Saturday, 4 May 2013


Counties without boundary changes
Comparisons with 2005 in terms of Labour seats

Devon: 7 (4 in 2005) +3
Dorset: 5 (4) +1
Hampshire: 4 (2) +2
West Sussex: 4 (7) -3
East Sussex: 7 (5) +2
Kent: 11 (21) -10
Essex: 9 (13) -4
Hertfordshire: 15 (16) -1
Cambridgeshire: 7 (4) +3
Norfolk: 14 (22) -8
Suffolk: 11 (22) -11
Lancashire: 39 (44) -4
Leicestershire: 10 (13) -3
Lincolnshire: 12 (21) -9
North Yorkshire: 7 (9) -2
Nottinghamshire: 34 (38) -4
Warwickshire: 22 (23) -1
Worcestershire: 12 (17) -5

You will see that the figure in brackets is the number of Labour councillors in 2005 the same year that Blair won his third successive General Election a position that Miliband needs to get the support of his party back to, to guarantee a labour majority.

In some areas there is positives but this could be because UKIP split the Conservative vote and let Labour in. But the significant numbers is for Kent -10 Lincolnshire -9 Suffolk -11 Norfolk -8 all of which have significant UKIP presence on the councils.

So I would say that YES! It is Conservative voters who are voting UKIP on the whole but instead of turning back to Labour as they normally would they have turned to UKIP.

The only area which bucks the trend is Cambridgeshire which saw great numbers of UKIP but Labour went up. But in this council not only did the Conservative have big losses but also did the Liberal Democrats. So it seems at present the only party UKIP is not effecting is the Lib Dems as they seem to be moving to Labour.

It will be interesting next year when the metropolitan boroughs will be voting. Will UKIP make an impression then? Will moving the council elections to the same day as the European elections also be a great benefit to UKIP above all other parties?


  1. I do not deny that Labour has lost some votes to UKIP. However surely it would be more logical to compare these 2013 elections with 2009.
    Comparison with 2005 simply shows that Labour has lost votes since then. At that date Labour got overall majority in House of Commons.
    UKIP did not exist. Seats lost by Labour since then may have gone to Tories or LD or Independent.
    Bu choosing an irrelevant date, you have ruined your own argument.
    In Lancashire , for example, Labour gained over 20 seats in 2013. They gained nearly 300 seats in 2013 country-wide,when UKIP were standing,
    Main feature of these elections was massive drop in turnout. This cannot be ignored logically but you doso.
    You will need to try harder.

  2. I thank you for your comment it is more than welcome. The reason why 2005 is a good comparison is because it is where Labour would hope to return too at least I would think. (Don't you agree?) Labour at the time had lost its sheen and Blair was coming to the end of his reign. He had just won his third term in office. 2009 however was when Brown had sunk down to all time lows and was when Labour capitulated all over the country. So in all reasonableness Labour wants to return back to 2005 figures to show they will have a healthy lead in Parliament.

    The exercise itself though was to show a labour voter of 2005 which had become a Tory voter in 2009 had now decided not to turn back to Labour but had in fact turned to UKIP. Tory support is the same as 2005 but it is Labour which was hurt and only Cambridgeshire bucked the trend due to the fact where UKIP made gains they were softened by the amount of voters from Liberal Democrats which ere gained by Labour.

    2009 would have only given false hope to Labour in my opinion.

    Be glad of your thoughts.


Comment is open to all feel free to link to this blog.