Rutland CC, Cottesmore
Con 389 (68.1; +1.1)
LD 182 (31.9; +31.9)
[UKIP (0.0; -33.0)]
Majority 207
Turnout 26.4%
Con hold Cause: Death
Percentage change is since May 2007

Barton on Humber TC, Bridge
Con 746 (62.6)
Lab 445 (37.4)
Majority 301
Turnout not known
Con hold Cause: death.

North Lincolnshire UA, Barton
Con 1576 (64.4; +15.6)
Lab 653 (26.7; +6.2)
LD 220 (9.0; -5.9)
[Others (0.0; -16.0)]
Majority 923
Turnout not known
Con hold Cause: Death.

Salford City, Irwell Riverside
Lab 606 (37.6; -13.3)
LD 293 (18.2; -1.1)
BNP 276 (17.1; +3.8)
Con 189 (11.7; -4.7)
Green 125 (7.8; +7.8)
UKIP 123 (7.6; +7.6)
Majority 313
Turnout 17.5%
Lab hold Cause: Death
Percentage change is since May 2008

City of London, Bishopsgate
date: 21/05/2009
4 Candidates, all Ind 78 / 66 / 53 / 47 
Majority 12
Turnout 21%
Ind hold
Cause: due to insufficient nominations in the full council elections on
16th March 2009.


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, 22 May 2009 at 15:32:05, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in 
uk.politics.electoral :

>Rutland CC, Cottesmore
>Con 389 (68.1; +1.1)
>LD 182 (31.9; +31.9)
>[UKIP (0.0; -33.0)]
>Majority 207
>Turnout 26.4%
>Con hold Cause: Death
>Percentage change is since May 2007

Wonder why UKIP didn't contest it again - and astonishing that almost 
all their votes seemingly switched to the rabidly *pro-EU* LD's!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Paul Hyett wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in uk.politics.electoral :

>> Rutland CC, Cottesmore
>> Con 389 (68.1; +1.1)
>> LD 182 (31.9; +31.9)
>> [UKIP (0.0; -33.0)]
>> Majority 207
>> Turnout 26.4%
>> Con hold Cause: Death
>> Percentage change is since May 2007

> Wonder why UKIP didn't contest it again - and astonishing that almost 
> all their votes seemingly switched to the rabidly *pro-EU* LD's!

Surely the main surprise is that the party "governing" the country didn't 
contest it.

On Sat, 23 May 2009 09:44:18 +0100, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2009 at 15:32:05, rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote in  
> uk.politics.electoral :
>
>> Rutland CC, Cottesmore
>> Con 389 (68.1; +1.1)
>> LD 182 (31.9; +31.9)
>> [UKIP (0.0; -33.0)]
>> Majority 207
>> Turnout 26.4%
>> Con hold Cause: Death
>> Percentage change is since May 2007
>
> Wonder why UKIP didn't contest it again - and astonishing that almost  
> all their votes seemingly switched to the rabidly *pro-EU* LD's!

Presumably because a different set of voters turned out for each election.

Regards,

Helen

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"JNugent"  wrote in message > Surely the main 
surprise is that the party "governing" the country didn't
> contest it.

I suspect they would find neither candidate nor supporters ...

On 22 May, 21:32, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> City of London, Bishopsgate
> date: 21/05/2009
> 4 Candidates, all Ind 78 / 66 / 53 / 47
> Majority 12
> Turnout 21%
> Ind hold
> Cause: due to insufficient nominations in the full council elections on
> 16th March 2009.

It seems the City of London is heading for a contested election of
Sheriffs on 24 June and possibly 8 July, the first for a decade.
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59059/pages/8064 Despite the
peculiar franchise, that makes it more democratic than anywhere else.