Cambridgeshire CC, Roman Bank and Peckover
Con 897 (61.1;+2.1), Lab 380 (25.9;+25.9), UKIP 192 (13.1;+13.1)
[LD (0.0;-41.0)]
Majority 517. Turnout 21.9%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.

Welwyn Hatfield DC, Welham Green
Con 539 (40.7), LD 484 (36.5), BNP 214 (16.2), Lab 88 (6.6).
Majority 55. Turnout 46.6%. Con hold. Unopposed in 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 article ,
rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

> Welwyn Hatfield DC, Welham Green
> Con 539 (40.7), LD 484 (36.5), BNP 214 (16.2), Lab 88 (6.6).
> Majority 55. Turnout 46.6%. Con hold. Unopposed in 2007.

Corrected result:

Welwyn Hatfield DC, Welham Green
Con 539 (40.7;-25.9), LD 484 (36.5;+21.7), BNP 214 (16.2;+16.2), 
Lab 88 (6.6;-12.1).
Majority 55. Turnout 46.6%. Con hold. Last fought 2006.

The seat is a 2-member ward not up in 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

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

>Cambridgeshire CC, Roman Bank and Peckover
>Con 897 (61.1;+2.1), Lab 380 (25.9;+25.9), UKIP 192 (13.1;+13.1)
>[LD (0.0;-41.0)]
>Majority 517. Turnout 21.9%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.

Why no LD candidate in an area where they previously had 41% of the
vote?

Steve Cleary

Steve Cleary wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
> rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Cambridgeshire CC, Roman Bank and Peckover
>>Con 897 (61.1;+2.1), Lab 380 (25.9;+25.9), UKIP 192 (13.1;+13.1)
>>[LD (0.0;-41.0)]
>>Majority 517. Turnout 21.9%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.
> 
> 
> Why no LD candidate in an area where they previously had 41% of the
> vote?

You might just as well ask why no Lab candidate last time in an area 
where they could get 25.9% of the vote - as long as there is no LibDem 
candidate. Perhaps it's the same person?

The last-time LD vote seems to have divided up neatly between Labour 
and UKIP (with a small extra proportion going to the Conservatives).

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, JNugent wrote:
> Steve Cleary wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:00 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

>>> Cambridgeshire CC, Roman Bank and Peckover
>>> Con 897 (61.1;+2.1), Lab 380 (25.9;+25.9), UKIP 192 (13.1;+13.1)
>>> [LD (0.0;-41.0)]
>>> Majority 517. Turnout 21.9%. Con hold. Last fought 2005.

>> Why no LD candidate in an area where they previously had 41% of the
>> vote?

> You might just as well ask why no Lab candidate last time in an area where 
> they could get 25.9% of the vote - as long as there is no LibDem candidate. 
> Perhaps it's the same person?

It's a question worth asking, since one would have expected the LibDems to
have taken a swing at a seat and use their previous share of the vote to
assert themselves as the main challengers. If the answer is simply that
both the LibDems and Labour are having difficulty finding anyone willing
to stand and capable of doing the job, that's significant. As I keep
saying, people not involved in politics often don't realise that political
parties are voluntary organisations and will only function if they have
enough volunteers willing to make them function.

Matthew Huntbach