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.
Lib Dem18.321.622.1

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.


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 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 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 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!
PoliticalHack 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

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. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…