Not much to see here: Dave’s guide to local election results in the Liverpool City Region

Liverpool from Everton Park. Image: Getty.

Last Thursday’s English local elections saw new councillors elected to the six constituent council areas of the Liverpool City Region. Only one third of the council seats were contested this year: under the ‘thirds’ system, elections are held in three years out of four, each covering a third of the seats.

In order of size – that is, number of wards – the six councils are Liverpool City Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC), Wirral MBC, Halton Borough Council, St Helens MBC and Knowsley MBC. The region has 126 wards in total, most with three councillors each.

So what went down? Here’s my guide. The information provided here was taken directly from the six official council websites, including the party names which are as defined thereon.

Before the elections

On 28 April 2018, there were a total of 364 councillors across Liverpool City Region, split politically as follows:

  • Labour Party – 288 (inc. five listed as Labour & Co-operative Party)
  • Liberal Democrats – 33
  • Liberal Party – 2
  • Conservative Party – 30
  • Green Party – 5
  • Independents Group – 4
  • Independent – 2

To summarise, of the total number of councillors of 364 within Liverpool City Region, 288 were Labour.

This all breaks down by individual council area as follows.

Liverpool – 88 councillors, in 30 wards

  • Labour Party – 77
  • Green Party – 4
  • Liberal Democrat – 4
  • Liberal Party – 2
  • Independent – 1

Labour majority – 66

Sefton – 64 councillors, in 22 wards

  • Labour Party – 38
  • Liberal Democrats – 16
  • Conservative Party – 5
  • Independents Group – 4
  • Independent – 1

Labour majority – 12

Wirral – 64 councillors, in 22 wards

  • Labour – 38
  • Conservative – 20
  • Liberal Democrats – 5
  • Green Party – 1

Labour majority – 12

Halton – 55 councillors, in 21 wards

  • Labour – 51
  • Liberal Democrat – 2
  • Conservative – 2

Labour majority – 47

St Helens – 48 councillors, in 16 wards

  • Labour Party – 42 (inc. three listed as Labour & Co-operative Party)
  • Liberal Democrat Party – 3
  • Conservative Party – 3

Labour majority – 36

Knowsley – 45 councillors, in 15 wards

  • Labour Party – 42 (inc. two listed as Labour & Co-operative Party)
  • Liberal Democrats – 3

Labour majority – 39

After the elections

On 4 May 2018, there were a total of 371 councillors across Liverpool City Region, split politically as followsL

  • Labour Party – 291 (inc. five listed as Labour & Co-operative Party)
  • Liberal Democrats – 32
  • Liberal Party – 2
  • Conservative Party – 34
  • Green Party – 6
  • Independents Group – 3
  • Independent – 3

(Note that there are sometimes more councillors than previously, because vacant seats have been filled.)

To summarise, of the total number of councillors of 371 within Liverpool City Region, 291 are now Labour. The party has gained three, the Conservatives four, the Greens one and the LibDems have lost 1.

This all breaks down by individual council area as follows:

Liverpool – 90 councillors, in 30 wards

  • Labour Party – 76
  • Liberal Democrat – 7
  • Green Party – 4
  • Liberal Party – 2
  • Independent – 1

Lib Dem +3; Labour -1

Labour majority – 62

Sefton – 66 councillors, in 22 wards

  • Labour Party – 43
  • Liberal Democrats – 12
  • Conservative Party – 8
  • Independents Group – 3

Labour +5, Conservative +3, LibDem -4, Independent -2

Labour majority – 20

Wirral – 66 councillors, in 22 wards

  • Labour – 39
  • Conservative – 21
  • Liberal Democrats – 5
  • Green Party – 1

Labour +1, Conservative +1

Labour majority – 12

Halton – 56 councillors in, 21 wards

  • Labour – 52
  • Liberal Democrat – 2
  • Conservative – 2

Labour +1

Labour majority – 48

St Helens – 48 councillors, in 16 wards

  • Labour Party – 41 (inc. three listed as Labour & Co-operative Party)
  • Liberal Democrat Party – 3
  • Conservative Party – 3
  • Independent – 1

Independent +1, Labour -1

Labour majority – 34

Knowsley – 45 councillors, in 15 wards

  • Labour Party – 40 (inc. two listed as Labour & Co-operative Party)
  • Liberal Democrats – 3
  • Green – 1
  • Independent – 1

Green +1, Independent +1, Labour -2

Labour majority – 35

There are no major changes here: Labour still dominates the Liverpool City Region. Its hold is strongest on Liverpool, and weakest on the Wirral.

But this exercise does illustrate the long term destruction wreaked upon the Liberal Democrats by the actions of Sir Nick Clegg, with his support for austerity measures introduced under the Conservative/LibDem coalition government formed in 2010. Liverpool City Council was run under majority LibDem control of the Liberal Democrats for over a decade up until the 2010 elections. In 2004, the party won 60 of the 90 seats.

Since then, though, its local support has been decimated, taking it from the 38 seats that it held immediately after their unsuccessful 2010 local election campaign to the 7 that it now holds. Its vote share locally doesn't look like recovering significantly enough to challenge for power any time soon, if ever. This has created a democratic deficit where I live.

One last thing. If Liverpool City Region were a single local authority area, it would be on a physical scale similar to the existing City of Leeds local authority area, as previously discussed last September. Such an entity would be one of the most significant local authority area in the UK – and would receive commensurate national and global attention and inward investment. 

Dave Mail is CityMetric's Liverpool City Region correspondent. He will be updating us on the brave new world of Liverpool City Region, mostly monthly, in 'E-mail from Liverpool City Region' and he is on twitter @davemail2017.


Urgently needed: Timely, more detailed standardized data on US evictions

Graffiti asking for rent forgiveness is seen on a wall on La Brea Ave amid the Covid-19 pandemic in Los Angeles, California. (Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images)

Last week the Eviction Lab, a team of eviction and housing policy researchers at Princeton University, released a new dashboard that provides timely, city-level US eviction data for use in monitoring eviction spikes and other trends as Covid restrictions ease. 

In 2018, Eviction Lab released the first national database of evictions in the US. The nationwide data are granular, going down to the level of a few city blocks in some places, but lagged by several years, so their use is more geared toward understanding the scope of the problem across the US, rather than making timely decisions to help city residents now. 

Eviction Lab’s new Eviction Tracking System, however, provides weekly updates on evictions by city and compares them to baseline data from past years. The researchers hope that the timeliness of this new data will allow for quicker action in the event that the US begins to see a wave of evictions once Covid eviction moratoriums are phased out.

But, due to a lack of standardization in eviction filings across the US, the Eviction Tracking System is currently available for only 11 cities, leaving many more places facing a high risk of eviction spikes out of the loop.

Each city included in the Eviction Tracking System shows rolling weekly and monthly eviction filing counts. A percent change is calculated by comparing current eviction filings to baseline eviction filings for a quick look at whether a city might be experiencing an uptick.

Timely US eviction data for a handful of cities is now available from the Eviction Lab. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

The tracking system also provides a more detailed report on each city’s Covid eviction moratorium efforts and more granular geographic and demographic information on the city’s evictions.

Click to the above image to see a city-level eviction map, in this case for Pittsburgh. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

As part of their Covid Resource, the Eviction Lab together with Columbia Law School professor Emily Benfer also compiled a scorecard for each US state that ranks Covid-related tenant protection measures. A total of 15 of the 50 US states plus Washington DC received a score of zero because those states provided little if any protections.

CityMetric talked with Peter Hepburn, an assistant professor at Rutgers who just finished a two-year postdoc at the Eviction Lab, and Jeff Reichman, principal at the data science research firm January Advisors, about the struggles involved in collecting and analysing eviction data across the US.

Perhaps the most notable hurdle both researchers addressed is that there’s no standardized reporting of evictions across jurisdictions. Most evictions are reported to county-level governments, however what “reporting” means differs among and even within each county. 

In Texas, evictions go through the Justice of the Peace Courts. In Virginia they’re processed by General District Courts. Judges in Milwaukee are sealing more eviction case documents that come through their courtroom. In Austin, Pittsburgh and Richmond, eviction addresses aren’t available online but ZIP codes are. In Denver you have to pay about $7 to access a single eviction filing. In Alabama*, it’s $10 per eviction filing. 

Once the filings are acquired, the next barrier is normalizing them. While some jurisdictions share reporting systems, many have different fields and formats. Some are digital, but many are images of text or handwritten documents that require optical character recognition programs and natural language processors in order to translate them into data. That, or the filings would have to be processed by hand. 

“There's not enough interns in the world to do that work,” says Hepburn.

Aggregating data from all of these sources and normalizing them requires knowledge of the nuances in each jurisdiction. “It would be nice if, for every region, we were looking for the exact same things,” says Reichman. “Instead, depending on the vendor that they use, and depending on how the data is made available, it's a puzzle for each one.”

In December of 2019, US Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Rob Portman of Ohio introduced a bill that would set up state and local grants aimed at reducing low-income evictions. Included in the bill is a measure to enhance data collection. Hepburn is hopeful that the bill could one day mean an easier job for those trying to analyse eviction data.

That said, Hepburn and Reichman caution against the public release of granular eviction data. 

“In a lot of cases, what this gets used for is for tenant screening services,” says Hepburn. “There are companies that go and collect these data and make them available to landlords to try to check and see if their potential tenants have been previously evicted, or even just filed against for eviction, without any sort of judgement.”

According to research by Eviction Lab principal Matthew Desmond and Tracey Shollenberger, who is now vice president of science at Harvard’s Center for Policing Equity, residents who have been evicted or even just filed against for eviction often have a much harder time finding equal-quality housing in the future. That coupled with evidence that evictions affect minority populations at disproportionate rates can lead to widening racial and economic gaps in neighborhoods.

While opening up raw data on evictions to the public would not be the best option, making timely, granular data available to researchers and government officials can improve the system’s ability to respond to potential eviction crises.

Data on current and historical evictions can help city officials spot trends in who is getting evicted and who is doing the evicting. It can help inform new housing policy and reform old housing policies that may put more vulnerable citizens at undue risk.

Hepburn says that the Eviction Lab is currently working, in part with the ACLU, on research that shows the extent to which Black renters are disproportionately affected by the eviction crisis.

More broadly, says Hepburn, better data can help provide some oversight for a system which is largely unregulated.

“It's the Wild West, right? There's no right to representation. Defendants have no right to counsel. They're on their own here,” says Hepburn. “I mean, this is people losing their homes, and they're being processed in bulk very quickly by the system that has very little oversight, and that we know very little about.”

A 2018 report by the Philadelphia Mayor’s Taskforce on Eviction Prevention and Response found that of Philadelphia’s 22,500 eviction cases in 2016, tenants had legal representation in only 9% of them.

Included in Hepburn’s eviction data wishlist is an additional ask, something that is rarely included in any of the filings that the Eviction Lab and January Advisors have been poring over for years. He wants to know the relationship between money owed and monthly rent.

“At the individual level, if you were found to owe $1,500, was that on an apartment that's $1,500 a month? Or was it an apartment that's $500 a month? Because that makes a big difference in the story you're telling about the nature of the crisis, right? If you're letting somebody get three months behind that's different than evicting them immediately once they fall behind,” Hepburn says.

Now that the Eviction Tracking System has been out for a week, Hepburn says one of the next steps is to start reaching out to state and local governments to see if they can garner interest in the project. While he’s not ready to name any names just yet, he says that they’re already involved in talks with some interested parties.

*Correction: This story initially misidentified a jurisdiction that charges $10 to access an eviction filing. It is the state of Alabama, not the city of Atlanta. Also, at the time of publication, Peter Hepburn was an assistant professor at Rutgers, not an associate professor.

Alexandra Kanik is a data reporter at CityMetric.