),

>Ind 1 (0.1; +0.1)

I assume that was the candidate themselves. :)

>Majority 553. Turnout 23.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:CkK8SRPGwf$GFwoU@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel 
>  wrote :
>>
>>Dover DC, Aylesham
>>Lab 661 (79.7;+11.4), Con 108 (13.0;-12.6), Ind 59 (7.1;+0.9),
>
>>Ind 1 (0.1; +0.1)
>
> I assume that was the candidate themselves. :)
>
>>Majority 553. Turnout 23.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.
> -- 
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
>


Assuming he lives in the ward...

AGB wrote:
> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:CkK8SRPGwf$GFwoU@blueyonder.co.uk...
> 
>>In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel 
>> wrote :
>>
>>>Dover DC, Aylesham
>>>Lab 661 (79.7;+11.4), Con 108 (13.0;-12.6), Ind 59 (7.1;+0.9),
>>
>>>Ind 1 (0.1; +0.1)
>>
>>I assume that was the candidate themselves. :)
>>
>>
>>>Majority 553. Turnout 23.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.
>>
>>-- 
>>Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming he lives in the ward... 

But what about the ten electors who nominated him/her?

On 29 Sep, 12:23, JNugent 
wrote:
> But what about the ten electors who nominated him/her?

What about them?

JohnLoony wrote:

> On 29 Sep, 12:23, JNugent 
> wrote:

>>But what about the ten electors who nominated him/her?

> What about them?

Re-check the context.

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:XLmdnbAxOPwzqGPb4p2dnAA@pipex.net...
> AGB wrote:
>> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:CkK8SRPGwf$GFwoU@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>>>In uk.politics.electoral on Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Colin Rosenstiel 
>>> wrote :
>>>
>>>>Dover DC, Aylesham
>>>>Lab 661 (79.7;+11.4), Con 108 (13.0;-12.6), Ind 59 (7.1;+0.9),
>>>
>>>>Ind 1 (0.1; +0.1)
>>>
>>>I assume that was the candidate themselves. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>Majority 553. Turnout 23.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming he lives in the ward...
>
> But what about the ten electors who nominated him/her?
>

You are quite right about using him / her. It is however a reasonably safe 
assumption ( but not a stone cold certainty...) that someone called Edward 
George Lee-Delisle is a bloke.

Anyway of course the proposer, seconder and the eight other nominators by 
signing the nomination do not agree to vote for their nomination. It would 
have been nice, but when did nice ever enter politics ? [/irony]

Someone is trying to highlight these as indicative for the next
election:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7017445.stm

On 29 Sep, 23:43, JNugent 
wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > On 29 Sep, 12:23, JNugent 
> > wrote:
> >>But what about the ten electors who nominated him/her?
> > What about them?
>
> Re-check the context.

What's the context got to do wuith anything?  The implication of the
previous message was to suggest that the ten nominators might remotely
possibly have something to do with voting for the candidate whom they
have nominated, which of course it doesn't.

JohnLoony wrote:
> On 29 Sep, 23:43, JNugent 
> wrote:
> 
>>JohnLoony wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Sep, 12:23, JNugent 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>But what about the ten electors who nominated him/her?
>>>
>>>What about them?
>>
>>Re-check the context.
> 
> 
> What's the context got to do wuith anything?  The implication of the
> previous message was to suggest that the ten nominators might remotely
> possibly have something to do with voting for the candidate whom they
> have nominated, which of course it doesn't.

The ten people who nominate a local government candidate never vote 
for their nominee, do they? The very idea!

On 1 Oct, 17:30, JNugent 
wrote:

> The ten people who nominate a local government candidate never vote
> for their nominee, do they? The very idea!

I didn't say that they don't; I said that there is no necessary
connection.  What I do know for certain is that at least 4 of the 200
people who have nominated me did not vote for me.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, JNugent wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:

>> What's the context got to do wuith anything?  The implication of the
>> previous message was to suggest that the ten nominators might remotely
>> possibly have something to do with voting for the candidate whom they
>> have nominated, which of course it doesn't.

> The ten people who nominate a local government candidate never vote for their 
> nominee, do they? The very idea!

If the candidate is someone with widespread local support, the chances are
the candidate or agent has gone round carefully collecting signatures from
know supporters. If it's a fringe candidate, however, it's quite possible
the candidate has just gone round knocking on doors at random asking
people. In my experience many people are happy to put their signature on
a nomination form when it's explained it's just a formality and doesn't imply
anything more than a willingness to see that name on the ballot paper, not
necessarily an actual willingness to vote for the candidate.

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, JNugent wrote:
>> JohnLoony wrote:
> 
>>> What's the context got to do wuith anything?  The implication of the
>>> previous message was to suggest that the ten nominators might remotely
>>> possibly have something to do with voting for the candidate whom they
>>> have nominated, which of course it doesn't.
> 
>> The ten people who nominate a local government candidate never vote 
>> for their nominee, do they? The very idea!
> 
> If the candidate is someone with widespread local support, the chances are
> the candidate or agent has gone round carefully collecting signatures from
> know supporters. If it's a fringe candidate, however, it's quite possible
> the candidate has just gone round knocking on doors at random asking
> people. In my experience many people are happy to put their signature on
> a nomination form when it's explained it's just a formality and doesn't 
> imply
> anything more than a willingness to see that name on the ballot paper, not
> necessarily an actual willingness to vote for the candidate.

That is why I think that nominators of candidates should count as having 
cast their vote. I.e. Their entry on the registe should be marked as 
having voted and their vote added to the total for the candidate.

This would make the nomination of a candidate a serious action as it 
should be.



> 
> Matthew Huntbach
>

Mike Drew wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> JohnLoony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> What's the context got to do wuith anything?  The implication of the
>>>> previous message was to suggest that the ten nominators might remotely
>>>> possibly have something to do with voting for the candidate whom they
>>>> have nominated, which of course it doesn't.
>>
>>
>>> The ten people who nominate a local government candidate never vote 
>>> for their nominee, do they? The very idea!
>>
>>
>> If the candidate is someone with widespread local support, the chances 
>> are
>> the candidate or agent has gone round carefully collecting signatures 
>> from
>> know supporters. If it's a fringe candidate, however, it's quite possible
>> the candidate has just gone round knocking on doors at random asking
>> people. In my experience many people are happy to put their signature on
>> a nomination form when it's explained it's just a formality and 
>> doesn't imply
>> anything more than a willingness to see that name on the ballot paper, 
>> not
>> necessarily an actual willingness to vote for the candidate.
> 
> 
> That is why I think that nominators of candidates should count as having 
> cast their vote. I.e. Their entry on the registe should be marked as 
> having voted and their vote added to the total for the candidate.
> 
> This would make the nomination of a candidate a serious action as it 
> should be.

I could agree with that as long as the electors did not have their 
names and addresses published.