Skip to main content

Elected Mayor Referendum: Percentage Vote by Constituency and Ward

CONSTITUENCY and Ward
Leader Mayor Percent
Leader Mayor
EDGBASTON 11732 10128 53.70% 46.30%
Bartley Green 2708 2010 57.40% 42.60%
Edgbaston 2251 2492 47.50% 52.50%
Harborne 3369 3008 52.80% 47.20%
Quinton 3404 2618 56.50% 43.50%
ERDINGTON 9224 7067 56.60% 43.40%
Erdington 2594 1880 58.00% 42.00%
Kingstanding 2195 1730 55.90% 44.10%
Stockland Green 2346 1897 55.30% 44.70%
Tyburn 2089 1560 57.20% 42.80%
HALL GREEN 14733 10669 58.00% 42.00%
Hall Green 3846 2368 61.90% 38.10%
Moseley and Kings Heath 3448 3279 51.30% 48.70%
Sparkbrook 3233 2386 57.50% 42.50%
Springfield 4206 2636 61.50% 38.50%
HODGE HILL 13296 10346 56.20% 43.80%
Bordesley Green 4493 3074 59.40% 40.60%
Hodge Hill 2797 2143 56.60% 43.40%
Shard End 2029 1349 60.10% 39.90%
Washwood Heath 3977 3780 51.30% 48.70%
NORTHFIELD 11210 7781 59.00% 41.00%
Kings Norton 2689 1895 58.70% 41.30%
Longbridge 2450 1893 56.40% 43.60%
Northfield 3203 2044 61.00% 39.00%
Weoley 2868 1949 59.50% 40.50%
LADYWOOD 9262 9030 50.60% 49.40%
Aston 3502 3093 53.10% 46.90%
Ladywood 1408 1858 43.10% 56.90%
Nechells 1902 1788 51.50% 48.50%
Soho 2450 2291 51.70% 48.30%
PERRY BARR 11876 8622 57.90% 42.10%
Handsworth 2979 2576 53.60% 46.40%
Lozells & East Handsworth 3122 2329 57.30% 42.70%
Oscott 2673 1765 60.20% 39.80%
Perry Barr 3102 1952 61.40% 38.60%
SELLY OAK 13186 9163 59.00% 41.00%
Billesley 3092 2002 60.70% 39.30%
Bournville 4275 2843 60.10% 39.90%
Brandwood 3580 2519 58.70% 41.30%
Sell Oak 2239 1799 55.40% 44.60%
SUTTON COLDFIELD 13043 8366 60.90% 39.10%
Sutton Four Oaks 3338 2268 59.50% 40.50%
Sutton New Hall 2958 1738 63.00% 37.00%
Sutton Trinity 3075 1910 61.70% 38.30%
Sutton Vesey 3672 2450 60.00% 40.00%
YARDLEY 13049 6913 65.40% 34.60%
Acocks Green 3123 1816 63.20% 36.80%
Sheldon 3038 1276 70.40% 29.60%
South Yardley 3460 2248 60.60% 39.40%
Stechford & Yardley North 3428 1573 68.50% 31.50%
BIRMINGHAM 120611 88085 57.80% 42.20%

Comments

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).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

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.

LORD HEWART CJ:
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…