The local elections are over and the headline story is clearly one of UKIP breakthrough. The Conservatives did almost exactly as badly as expected, losing around 335 seats and control of 10 councils, Labour did about as well as expected in terms of seats, gaining just under 300, but only two councils (Nottingham and Derbyshire, Staffordshire surprisingly remained Tory). The Liberal Democrat lost a lot of voters, but only around 125 seats. UKIP gained around 140 councillors – doing particularly well in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, both of which fell into No Overall Control with UKIP the second largest party.

The BBC’s Projected National Share of the vote was CON 25%, LAB 29%, LDEM 14%, UKIP 23%. The results for both the Conservatives and Labour are strikingly low… but this is more an artefact of the high level of UKIP support. I’ve said it in almost every post I’ve made this week, but note again what the Projected National Share of the vote is and isn’t.

It is a projection of what the BBC think the shares of local vote would be if there were elections across the whole country and if all four parties stood in every council division. In other words, it takes account and corrects for the fact that only rather Toryish parts of the county voted, and that UKIP and the Lib Dems only stood in three-quarters of the divisions. Secondly, it isn’t the votes that were actually cast – if you totted up the votes cast in every ward on Thursday you’d come up with a different, but probably less meaningful, number. Thirdly, it’s not an attempt to measure or predict national support for a general election – general elections have much higher turnout and, more importantly, people can and do vote differently in them.

However, there are some useful things we can tell from the voting patterns on Thursday, especially about UKIP support. Firstly look at the vote shares and the number of seats won. UKIP got a PNS of 23% (we don’t know what their actual share was, but we’ll work with the projected shares for now), the Liberal Democrats of 14%. However, the Liberal Democrats won 352 seats in total, UKIP 147. It’s an excellent illustration of the importance of vote distribution – look at the detailled results and there are swathes of country where the Lib Dems get truly derisory votes, and strong areas where they win. In comparison UKIP tended to do pretty well across the board, getting lots of second places even where they didn’t win (in the BBC’s key wards they came second more than any other party).

While we’ve seen the general level of UKIP support growing across the country, this is also our first chance to see exactly where it is strong. The places UKIP tended to win the most seats were peripheral towns, outlying places, often the coast, often economic backwaters in a way, places like Boston, Spalding, Great Yarmouth, Thanet, Folkstone, the area around Bognor. Some of these areas, like the Norfolk and Lincolnshire Fens, are areas that have seen high levels of Eastern European immigration. Others are popular retirement locations and we know there is very strong correlation between age and voting UKIP. This seems to make sense, although one should be slightly cautious about accepting conclusions because they seem intuitively correct, there’s plenty more work to be done here.

Finally there is the impact on the political narrative. While I think Labour did pretty respectably, they were clearly overshadowed by UKIP in terms of coverage so it’s not going to give them much momentum. Rather the impact will be all about UKIP – the publicity boost and the further perception that they are a serious player will likely translate into higher levels of support in the polls in the short term at least, but there will also be the impact on the other parties, particularly the Conservatives. The Tories did not do horribly badly, so don’t seem to be in full meltdown, but do look spooked. Already there are lots of Conservative MPs scampering off to the press to tell that that the policy they happen to want to see enacted is also – what a shocker – the key to defeating UKIP.

What the Tories should really do probably deserves a post in its own right, but suffice to say there is no easy answer. UKIP support is driven by various factors – an anti-immigration vote (and anti-EU to some degree), an anti-government vote, and anti-establishment and anti-politics vote. While UKIP is a radical right-wing party rather than a left-wing party, I suspect it also has much in common with the recent successes for parties like the Five Star Movement in Italy – a expression of rage against a political establishment that is only offering unpleasant medicine in already difficult times.

All of these are tricky to deal with – stopping immigration or bringing back major powers from Europe are, in practical terms, almost impossible for Cameron to deliver so he cannot realistically give voters what they say they want on those fronts, he cannot outflank UKIP on those policies and addressing them half-heartedly only puts them up the agenda (or sends the message to people that voting UKIP does successfully move Tory policy!). The party of government can by definition never capture an anti-establishment, anti-politics vote – there will always be some people who dislike both Labour and Conservative and want an alternative, any alternative.

What the Conservatives can seek to do is reduce anti-government voting, they’ll hope by being able to point to some economic progress at some point, by presenting an image of competence and ability, by reducing noises-off and disunity and maintaining a clear message and purpose. Of course, this is probably also the best way for the Conservatives to win support from non-voters, from Labour and Lib Dem voters, or from anyone else (it is also rather dull and obvious advice – govern well – so don’t expect many columnists to waste their time with it).


242 Responses to “Some thoughts on the local elections”

1 3 4 5
  1. Polling of Ukip voters by YouGov finds that less than 10% of them back the party because they think it “would run the country well” and more than 60% say a main reason to support Ukip is because they are “unhappy with the major parties” or want to “send a message”.
    —————-
    Because of the polling, I think UKIP is just a protest vote. Even it’s supporters don’t seem to believe UKIP will form a government, given only 10% of its own supporters think it would “run the country well”.

  2. The lib dems can say what they want because they will never have a majority.

  3. @BillyBob

    Westerham is beautiful walking country on the outer fringes of Bromley. I’m planning on going down there tomorrow. If I bump into Mr Farage, i’ll put your theory to him.

  4. sy

    “I cant invent a party to vote for”

    Yes you can.

  5. @Raf

    If invites you to the pub, remember, just the one drink!

  6. @ Sy

    The lib dems can say what they want because they will never have a majority.
    —————
    That’s one of the most bizarre comments by a UKIP supporter which I’ve ever read. ;-)

  7. @Sy

    By asking for referenda on everything, and the removal of whips (and hence party discipline), you are effectively asking for the replacement of representative democracy by direct democracy.

    This is superficially appealing. However, it leaves one rather large hole… who is going to to the day-to-day chores of government? Only a small fraction of one percent of politics involve the “big” decisions; the rest is the “boring detail” stuff. I take it that you don’t want referenda on who is to form the committee to draft the Allotment Act 1891 (Revision) Act, or whatever, so what will you do instead? Vote for the civil servants?

  8. @MOG – ” …the day-to-day chores of government?”

    Guy Verhofstadt had something to say about that in a parliamentary debate last year:

    “Oh no Mr Farage, let’s be honest about it, you are member of the fisheries committee and you’re never there. Never. In 2011 no attendance. In 2012 no attendance.”

    “It’s fantastic what you’re doing, you are coming here saying it’s a scandal, the salaries we are paid, and you pay yourself a salary without doing any labour in your committee.”

  9. Among all the shouting about UKIP and their possible future success, there needs to be consideration of whether they have a natural ceiling and whether that ceiling is high enough to mean that they can ever gain much in the way of electoral advantage. There is some evidence in the YouGov poll that I mentioned earlier. In response to whether people would ‘never’ consider voting for a Party there were the following percentages:

    Conservative 33
    Labour 23
    Lib Dem 33
    UKIP 36

    So UKIP is a bit more toxic that the other Parties, but not much. It’s also worth saying that people are usually poor judges of their future behaviour.

    However there’s also some evidence from the elections themselves. One interesting place to look at in Dartford in Kent[1]. For some historical reasons the English Democrats were strong here.[2] In the 2009 County Elections they got an average of 23% in five of the wards[3], mostly coming second.

    So this time you would expect the very similar UKIP[4] to do well in already fertile ground. And it is true that with all the publicity UKIP was able to take nearly all the EDP vote[5]

    But they didn’t get much more. They only averaged 24% while EDP held onto just 3%[6]. So the increase was only about 4 points, compared with the sort of 20 point increase that we’ve seen in a lot of places elsewhere.

    Similarly those very few UKIP councillors who were elected in 2009 didn’t see much of an increase on their vote – indeed some lost their seats. So there may well be a sort of upper limit on UKIP support – perhaps nationally in the upper 20s, though obviously varying with demographics etc as we saw on Thursday. So this may be as good as it gets unless things change further, though even this level of support might not stop them getting some MPs.

    [1] Itself interesting because it is traditionally a bellwether seat in the House of Commons – one that is always won by the Party with the most seats. The last time this didn’t happen was in the 1951 election when Labour held the seat, presumably because the Tory candidate was rubbish. (Woman called Thatcher – wonder what happened to her)

    [2] This may be in part because there seems to be an almost complete absence on Lib Dem activity (they only had 2 candidate for 44 seats in 2011). Dartford is clearly unusual, even by the standards of North Kent. And that’s before you even start considering the Fancy Dress Party.

    [3] I’m omitting the sixth ward (Swanscombe) which is actually held by Residents, though the same movements are seen in a more muted way. The figures across the other five County wards are remarkably similar.

    [4] One may have split off the other but I can’t be bothered to look it up and, like the difference between Trotskyists and Trotskyites, I’ll forget immediately anyway.

    [5] In at least one case there was even same candidate as in 2009 who had switched Parties. So poor Cllr Ozog (yes him again) not only had to put up with being deserted by Anthony on polling day and implicitly being accused by Kent Council of stuffing ballot boxes, he also had to cope with the same candidate who did quite well against him in 2009 turning up again with a different coloured rosette.

    And she’s also his mother-in-law.

    [6] In one ward there was no EDP candidate but a BNP one who a similar amount

  10. Labour lost more to UKIP than the Tories???

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/05/04/labour-lost-more-votes-than-tories-as-ukip-surged/

    Every poll says more Tories are going to UKIP than voters from other parties. But some people seem to think the council elections showed more Labour voters moving. Looking at the results it seemed obvious that Tory votes were down, Lib Dem shares were down and UKIP up, and Labour up in the results I was looking at. So I think the logic linked above is faulty?

  11. @ Richard

    Rentoul’s comment piece all hinges on the BBC figures which are not relevant to a GE.

    It’s also unclear whether the BBC’s 2013 method is the same as their 2012 method; therefore comparisons could be apples & oranges.

  12. @ Amber Star

    Thanks for the explanation

  13. @Richard

    That is because the BBC’s PNS is nonsense. I would be interested to know how they arrived at it as it is not credible. I think I will ask them for an explanation I assume they will have to give one.

  14. @Amber

    “That’s one of the most bizarre comments by a UKIP supporter which I’ve ever read. ;-)”

    I must admit I found that a little jarring myself.

    That said, if the Lib Dems do go on to form a majority government at some point I think it would be wise to go back and re-check every scientific principal we’ve learned to date. It barely seems mathematically possible. Even without Clegg.

  15. @Roger Mexico

    Seventy four percent is a good ceiling for UKIP. I’ll take it!

  16. This is why I was in B class for maths.

  17. Hello, Early Birds.

    Latest YouGov / The Sunday Times results 3rd May – CON 30%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; APP -35

    Oddly, no effect from the local elections visible but another hint of the continuing unwinding of the Thatcher Effect.

  18. I’ll add, at the risk of being a bore, that the Don’t Knows/Won’t Vote score is still down by 2 or 3 points from it’s pre-Thatcher level , so there is still room for further unwinding back from Tory to DKWNV.

  19. What’re the polling dates for that poll? i.e. Were they all on the 3rd? It wasn’t really clear what was going to happen until that day, for example.

  20. Oh dear. For those who are sensitive to the Grocers’ Apostrophe, my abject apology for “it’s”.

  21. “Oddly, no effect from the local elections visible”
    Likely because the fieldwork was done Thur-Fri, and we know that YouGov do most of their fieldwork on Day 1.

    I think that the most observant comment about local elections was this –
    “Good morning, and welcome to How The Election Results Prove Everything I Ever Said Was Right Friday.”

    And we haven’t seen anything but that – “This proves that the country is moving right, but Ed is moving too far to the left! He’ll never be PM!”, “This proves that the Tories will be wiped out in 2015, with UKIP splitting the right! Ed will be PM!”, “This proves that UKIP are taking more votes from the Labour party than the Conservatives, they are taking all the votes! Nigel Farage for PM”…
    .. but the good thing about this site is.. that we have polling evidence to go by (Shock! Horror!).
    Instead of ill-informed nonsense based on our own prejudices we can spout slightly less ill-informed nonsense based on our own prejudices plus the facts.
    And an interpretation of the facts is far better than an interpretation of ‘I has the feels’.

    As I said in reply to PostageIncluded, we can’t take anything away from the latest YouGov yet – the fieldwork is probably too early.

    On to the polling –
    Pure leader approval –
    Cameron 35 (-1)
    Miliband 29 (nc)
    Clegg 18 (-3)

    No repeat of the Nigel Farage approval from last week. Very disappointing.

    Net Approval –
    Cameron -23 (-2)
    Miliband -28 (-1)
    Clegg -54 (-6)

    Do you think that it’s Likely/Unlikely that Ed M will be PM – (Changes on Sep 2012)
    Likely 33 (+3)
    Unlikely 54 (-3)
    Split seems mostly down to partisan responses – Labour voters (64 to 28) think it’s likely he’ll be PM, Con (12 to 82), Lib (37 to 58) and UKIP (17 to 77) think it’ll be unlikely.
    But this is a pretty awful headline for Ed – as AW has pointed out before, often these things have no real impact except as reinforcing narratives.

    If you had to choose, what would you most like to see after 2015? (IIRC This is usually phrased as ‘what would be best for Britain)
    Majority Conservative – 29
    Con/Lib coalition – 6
    Con Government – 35
    Lab/Lib coalition – 14
    Majority Labour – 31
    Labour government – 45
    DK – 20

    With DKs removed
    Majority Conservative – 36
    Con/Lib coalition – 8
    Con Government – 44
    Majority Labour – 39
    Lab/Lib coalition – 18
    Lab Government – 56
    (These figures do not exactly add up due to roundings, both coalition options ended with .5, so were both rounded up..)

    These seem broadly similar to the ‘Best for Britain’ polls – which indicates that people are answering ‘Best for Britain’ with ‘This is what I want’.

    What is the most LIKELY result of 2015?
    Majority Conservative – 13
    Con/Lib coalition – 10
    Total – 23
    Lab/Lib coalition – 19
    Lab Majority – 30
    Total – 49
    DK – 28

    Higher DKs, but with DKs removed (vs ‘What I want..’) –
    Majority Conservative – 18 (-18)
    Con/Lib coalition – 14 (+6)
    Total – 32 (-12)
    Lab/Lib coalition – 26 (+8)
    Majority Labour – 42 (+3)
    Total – 68 (+12)

    So the public think that a Labour government is the most likely outcome, but don’t think it’s likely that Ed Miliband will be PM…
    I can’t work out if that’s good news or bad, for Ed.

  22. @Gray
    The dates are 2nd-3rd of May.

    The news reports on 3rd of May were pretty much all “UKIP Triumph” from the morning onwards so a fair number of respondents will have heard the joyous news. It just doesn’t seem to have affected them much – which is pretty predictable as the poll asks for how the respondent would vote in a GE, which Thursday wasn’t.

  23. @tinged
    I take your point, but even prior to the results coming in UKIP were getting a lot more publicity than usual which doesn’t seem to have made much of a difference to GE VI.

    And yes, we can’t know what people are saying about Labour winning in 2015 but Ed not becoming PM. It’s one of those effing ineffable mysteries.

  24. Oh, and since I forgot – weekly averages updates –

    7-Day Weighted Average (changes on a week)
    Con 31 (-0.8), Lab 40.1 (+0.4), Lib 10.4 (-0.3), UKIP 12.3 (+0.8), Green 2.1 (-0.3)

    30-Day Weighted Average (changes on a week)
    Con 31.1 (+0.1), Lab 40.2 (-0.2), Lib 10.6 (-0.2), UKIP 11.8 (+0.3), Green 2.1 (-0.1)

    Something to point out with the 30-Day Weighted figure – although it broadly still shows Con trending up and Lab trending down, it is (obviously because of how much data there is) slow to change, when the trends begin to change.

    So on to the question of where the trends show that UKIP is net gaining (since the assertion that they’re taking a billion % from Labour and not the Cons has popped up again) –
    I’ll start with pre-budget 2012 (all figures are 7-Day weighted, changes on now) –

    Jan 10 2012 (so we have a full week of data in 2012) –
    Con 38.7 (+7.7), Lab 40.9 (+0.8), Lib 10 (-0.4), UKIP 3.9 (-8.4)

    Then pre-budget (16/03/12)-
    Con 37.1 (+6.1), Lab 41.4 (+1.3), Lib 8.8 (-1.6), UKIP 5.1 (-7.2)

    Oh no, Omnishambles! This is the lowest point for Cons in 2012. (18/05/12) –
    Con 31.4 (+0.4), Lab 43.8 (+3.7), Lib 8.1 (-2.3), UKIP 8.6 (-3.7)

    Jan 2013 (09/01/13, again, so we have a week of data) –
    Con 32.1 (+1.1), Lab 42.8 (+2.7), Lib 10.3 (-0.1), UKIP 9.2 (-3.1)

    A Week Post Gay marriage (12/02/13) –
    Con 31.8 (+0.8), Lab 41.9 (-1.8), Lib 10.9 (+0.5), UKIP 8.9 (-3.4)

    Pre-Eastleigh (27/02/13)-
    Con 32 (+1), Lab 43.2 (+3.1), Lib 10.8 (+0.4), UKIP 8.7 (+3.6)

    Post-Eastleigh Low-point for Lab/Con (27/03/13) –
    Con 30.3 (-0.7), Lab 40.4 (+0.3), Lib 12.2 (+1.8), UKIP 11.8 (-0.5)

    Pre-Thatcher’s Death (05/04/13)
    Con 30.5 (-0.5), Lab 41.3 (+1.2), Lib 10.7 (+0.3), UKIP 11.9 (-0.4)

    Week Post-Thatcher’s Death (15/04/13) –
    Con 30.9 (-0.1), Lab 40.9 (+0.8), Lib 11.2 (+0.8), UKIP 11.2 (-1.1)

    Con “High-Point” (23/04/13) –
    Con 32.2 (+1.2), Lab 39.9 (-0.2), Lib 10.4 (-), UKIP 11.6 (-0.7)

    So looking in the long-term, most of the UKIP vote came from Con voters, post-Omnishambles, but it’s quite clear that most of the change post-Eastleigh has been Lab>UKIP (IIRC the movement is actually 2010 Libs > UKIP).
    It would also indicate that the death of Thatcher/the welfare debate that coincidently happened at exactly the same time (delete as appropriate) caused net Lab>Con movement, but since the Thatcher/Welfare bounce (delete as appropriate) that net movement has been Con>UKIP.

  25. “A Week Post Gay marriage (12/02/13) –
    Con 31.8 (+0.8), Lab 41.9 (-1.8), Lib 10.9 (+0.5), UKIP 8.9 (-3.4)”
    Should read Lab 41.9 (+1.8)

  26. Rallings & Thrasher National Equivalent (Didn’t see this posted elsewhere) –
    Con 26 (25 for BBC), Lab 29 (29 for BBC), Lib 13 (14), UKIP 22 (23)

    But as has been pointed out before by others, I suspect these results would have been different if we had all the metropolitan councils voting.

    I guess we’ll have to wait until next year to see what effect it actually makes though.

  27. For those puzzled by Lab to UKIP movement in Tory heartleands, there’s two important words.

    “Tactical Voting”.

    LD will get the anti-Tory vote where they are likely to win (with the exception of Nick Clegg? we shall see). UKIP might well get it where the Tories hold majorities.

  28. NICKP

    ‘LD will get the anti-Tory vote where they are likely to win (with the exception of Nick Clegg? we shall see). UKIP might well get it where the Tories hold majorities.’

    Really? I’d vote Labour OR Tory before UKIP – although I guess if I wasn’t/hadn’t bothered to read the manifesto that might not be the case.

    I think UKIP is the confluence of three related but different constituencies:
    1) hard right wingers who would previously split between Tory, EDP, BNP and ‘do not vote’
    2) patriotic, elderly who have voted according to family history (‘we’ve always been Tory/Labour here’) but feel ignored by the agenda of the metropolitan elite (gay marriage, Europe, immigration)
    3) ‘plague on all their houses’ protest voters who used to swing to Liberals, SDP, Greens, UKIP or whoever was not the establishment party, who now no longer have an option with the Lib Dems.

    My guess is that a proportion of each will revert, but how many?
    1) will go back to Tory to keep Labour out,
    2) will go back to both Tory and Labour to keep each other out (but a lower proportion than revert for 1)
    3) will move around if / when they find out more about the UKIP manifesto – unlikely to revert to Con (the archetypal establishment party), but some may swing to Labour (‘for change’), LDs (‘to keep Tories out’), Greens etc if they see UKIP’s policies as to right wing for them.

    I can’t see any genuine Liberals voting UKIP, even to get the Tories out…it’s so directly opposed to their own philosophy.

  29. The latest in my occasional series of approximate assessments of what the polls are telling us about the lost LDs – still (perhaps) the most crucial constituency for 2015.

    Who is best to run the economy

    EN/EB 49%
    DC/GO 16%

    How is DC performing?
    Well: 23%
    Badly: 79%
    Net: -56%

    How is EM performing?
    Well: 34%
    Badly: 56%
    Net: -22%

    How is NC performing?
    Well: 14%
    Badly: 86%
    Net: -72%

    Would EM be up to job of being PM?
    Yes: 30%
    No: 46%
    Net: -16%

    So. The lost LDs overwhelmingly prefer the Lab economic team. They have never warmed to EM and see his ability as PM broadly in the same as they see his performance as LoO. Not so good. Bit these figures are WAY better than those on their opinion of DC or NC.

    Still no sign in these numbers of lost LDs going anywhere but to Lab in 15 (or to No Vote of course…)

  30. PI

    Thanks

  31. The Notinghamshire result shows no sign of a UKIP surge:-

    Lab 34 (+21)
    Con 21 (-14)
    LD 8 (-1)
    UKIP 0 (-1)

    This certainly doesn’t fit with the BBC ‘experts’ analysis
    UKIP’s over-hyped performasnce this week was in blue heartlands. How will they do in Labour heartlands?

    Nottinghamshire has been more red than blue over the decades and UKIP lost their only councillor last Thursday.

    Nottingham City is completely separate. No UKIP councillors there so far. They didn’t have an election this time. The City has around 50 Lab councillors and only 5 Conservatives. They used to have a taxi-full of LibDems but they all lost their seats a couple of years ago. .

    The real third party on Notts County Council is still LibDems. UKIP only had one seat and they lost it. I think that both CIty and County are stony ground for UKIP. I can’t see them making inroads in Labour strongholds so the three right-wing parties ( I include LD) will have to compete for the same seats. Ed won’t mind that.

  32. Bit tired of this UKIP stuff now.

    Portsmouth South seems like the next Farage Fest destination?

  33. So UKIP are going to parachute a candidate into an area with no local link. Stinks of the usual high-hand atitudes of a corrupt political class. ;)

  34. I am completely bemused by Tinged’s post. Labour polled something around 29% in the 2010 GE. They’re now polling around 40% but, according to Tinged, UKIP is taking Labour votes. ?

  35. If Boris were looking for a safe Tory seat to launch from, one with over 50% blue say, then the farmers and footballers of Ribble Valley would surely suit… Surely? Trouble is, it’s in the north… Which is the Tory’ s problem in a nutshell. It’s an attitude thing.

  36. @Amber,

    Like for like please. Labour polled 30% in the GE (mainland UK). Otherwise completely agree. UKIP are pretty much not Labour’s problem.

  37. I like the idea of prospective Tory candidates being taken by DC from London up’t’North in a coach and, within ten minutes of hitting the M1, hearing hopeful choruses of:

    “Are we there yet Daddy??”

  38. @Amber

    They were polling 42% or thereabouts.

  39. Laszlo,

    “Guardian often (but not always) pushes a particular ideological cart based on stereotyping, over-generalisation, anecdotal illustrations. It is also often dogmatic.”

    Delete where applicable.. I think that sums up pretty much every newspaper, they are after all throw away commodities that thrive or just survive on giving their readers what they want as much as what they need. Most of their news is a mix of fact and their particular demographics fiction.

    I used to be a regular guardian reader years back, but I started in the Tory years because it was the best paper to provide good critical comment on the Government. I dropped of when Blair came to power as it wasn’t anywhere near as good at criticising a Labour government.

    Over time I have come to focus more and more on Scotland which it just doesn’t cover well. The coverages isn’t bad but there is very little of it and it tends to have a Westminster centric view.

    It’s still one of the best three or four though, although you could say that about a half dozen Syrian fighter pilots!

    Peter.

  40. Laszlo yes the guardian is terrible isn’t it? Unlike the sun,mail,express,Times,telegraph etc who are never ideological,stereotyping,dogmatic etc !!!!!!

  41. Can we have some sort of reality check about UKIP. I think a substantial amount of their votes is pretty flakey.

    Also, how many UKIP councillors didn’t expect to get elected and are wholly unprepared for (and incapable of?) undertaking a councillor’s duties. Instead of talking about defections to UKIP, perhaps we also ought to be keeping an eye on how many of those who were recently elected won’t be councillors at all in 6-12 months time (getting a sudden urge to ‘spend mre time with the family’)

  42. Anthony, please could you start to show UKIP support as a separate figure on the table of polls and as a separate line on the graph of voting intentions? The trend in UKIP support between now and the General Election would be interesting to see.

1 3 4 5