Skip to main content

Birmingham Election Results

I have been sent a list of the results for the city that I have not checked and which does not include the result for Kingstanding.

It makes it possible, however, to calculate the percentages across the city for all parties. I also have found 2002 and 1998 figures.
Party199820022006
Labour44.139.931.0
Conservatives31.930.426.4
Lib Dem18.321.622.1
BNP11.0
Green4.4


There were some Green and BNP candidates previously, but I have not tried to get the city wide totals. The citywide results show a movement towards extremes and a fragmentation of the mainstream vote with only the Lib Dem Citywide vote standing up against that. The point about the Citywide vote is that it is comparable as the boundaries of the city have not changed even though ward boundaries have changed.

It remains to be seen whether there will be one or more election petitions this time (one from mathematics the others potentially from fraud). It appears that personation has been the name of the game this time rather than postal vote fraud still. However, work needs to be done to be certain.

I am amazed that the Kingstanding result was allowed to be declared with 12,329 votes in total when there were only 4,981 ballot papers with a maximum of two votes on them allowing 9,962 maximum votes.

When there are multiple X elections there is a need to add up the votes from different sources. Some people vote for a party with two (or three votes) others mix and match (which is why doing comparisons to 2004 is difficult). In practise only 9,265 votes were actually cast in Kingstanding. Lots of the mix and match votes appear to have been double counted.

I can understand people being tired at the count. I was very tired on Thursday and Friday as a result of election campaigning, but I am surprised that this overt error was allowed to occur.

Comments

TonyF said…
A movement towards the extremes with only the Lib Dem vote standing against that?
Which Citys results have you been looking at?
15 wards you ended up behind the BNP! Still got your finger in the dike while the wall collapses around you
John Hemming said…
The results on this blog. Only the Lib Dem citywide vote went up.
Labour and Tories went down.
TonyF said…
The vote went up in the seats you aleady had and the seat you took in Moseley ( Cancelled out by the loss in Aston). 25 seats you finished 3rd and 4th. Increase in votes or not, it's the seats that count and the Lib Dems blew it!
Richard Allen said…
For once TonyF is right. It's seats that count. The tory vote share for example is down but they won 16 seats. Oscott was the only real dissapointment for them (argueably Hall Green as well) and that was obviously heavily influenced by the BNP.
John Hemming said…
On seats Birmingham is clearly NOC and the joint administration is making slow progress in terms of popular support.

I think Labour did well to hang on as well as they did. Probably all the stories about meltdown brought out their voters and discouraged others.
backcare said…
very good site!.I’d like to exchange idea with you about your subject.and Can I introduce Bristol website:www.backachetherapy.co.uk Chinese backcare therapist website to give you a wealth of information about back pain as well as educate you about Chinese backcare therapy.It is about Dr Han--Chinese exarmy doctor,(TCM doctor)specialises in lower back pain relief (eg.sciatica),adopting acupressure massage therapy and acupuncture,he worked in China army hospital over 20 years as medical practitioner.if you like contact him,ring:07967525168; 01179730364. by appointment only!
PoliticalHackUK said…
'The results on this blog. Only the Lib Dem citywide vote went up.
Labour and Tories went down.'

Not entirely true.

In fact, not true at all.

I've got some rather more interesting figures on the blog. All three parties' vote shares are down on 2003 (a year you conveniently ignore) and I'd argue that Labour and the Tories are up on 2004 while the LDs are down. In terms of best performance in 2004, the LD vote figures are actually down in all but three wards in the City.

Not a good year for the LDs anywhere, especially in Birmingham.

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…