Local Council By-elections 19th March 2020

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Coventry Upper Stoke turnout 9% - 1,214 ballots.

[bjornhattan]

Mar 19, 2020 23:16:16 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Coventry Upper Stoke turnout 9% - 1,214 ballots.

I know it's not a ward you'd expect to have high turnout, but that really is very low - though for obvious reasons. What's the lowest turnout figure we've seen in recent years at a council by-election?

[ElectionMapsUK]

LABOUR HOLD

[greenchristian]

Lab 639 (52.8%    +2.4%)
Con 350 (28.9%    +8.6%)
Grn 120 (9.9%    -3.0%)

Soc 101 (8.3%    +8.3%)

No UKIP.

[LDCaerdydd]

Question: how have the other three been stoped?

I thought once they had been called they couldn’t be stopped (unless a candidate dies etc)

[andrewteale]

Mar 19, 2020 23:17:35 GMT bjornhattan said:

Mar 19, 2020 23:16:16 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Coventry Upper Stoke turnout 9% - 1,214 ballots.

I know it's not a ward you'd expect to have high turnout, but that really is very low - though for obvious reasons. What's the lowest turnout figure we've seen in recent years at a council by-election?

The 7% turnout at the Lancaster, University and Scotforth Rural by-election in December 2016 is going to be hard to beat.

[bjornhattan]

Mar 19, 2020 23:44:25 GMT andrewteale said:

Mar 19, 2020 23:17:35 GMT bjornhattan said:

I know it's not a ward you'd expect to have high turnout, but that really is very low - though for obvious reasons. What's the lowest turnout figure we've seen in recent years at a council by-election?

The 7% turnout at the Lancaster, University and Scotforth Rural by-election in December 2016 is going to be hard to beat.

Probably the only way to get a lower turnout than that was if you had a council by-election that was seen as illegitimate and thus boycotted. An incredibly popular local independent who is disqualified under dubious circumstances, perhaps?

[pl]

Mar 19, 2020 23:16:16 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Coventry Upper Stoke turnout 9% - 1,214 ballots.

9%?! Even Liverpool during a Euro election can normally manage higher. In all seriousness. Im imagining 20% had PVs... and you can normally expect 50% PV turnout. Was on the day turnout literally 0%?

[middleenglander]

Coventry, Upper Stoke - Labour hold

Party	2020 votes	2020 share	since 2019	since 2018	since 2016	since 2015
Labour	639	52.8%	+2.4%	-8.4%	-1.7%	+4.5%
Conservative	350	28.9%	+8.6%	+4.8%	+18.6%	+10.7%
Green	120	9.9%	-3.0%	+1.6%	+5.6%	+6.2%
Socialist Alternative	101	8.3%	from nowhere	from nowhere	from nowhere	from nowhere
UKIP			-16.4%		-15.9%	-17.6%
Liberal Democrat				-6.4%	-12.3%	-9.0%
TUSC					-2.6%	-3.1%
Total votes	1,210		40%	38%	35%	17%

Swing, for what it is worth on such a low turnout, Labour to Conservative 3% since 2019, 6½% since 2018, 10% since 2016 and 3% since 2015

Council now 40 Labour, 13 Conservative, 1 Independent

[greenchristian]

Yeah, that 9% is less than I'd expect from postal votes alone. The raw vote numbers are the only report I've had back directly from the count. I assume that coronavirus stopped some postal voters from even going to the postbox and that on-the-day turnout would have been pretty close to 0%.

[greenchristian]

Not got an actual figure for postal vs on the day turnout, but apparently the smallest polling station only had about 25 ballots. So I'd guess maybe 900ish postal votes to 300ish on the day votes.

Spoils broke down as follows:

Voting for more Candidates than voter was entitled to: 2
Being unmarked or void for uncertainty: 2

[johnloony]

Mar 19, 2020 23:42:55 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

Question: how have the other three been stoped?

I thought once they had been called they couldn’t be stopped (unless a candidate dies etc)

An election which is already underway can be stopped on the day if it is disrupted by "riot", but otherwise you are correct: stopping the other by-elections today was illegal. They were advised on Wednesday by the government to abandon the by-elections, and were given assurances that they would not be prosecuted for doing so. I guess that the emergency legislation might have a clause which applies retrospectively to allow it.

[nigelashton]

Mar 20, 2020 0:46:12 GMT johnloony said:

Mar 19, 2020 23:42:55 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

Question: how have the other three been stoped?

I thought once they had been called they couldn’t be stopped (unless a candidate dies etc)

An election which is already underway can be stopped on the day if it is disrupted by "riot", but otherwise you are correct: stopping the other by-elections today was illegal. They were advised on Wednesday by the government to abandon the by-elections, and were given assurances that they would not be prosecuted for doing so. I guess that the emergency legislation might have a clause which applies retrospectively to allow it.

Yes, S60(3) of the Bill gives enabling powers for Ministers to introduce secondary legislation to cancel by-elections, including retrospective powers.

[Deleted]

Mar 20, 2020 0:46:12 GMT johnloony said:

Mar 19, 2020 23:42:55 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

Question: how have the other three been stoped?

I thought once they had been called they couldn’t be stopped (unless a candidate dies etc)

An election which is already underway can be stopped on the day if it is disrupted by "riot", but otherwise you are correct: stopping the other by-elections today was illegal. They were advised on Wednesday by the government to abandon the by-elections, and were given assurances that they would not be prosecuted for doing so. I guess that the emergency legislation might have a clause which applies retrospectively to allow it.

There are lots of things happening that 'shouldn't', for example town & parishes taking 'virtual' decisions online, again with the promises that there would be retrospective legislation. Sightings of that rarest of rare beasts, the Lesser Spotted Common Sense

[Crimson King]

ask forgiveness, not permission

we have closed our branch surgery to use staff more efficiently, should have agreed it with the CCG

[ColinJ]

Mar 19, 2020 23:31:42 GMT ElectionMapsUK said:

LABOUR HOLD

I'm astonished to see this morning that I "liked" the post. This can only have happened while I was 'swiping' the page - I'm still getting to grips with my new phone. There's nothing much to 'like' about this by-election with it's ridiculous turnout, continued with to the bitter end when it was unnecessary to do so.

[froome]

Did the counting staff manage to keep a minimum of 2 metres apart? If so, it would have made an interesting sight. Or did they anticipate the very low turnout and just have one person counting?

[dundas]

I thought there had to be at least two polling staff on for security and fraud reasons.

[yellowperil]

Mar 20, 2020 8:27:32 GMT ColinJ said:

Mar 19, 2020 23:31:42 GMT ElectionMapsUK said:

LABOUR HOLD

I'm astonished to see this morning that I "liked" the post. This can only have happened while I was 'swiping' the page - I'm still getting to grips with my new phone. There's nothing much to 'like' about this by-election with it's ridiculous turnout, continued with to the bitter end when it was unnecessary to do so.

but you still appear to "like" it.  You could always have removed the like any time. I'm always removing likes I have put on accidentally , usually when I've hit the like button by mistake when going for the quote button, or indeed the edit button which might have suggested I was liking my own post. And I have seen plenty of examples where other folk have made that mistake and not corrected it!

[yellowperil]

Mar 20, 2020 9:07:21 GMT dundas said:

I thought there had to be at least two polling staff on for security and fraud reasons.

but do they have to be doing the actual counting together at the same table? I think it would be perfectly possible to do a simple count like this one and manitain the 2 metre rule.