Labour increase vote in local elections

10 May 10
A higher turnout than normal gave Labour gains in last week’s local elections, but councils of all political shades face unpopular decisions on spending cuts, experts have warned
By Mark Smulian

10 May 2010

A higher turnout than normal gave Labour gains in last week’s local elections, but councils of all political shades face unpopular decisions on spending cuts, experts have warned.

For the first time, polls at London’s 32 borough councils coincided with a general election, while voting also took place in 144 other English local authorities.

Labour recorded a net gain of 393 seats, despite its poor national showing, with newly controlled councils including Liverpool, Brent, Camden, Ealing, Coventry and Hastings.

Conversely, the Conservatives lost 121 councillors, the Liberal Democrats dropped 119 and ‘others’ lost 123. The British National Party lost 26 council seats.  

Commentators attributed the results to an increased turnout generated by the general election.

Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, told Public Finance: ‘I think the general election brought out a latent Labour core vote that does not [otherwise] come out.’

David Sparks, leader of the Local Government Association Labour group, agreed: ‘The general election increased turnout and brought out people who vote Labour, but don’t usually vote locally.

‘More fundamentally, the results showed that councillors are far more involved with their local communities than are MPs and so are more able to attract support regardless of the national campaign.’

But Bob Neil, the Conservatives’ shadow local government minister, said: ‘We have retained our position as the largest party in local government in Britain, with more councillors than the LibDems and Labour combined. A high turnout has helped Labour but they still remain a urban rump because of their high taxes and worse services.’

According to LGA LibDem group leader Richard Kemp, the party’s results were
‘a disappointment but not a surprise’. He added: ‘It’s unfortunate that for the first time all of [the local elections in] London coincided with a general election, as that was where we did worst.’

Sparks admitted that Labour councils faced daunting spending reductions, adding: ‘Our task is to protect the communities that are least able to afford such cuts’.

Andrew Coulson, senior lecturer at the Institute of Local Government Studies, said the political difficulties of cutting health, education, police or social services, meant the remainder of local government spending would have to bear the brunt of cuts. Private Finance Initiative contracts were also likely to be protected because of legal issues involved in terminating them.   

‘I think Total Place will be very important, in particular for links between health and social care. If you can get that better co-ordinated and co-located it does offer substantial savings,’ he added.

Travers also warned: ‘Given the size of the deficit, no-one will have much room for manoeuvre, and those running a council now are unlikely to be popular by the 2014 elections’.

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top