Carlisle City DC, Upperby
Lab 595/515 (35.2;-12.1), LD 428 (25.3;-0.6), Con 346/275 (20.5;+5.5),
BNP 321/278 (19.0;+7.3)
Majorities 167/87  Turnout 36.1%  Lab hold x 2
Percentage change is since May 2007.

East Sussex CC, Bexhill King Offa
Con 2825 (62.3;+23.1), LD 1191 (26.3;-4.3), Lab 518 (11.4;-18.8)
Majority 1634  Turnout 25%  Con hold  Percentage change is since May
2005.

Flintshire UA, Hope
LD 480 (63.6;+63.6), Ind 275 (36.4;-14.8)
[Ind (0.0;-48.8)]
Majority 205  Turnout 38.6%  LD gain from Ind  
Percentage change is since May 2003.

Gloucestershire CC, Brockworth
LD 1040 (52.9;+41.0), Con 751 (38.2;+11.1), Lab 175 (8.9;-15.9)
[Resident (0.0;-30.6), Green (0.0;-5.5)]
Majority 289  Turnout 31.4%  LD gain from Resident  
Percentage change is since May 2005.

Harlow DC, Harlow Common
Con 959 (46.6;+3.1), Lab 628 (30.5;-14.5), LD 419 (20.3;+8.7),
Ind 53 (2.6;+2.6)
Majority 331  Turnout 37.2%  Con gain from Lab  
Percentage change is since May 2007.

Illogan PC, Illogan
Liberal 186 (50.1), LD 185 (49.9)
Majority 1  Turnout not known  Liberal hold.

Oxford City DC, Holywell
LD 188 (40.4;-5.0), Con 112 (24.1;+1.6), Lab 93 (20.0;+6.4),
Green 72 (15.5;-3.0)
Majority 76  Turnout 11.7%  LD hold  Percentage change is since May 2008.

Rother DC, Bexhill Collington
Con 893 (75.3;+5.2), LD 216 (18.2;-11.8), Lab 78 (6.6;+6.6)
Majority 677  Turnout 31%  Con hold  Percentage change is since May 2007.

Waltham Forest LBC, Forest
LD 977 (36.9;-2.3), Lab 927 (35.0;+1.4), Con 507 (19.1;+5.9),
Green 184 (6.9;-7.0), Left List 56 (2.1;+2.1)
Majority 50  Turnout 32.2%  LD hold  Percentage change is since May 2006.


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, 13 Jun 2008 at 11:55:00, Colin Rosenstiel  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>Illogan PC, Illogan
>Liberal 186 (50.1), LD 185 (49.9)
>Majority 1  Turnout not known  Liberal hold.

Close!

At least a recount wouldn't take long though...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

A hundred years ago, when I was young, the threshold for saving your deposit 
was 12.5% of the poll. The good burghers of Oxford could not even muster a 
12.5% poll ...

Nick Russell
Herefordshire

> Oxford City DC, Holywell
> LD 188 (40.4;-5.0), Con 112 (24.1;+1.6), Lab 93 (20.0;+6.4),
> Green 72 (15.5;-3.0)
> Majority 76  Turnout 11.7%  LD hold  Percentage change is since May 2008.

Nick Russell wrote:

>> Oxford City DC, Holywell
>> LD 188 (40.4;-5.0), Con 112 (24.1;+1.6), Lab 93 (20.0;+6.4),
>> Green 72 (15.5;-3.0)
>> Majority 76  Turnout 11.7%  LD hold  Percentage change is since May 2008.

>A hundred years ago, when I was young, the threshold for saving your 
>deposit was 12.5% of the poll. The good burghers of Oxford could not even 
>muster a 12.5% poll ...

Is this a student dominated ward? And are the universities there still in 
term time?

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

> Nick Russell wrote:

>>> Oxford City DC, Holywell
>>> LD 188 (40.4;-5.0), Con 112 (24.1;+1.6), Lab 93 (20.0;+6.4),
>>> Green 72 (15.5;-3.0)
>>> Majority 76  Turnout 11.7%  LD hold  Percentage change is since May 2008.

>> A hundred years ago, when I was young, the threshold for saving your 
>> deposit was 12.5% of the poll. The good burghers of Oxford could not even 
>> muster a 12.5% poll ...

> Is this a student dominated ward? And are the universities there still in 
> term time? 

Yes, but since Blair's "improvements", don't they all now get three 
postal votes each (and the opportunity to use the unwanted postal votes 
of any absent housemates)?

"Nick Russell"  wrote in message 
news:GIOdnVsuy52Rm8nVnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>A hundred years ago, when I was young, the threshold for saving your 
>deposit was 12.5% of the poll. The good burghers of Oxford could not even 
>muster a 12.5% poll ...
>
> Nick Russell
> Herefordshire
>
>> Oxford City DC, Holywell
>> LD 188 (40.4;-5.0), Con 112 (24.1;+1.6), Lab 93 (20.0;+6.4),
>> Green 72 (15.5;-3.0)
>> Majority 76  Turnout 11.7%  LD hold  Percentage change is since May 2008.
>
>

There are deposits in local elections?

[/irony]

Are the Boundary Commissioners under any obligation to take student 
populations into account when warding or re-warding local government 
domains? It seems slightly hard on the burghers that live there all the time 
to have their political representation decided by others who are around for 
less than half the year, and are not liable for council tax anyway.

Curmudgeonally

Nick Russell
Herefordshire

Nick Russell wrote:

> Are the Boundary Commissioners under any obligation to take student 
> populations into account when warding or re-warding local government 
> domains?

I believe the answer is "no" as there are a number of student dominated 
wards and even one - University in Lancaster (comprising 7 of the 9 colleges 
of Lancaster University and the campus inbetween) - that is almost 
exclusively. If the students are on the register then they are voters who 
must be taken into account as much as anyone else. (I'm told by locals that 
Lancaster was messy because the Boundary Commission refused to take into 
account the university's forthcoming but already agreed purchase of adjacent 
land where the other two colleges are now.)

The one major problem is whether or not the university opts to perform the 
registration on behalf of the students. In my Kent days (1998-2002) the 
university registered all students living in halls but many students would 
only find this out when the poll cards came (and as Canterbury has all outs 
there were no elections in 2000 or 2002 to check this on). In my one year in 
halls at QMUL it's my recollection (and that of students living in in later 
years) that we had to register ourselves.

So quite potentially a large block of around 3000 voters could appear and 
disappear at the whims of university policy and depending on the nature of 
the rest of the wards the knock-on effects could be major.

> It seems slightly hard on the burghers that live there all the time to 
> have their political representation decided by others who are around for 
> less than half the year, and are not liable for council tax anyway.

Council tax is not charged by the individual but by the household - if we go 
down this line then assuming a two person occupancy as standard, why should 
the single person occupancy household get 75% (?) of the tax but 50% of the 
voting power? And what about households with more than two grown adults in 
them - should they get more voting power when paying the same tax?

If the exemption didn't exist most students would be eligible for the 
benefits to cover the council tax - the way the system is constructed is 
easier and less bureaucratic all round. Also with a lot of student 
residences no-one seems to be entirely sure what the "household" actually is 
and both electoral registration and TV licences (the main areas a student 
might actualy have to work out the answer) can give different outcomes.

As for how long the students are around, well Oxford and Cambridge are in a 
minority (of two?) in having terms totalling just 24 weeks. Most 
universities are up to 30 weeks now and the vacation exodus is limited - 
many students, especially those not renting from the university, stay at 
their term time addresses for longer at Christmas and Easter for many 
reasons, including part time jobs and access to the library for revision 
(especially useful now that at many universities the summer term is 
truncated and has exams from day one). In all my years at university only in 
my first did I come close to spending half the year away from the town (a 
30/22 week split in the uni town's favour). There was also my fifth but I 
was living at home and commuting so there was no distinction. Note also that 
many, many students now go to local universities and commute from home. And 
many postgraduates, who tend to be around for all the vacation as well, 
would probably consider their term time address to be their only real one.