Skip to main content

Election Results: Thursday 27th September 2007. (Reading the runes)

Cheshire CC, Gowy
Con 1863 (50.4; +2.1), LD Andrew Garman 1419 (38.4; +5.7), Lab 307 (8.3;
-10.8), UKIP 107 (2.9; +2.9).
Majority 444. Turnout not known. Con hold. Last fought 2005.

Chester-le-Street DC, Chester Central
Lab 324 (59.4; -11.1), Con 89 (16.3; -13.2), LD Sean Kilkenny 81 (14.9;
+14.9), BNP 51 (9.4; +9.4).
Majority 235. Turnout 25.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Dover DC, Aylesham
Lab 661 (79.7; +11.4), Con 108 (13.0; -12.6), Ind 59 (7.1; +0.9), Ind 1
(0.1; +0.1).
Majority 553. Turnout 23.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Dover DC, Maxton, Elms Vale and Priory
Labour 365 (33.7; -3.3), LD John Mackie 274 (25.3; +6.1), Con 252 (23.3;
-8.2), Ind 70 (6.5; -5.8), UKIP 65 (6.0; +6.0), Ind 56 (5.2; +5.2).
Majority 91. Turnout 20.2%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Kent CC, Dover Town
Lab 1860 (44.5; -5.8), Con 1348 (32.2; +4.1), LD Dean Stiles 420 (10.0;
-11.6), Ind 300 (7.2; +7.2), UKIP 256 (6.1; +6.1).
Majority 512. Turnout 19.5%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.

Mansfield DC, Lindhurst
Lab 339 (35.6; +13.8), Mansfield Independent Forum 302 (31.7; +0.7), LD
Marc Hollingworth 215 (22.6; +22.6), Con 61 (6.4; -8.4), Green 35 (3.7;
-3.8), [Ind (0.0; -24.9)].
Majority 37. Turnout 27.1%. Lab gain from Ind. Last fought 2007.

Northamptonshire CC, Lloyds
Lab 1093 (53.5; -8.7), Con 375 (18.3; -2.7), LD 311 (15.2; -1.6), BNP 265
(13.0; +13.0).
Majority 718. Turnout 30.7%. Lab hold. Last fought 2005.

Portsmouth UA, Nelson
Lab 791 (35.0; +3.2), Con 682 (30.2; +3.3), LD Alex Naylor 548 (24.2;
-2.9), UKIP 90 (4.0; +4.0), Green 78 (3.5; -2.9), English Democrats 71 (3.1;
Majority 109. Turnout 22.4%. Lab hold. Last fought 2007.

Sunderland MBC, Washington East
Con 1196 (49.9; +9.8), Lab 994 (41.5; +2.2), LD 206 (8.6; -5.6), [BNP (0.0;
Majority 202. Turnout 27.6%. Con gain from Lab. Last fought 2007

What Gordon Brown should read into this is unclear. I don't see a major swing towards Labour.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…