Local Elections – barometer or aberration?

Ross Raftery, Amy Jones & Harry Russell 22 May 2024

As we explored in our first blog [1] of this series, housing is widely expected to be a key topic for the forthcoming general election. Indeed, this has been already demonstrated with statements made by each of the main parties and the recent defection of the MP for Dover & Deal, Natalie Elphicke OBE, from the Conservatives to Labour, on grounds which principally included housing matters.

Now that the dust has settled on the results of the May local elections, we have considered whether this hypothesis has applied equally at a local level, by reviewing a range of key housing-related data points for potential trends that have influenced those results.

Our analysis focused on the councils who held ‘all-out’ elections, accounting for elections held:

While Labour performed strongly overall, they did not perform as strongly in the 20 authorities with the highest affordability ratios [2], seeing just three councils being held or gained [3]. The Liberal Democrats or No Overall Control were most common in these 20 areas, however this is likely to be reflective of the geography and economic indicators of those areas, which are not the typical Labour heartlands.
The proportion of Green Belt within an authority was also not a factor which correlated with results. In the context of significant statements about future Green Belt policies, Labour still held or gained control of authorities with significant proportions of Green Belt land [4].
Similarly, the difference between Local Plan housing numbers and the Standard Method, or whether a new local plan is being prepared, did not correlate with election results.

Given the local nature of these elections and the multiplicity of national and local factors determining how people voted, it is largely unsurprising to find an absence of clear trends in this data. So, in this context, we have looked at a series of authorities where there might be interesting, locally-specific factors at play. These factors have included where there have been significant swings in results; where a new local plan is being prepared; and where the Conservatives maintained control.

Cannock Chase – Labour gain from No Overall Control

In Cannock Chase, where all 36 seats were contested, Labour gained control from no overall majority, winning 21 seats (an increase of 11 seats from the previous council composition) to the Conservatives’ 10 (-11)[5].

Cannock Chase is in the advanced stages of preparing a new Local Plan (due for adoption in 2025). The adoption of this is proving challenging with the council increasing its housing allocations to absorb some of the unmet needs from the wider housing market area. This is despite the authority being geographically small and constrained by Green Belt and a large National Landscape [6].

There is little evidence of either party focusing their campaigns on the emerging Local Plan, indicating that the ability of councillors to influence planning was not at the forefront of issues in this election. The swing towards Labour may be indicative of a wider malaise around the current Government or be in response to other local issues, such as the recent closure of the Amazon Fulfilment Centre which had been Cannock Chase’s largest employer, resulting in the loss of c.1,000 jobs [7]^,[8].

Dorset – Liberal Democrats gain from Conservatives

Dorset Unitary Authority was won by the Conservatives in 2019 when first established, but fell to the Liberal Democrats in these local elections. All 82 seats were contested, with the Liberal Democrats winning 42 (+13) and the Conservatives winning 30 seats (-13)[9]. The Liberal Democrat manifesto[10] for the election focused on several planning-related issues, including a pledge to double the rate of building of new affordable homes by the end of the next council and to expand the Dorset Enterprise Zone.

Information of the Conservative’s pledges in these elections has been difficult to locate, although local Conservative websites regularly promote Green Belt protection. Conservative candidates in the area chose to fight this election on local issues and their track record, distancing themselves from the national party. Indeed, 79 of the 82 candidates have chosen to call themselves “Local Conservatives” and when Conservative MPs asked how they could help during the campaign, former Council Leader Spencer Flower told them to “stay away”[11].

The result in Dorset could relate to a myriad of issues. It is apparent that Conservatives feared the results would be affected by national politics, whilst local issues relating to affordable home provision, Green Belt protection and car parking charges[12] were central to the Liberal Democrat campaign.

Bristol – No overall control hold

In Bristol, the Green Party won 34 (+10)[13] seats, narrowly missing out on an overall majority. In its manifesto[14], the party pledged to increase the city’s affordable homes target from 600 to 1,000 homes per year; prioritise ‘gentle density’ housing development; and ensure the delivery of 14,000 unbuilt residential properties with permission. The Green Party pledged to support the council’s planning department – which is currently in special measures – with funding, staff and more efficient systems. Other key policies include ‘Getting back on track for net-zero’, which they link in part to housing, and ‘Better Transport for Bristol’.

The Liberal Democrats retained its 8 seats, whilst Labour won 21 seats (-3). Labour’s manifesto ‘Building Bristol’s Future’[15] emphasised the party’s plan to bring opportunity to the city through growth. It seems that planning-related issues could have influenced the election, though the result could also reflect the base of support the Green Party has built in the city and its growing national success[16]. The Conservatives lost 7 seats.

Stroud – No overall control hold

The Green Party had further success in the west, winning 22 (+9)[17] seats and becoming the biggest party in Stroud. In its manifesto^[18], the Green Party pledged to build warm and affordable homes and picked up on local public services issues. Notably, its manifesto included a focus on “Restoring Trust” and showing that there is a “positive, progressive and professional way to do politics”. The election resulted in the highest number of Labour seats in 28 years^[19], (20 (+5))[20] whilst the Conservatives faced a significant loss of 13 seats[21]. Labour pledged to build more homes, support local high streets, and prioritise the local community^[22]. There is very limited information available on the Conservative campaign.

Housing and other local issues may have played a part in the shift in Stroud, though the Conservative loss against the success of the Green Party and Labour may also be indicative of wider discontent with the current Government. In response to the result, Green Cllr Catherine Braun pointed to the unpopularity of the Conservative Government as a reason for the wave of nationwide support for the Greens[23].

Epping Forest – Conservative hold

The Conservatives won 29 seats (-3) and held control of Epping Forest council, while Labour was fifth with just 1 seat (+1) [24]. Most interesting was the result for the second largest party, the Loughton Residents Association (LRA) which again secured 13 seats (+1).

A significant thread for the Conservative campaign was the fact that the council has the lowest council tax in Essex. However, the LRA manifesto[25] focused heavily on planning and housing matters, including identifying their success a reducing the allocation of new homes in Loughton from 1,021 to 445, and fighting over-development and urbanisation.

The LRA have been represented in local elections since at least 2016 and this latest result is a clear example of how local issues can have significant influence on council-level election results. However, as such local groups will not be expected to perform as well in a general election, if indeed they field a candidate, it is difficult to translate this scale of local issues to national politics.

Conclusion

Taking an holistic view of the results indicates the extent to which national politics have influenced the local elections with the Conservative party suffering heavy losses (-474) and Labour winning the largest number of new seats (+186). However, despite this overall position, the choices that people make at local elections, and the reasons for those choices, can differ very significantly to those made at a general election. Local factors will, by definition, play a greater role in the decision-making process and there is a greater opportunity for smaller single-issue parties to do well. This is highlighted in the fact that independent candidates gained an additional 93 seats. An implication of this is that it can be very difficult to identify the key factors that influenced the outcome of the election in any particular local authority.

There has been a varied focus on planning and housing issues in the authorities that we have considered but, in general, it does not appear to have been given the weight that might have been expected, given the importance of housing on the domestic policy agenda and the importance of planning as an enabler of housing delivery (or in the words of the Shadow Chancellor, as “the single greatest obstacle to our economic success”).

Time will tell whether the local election results will be reflected in the general election on 4th July. One prediction that we would make, however, is that housing and planning issues will represent a more significant policy battle ground at the general election than was the case in the local election campaign.

Image credit: Red Dot via Unsplash

Sectors

Services

Planning matters