Byelections 23 March 2017

[middleenglander]

Blackburn with Darwen, Higher Croft - Labour hold but newly elected candidate disqualified as ineligible

Party	2017 votes	2017 share	since 2016 B	since 2016	since 2015	since 2014 "top"	since 2014 "average"	since 2012
Labour	446	59.6%	+1.4%	-14.3%	+13.5%	-10.4%	-10.0%	-19.4%
UKIP	169	22.6%	-2.4%	from nowhere	-10.8%	from nowhere	from nowhere	from nowhere
Conservative	133	17.8%	+1.0%	-8.3%	-2.7%	-12.2%	-12.6%	-3.2%
Total votes	748		100%	63%	27%	58%	58%	57%

Swing UKIP to Labour 1.9% since December 2016 by-election and ~ 12% since 2015

Council now 43 Labour, 16 Conservative, 3 Liberal Democrat, 2 Vacant

Herefordshire, Leominster South - Green gain from Independent

Party	2017 votes	2017 share	since 2015
Green	318	40.8%	+10.1%
Its Our County	143	18.3%	from nowhere
Conservative	139	17.8%	-8.7%
No Description	116	14.9%	from nowhere
Liberal Democrat	64	8.2%	from nowhere
Independent			-42.8%
Total votes	780		49%

Swing not meaningful

Council now 29 Conservative, 11 Its Our County, 7 Independent, 3 Green, 2 Liberal Democrat, 1 No Party

West Somerset, Dunster & Timberscombe - Liberal Democrat gain from Conservative

Party	2017 votes	2017 share	since 2015	since 2011
Liberal Democrat	174	49.7%	from nowhere	from nowhere
Conservative	115	32.9%	-26.7%	25.1%
Green	38	10.9%	-29.6%	-17.8%
Labour	23	6.6%	from nowhere	from nowhere
Independent				-13.4%
Total votes	350		49%	60%

Swing not meaningful

Council now 19 Conservative, 4 UKIP, 2 Independent, 1 Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Vacant

[Adrian]

Will Higher Croft be the UK ward with the most elections in the 5 years 2013-2017?

[Kristofer Keane]

Mar 24, 2017 15:14:36 GMT Adrian said:

Will Higher Croft be the UK ward with the most elections in the 5 years 2013-2017?

No, Oban North and Lorn would still beat it.

scottishelections.org.uk/scotland/lby/

[The Bishop]

Mar 24, 2017 14:58:34 GMT justin124 said:

Mar 24, 2017 13:50:00 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

On the notional 1979 figures, Blackburn was the easiest to win of the Conservative targets from Labour which did not in the event fall. That would partly have been down to the loss of Barbara Castle's incumbency vote in 1979, which Straw quickly built back up.

I find it surprising that Jack Straw's 1979 majority was double Barbara Castle's majority in 1970 despite being a new candidate!

Were there boundary changes post 1970?

[sirbenjamin]

Mar 24, 2017 16:42:10 GMT The Bishop said:

Mar 24, 2017 14:58:34 GMT justin124 said:

I find it surprising that Jack Straw's 1979 majority was double Barbara Castle's majority in 1970 despite being a new candidate!

Were there boundary changes post 1970?

There were changes ahead of the first 1974 election (though the exact nature of the changes are sketchy and 'notional' results barely existed).

It was stupid to make changes then when they could've waited for the local government act and used the new set of counties. Pre-1974 counties were still in use until 1983.

[lancastrian]

Mar 24, 2017 16:42:10 GMT The Bishop said:

Mar 24, 2017 14:58:34 GMT justin124 said:

I find it surprising that Jack Straw's 1979 majority was double Barbara Castle's majority in 1970 despite being a new candidate!

Were there boundary changes post 1970?

I don't know, but between 1955 and 1983 it gained an area to the west of the county borough (including I think part of Higher Croft) and the parished areas of Livesey and Pleasington.

So if it gained parts of the county borough in 1974 that might have increased the majority. The parishes must have come in 1983 as Darwen would have been non-contiguous otherwise. There are of course other reasons for Blackburn becoming much safer for Labour since then.

Are the 1974 boundary orders online anywhere?


Higher Croft was never a competitive ward back then- until the Lib Dems challenged them in the late 90s Labour regularly got 70-80%+ or were even unopposed.

[ideal4radio]

Mar 24, 2017 14:58:34 GMT justin124 said:

Mar 24, 2017 13:50:00 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

On the notional 1979 figures, Blackburn was the easiest to win of the Conservative targets from Labour which did not in the event fall. That would partly have been down to the loss of Barbara Castle's incumbency vote in 1979, which Straw quickly built back up.

I find it surprising that Jack Straw's 1979 majority was double Barbara Castle's majority in 1970 despite being a new candidate!

In 1970, it was a straight Labour/Conservative fight.... In 1979, the Liberals stood as did the National Front, which would have split the non Labour vote. In addition there were over 10,000 more on the electoral roll in 1979, so I suspect there were Boundary changes in the 1970's.

The demogaphics of Blackburn have changed significantly from the 1970's and it now has a BAME population of around 31%, according to the last census, the majority being of Pakistani origin.

[YL]

The Labour vote share in Blackburn was higher in 2015 than in 1997.

[justin124]

Mar 24, 2017 17:53:00 GMT ideal4radio said:

Mar 24, 2017 14:58:34 GMT justin124 said:

I find it surprising that Jack Straw's 1979 majority was double Barbara Castle's majority in 1970 despite being a new candidate!

In 1970, it was a straight Labour/Conservative fight.... In 1979, the Liberals stood as did the National Front, which would have split the non Labour vote. In addition there were over 10,000 more on the electoral roll in 1979, so I suspect there were Boundary changes in the 1970's.

The demogaphics of Blackburn have changed significantly from the 1970's and it now has a BAME population of around 31%, according to the last census, the majority being of Pakistani origin.

A Liberal candidate in 1979 would also have taken Labour votes - particularly in the context of an unpopular outgoing Labour Government.

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 24, 2017 17:53:00 GMT ideal4radio said:

Mar 24, 2017 14:58:34 GMT justin124 said:

I find it surprising that Jack Straw's 1979 majority was double Barbara Castle's majority in 1970 despite being a new candidate!

In 1970, it was a straight Labour/Conservative fight.... In 1979, the Liberals stood as did the National Front, which would have split the non Labour vote. In addition there were over 10,000 more on the electoral roll in 1979, so I suspect there were Boundary changes in the 1970's.

The demogaphics of Blackburn have changed significantly from the 1970's and it now has a BAME population of around 31%, according to the last census, the majority being of Pakistani origin.

That is not actually so. The vast majority of those of South Asian origin are Muslim but a larger number are of Indian origin rather than Pakistani

[Pete Whitehead]

Also your 'bame' figure of 31% is for the whole borough - the figure for the constituency for non-white ethnic groups was 41% in 2011 (which reinforces your point of course)

[listener]

To answer the Bishop's questions above:

The first elections to the new counties were held on 12 April 1973 and the first elections to the new second tier districts were held on 10 May 1973. The councils acted as shadow councils, until they came into existence formally on 1 April 1974.

The Home Office issued Temporary Orders for County Electoral Divisions and District Wards, prior to the 1973 elections, which were based on groupings of existing local government wards and parishes and were superseded by statutory instruments, after the initial review of electoral arrangements (IREA) conducted by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Blackburn Borough, only renamed Blackburn with Darwen in May 1997, was formed from Blackburn County Borough, Darwen Municipal Borough, part of Turton Urban District (Belmont, Chapeltown and Edgeworth wards and the northern part of Egerton ward) and five parishes in Blackburn Rural District (namely Eccleshill, Livesey, Pleasington, Tockholes and Yate and Pickup Bank).

The contents of the non-metropolitan districts were defined in The English Non-Metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972 (SI 1972 No. 2039), which can be found here:
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1972/2039/made/data.pdf.

The Home Office Order for Blackburn's first election in 1973 divided the Borough into 21 wards, 14 covering each of the existing wards of Blackburn County Borough, 5 covering each of the existing wards of Darwen Municipal Borough, one ward for Turton and one ward covering the parishes in West Rural. These wards remained in force for the 1976 elections, but were superseded by new wards in 1979, following the IREA.

The new electoral arrangements were brought in by The Borough of Blackburn (Electoral Changes) Order 1976 (SI 1976 No. 1547), which was too late for the 1976 elections. This SI is not currently available on the UK legislation website, but the Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England can be found here:
www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/11464/143.-blackburn.pdf

[lbarnes]

Mar 25, 2017 16:30:55 GMT @jamesdowden said:

So why another by-election, rather than declaring the Kipper elected?

If it had been only a two candidate election then that would have been technically possible in certain circumstances.

[carlton43]

Mar 25, 2017 16:30:55 GMT @jamesdowden said:

So why another by-election, rather than declaring the Kipper elected?

My view entirely. What gives a returning officer the right to void the election rather than just correctly void the false candidature? They failed to reject the candidacy and the election was held. One candidate was invalid and that is of no moment to the system. That candidate is excluded and the next candidate is elected, just as with Tony Benn/Viscount Stansgate. His candidacy was accepted the election held and the Conservative was declared elected. Why is this different? How can it be different?

[The Bishop]

Well I certainly recall accounts that many were not happy when the Tory who had originally finished well behind Benn effectively inherited his seat.

Maybe the rules were changed after that?

[andrewteale]

In the Benn case the Tory candidate had put a lot of campaign effort into informing the electorate that Benn was ineligible to serve. He then argued to the election court that the people who voted for Benn had deliberately thrown their votes away, and the court agreed. There hasn't been anything in the reports coming out of Blackburn to suggest that the opposition campaigns were aware the Labour candidate was disqualified before polling day, so it would be difficult to apply that principle here.

The Law Commission's ongoing review of electoral law has recommended abolishing that "votes thrown away" principle and their reasoning might be of interest here (www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/electoral_law_interim_report.pdf, pp 169-170):

13.6 Our first proposal concerned the interaction between the court’s ability to correct a result, and to annul an election. Where a candidate is elected who was disqualified from election, the court may annul his or her election. The so-called doctrine of “votes thrown away” is a practice based on pre-1868 House of Commons election petition committees. Where a rival candidate gave notice of the disqualification, the practice involved the court setting aside votes cast for the disqualified candidate, and declaring as elected the candidate who came second in the election.

13.7 Our consultation paper [Electoral Law (2014) Law Commission Consultation Paper No 218; Scottish Law Commission Discussion Paper No 158; Northern Ireland Law Commission No 20, paras 13.17 to 13.20] outlined some problems with this ground. The disqualified candidate may publicly and honestly insist that they are not disqualified; deciding the question is beyond most voters; and passing over the candidate with the most votes possibly denies voters the opportunity to vote for a qualified candidate from their preferred political party. It seemed to us that justice was best served in such cases by annulling the election, and calling a new one.

13.8 Of the 34 consultees who responded to this provisional proposal, 31 agreed with it. One consultee was ambivalent, while two consultees disagreed.

13.9 Several responses broadly supported the reasoning behind our proposal. The Electoral Commission stressed the importance of ensuring that voters’ preferences are not frustrated by having their vote discarded.

13.10 Mark Heath (Southampton CC) suggested that the public would expect a fresh election. The cost of a re-run election was raised by Ian White (Kettering BC), although he agreed with our proposal. He suggested the cost should not necessarily be borne out of public funds. However, Joyce White (West Dunbartonshire CC), who disagreed with our proposal, thought the doctrine of “votes thrown away” introduced certainty and avoids “unnecessary public expenditure”.

13.11 David Boothroyd (a councillor), who disagreed with our proposal, suggested that re-running elections would “make it impossible to resolve a situation where there is a political dispute about eligibility and a constituency insists on returning a manifestly ineligible candidate”.

13.12 We do not think that this situation is likely to occur in practice. If it did occur, a candidate who stood again for election knowing that they were disqualified would commit an illegal practice. Moreover, there are many grounds for annulling an election; none of them result in the next most popular candidate being declared elected. While there are certainly arguments in favour of the doctrine, we do not think avoiding costs defeats the argument that voters should be able to cast a vote for a qualified candidate. On balance, we remain of the view that the doctrine of “votes thrown away” is outdated and unnecessary given the court’s ability to annul an election.

[J.G.Harston]

Mar 25, 2017 17:24:41 GMT andrewteale said:

In the Benn case the Tory candidate had put a lot of campaign effort into informing the electorate that Benn was ineligible to serve. He then argued to the election court that the people who voted for Benn had deliberately thrown their votes away, and the court agreed. There hasn't been anything in the reports coming out of Blackburn to suggest that the opposition campaigns were aware the Labour candidate was disqualified before polling day, so it would be difficult to apply that principle here.

The Law Commission's ongoing review of electoral law has recommended abolishing that "votes thrown away" principle and their reasoning might be of interest here (www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/electoral_law_interim_report.pdf, pp 169-170):

(snip)

I've just been reading the precursor to that report, and it refers to changes in the law in the 1983 Act, and there's also the local/parliamentary issue where subtly different rules are used. While it doesn't explicity state it the narrative suggests that in a pre-1983 Parliamentary election the Returning Officer's power is to void the votes for an unqualified candidate, in a post-1983 local election the Returning Officer's power is to void the election due to an unqualified candidate.

[Tony Otim]

Mar 25, 2017 16:53:50 GMT carlton43 said:

Mar 25, 2017 16:30:55 GMT @jamesdowden said:

So why another by-election, rather than declaring the Kipper elected?

My view entirely. What gives a returning officer the right to void the election rather than just correctly void the false candidature? They failed to reject the candidacy and the election was held. One candidate was invalid and that is of no moment to the system. That candidate is excluded and the next candidate is elected, just as with Tony Benn/Viscount Stansgate. His candidacy was accepted the election held and the Conservative was declared elected. Why is this different? How can it be different?

There were two validly nominated candidates and no way of knowing, given the choice, which one the electorate preferred.

[timrollpickering]

Mar 25, 2017 17:24:41 GMT andrewteale said:

In the Benn case the Tory candidate had put a lot of campaign effort into informing the electorate that Benn was ineligible to serve. He then argued to the election court that the people who voted for Benn had deliberately thrown their votes away, and the court agreed.

I assume this was also the difference between the Mid Ulster and Fermanagh & South Tyrone cases in the 1955 general election - in the latter case the petitioning candidate had run this campaign. I assume the Mid Ulster campaign had not, but rectified this in the resulting by-election.

13.11 David Boothroyd (a councillor), who disagreed with our proposal, suggested that re-running elections would “make it impossible to resolve a situation where there is a political dispute about eligibility and a constituency insists on returning a manifestly ineligible candidate”.

13.12 We do not think that this situation is likely to occur in practice.

John Wilkes and Charles Bradlaugh were famous examples of MPs repeatedly re-elected despite the constituency being told "No" each time. More pertinently Tom Mitchell was re-elected in Mid Ulster after disqualification, and might have won in yet another by-election had not the nationalist vote been split.

[marksenior]

Mar 25, 2017 19:00:30 GMT @jamesdowden said:

Mar 25, 2017 17:24:41 GMT andrewteale said:

In the Benn case the Tory candidate had put a lot of campaign effort into informing the electorate that Benn was ineligible to serve. He then argued to the election court that the people who voted for Benn had deliberately thrown their votes away, and the court agreed. There hasn't been anything in the reports coming out of Blackburn to suggest that the opposition campaigns were aware the Labour candidate was disqualified before polling day, so it would be difficult to apply that principle here.

The Law Commission's ongoing review of electoral law has recommended abolishing that "votes thrown away" principle and their reasoning might be of interest here (www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/electoral_law_interim_report.pdf, pp 169-170):

It should be self-evident that there should be a penalty for a party that fails to do the basic checks that should be expected of any competent political party on its candidates' eligibility; and rather than some petty litigious penalty (that no doubt the champerty-and-embracery-loving Law Commission would willingly line their inept members' pockets with), seeing one's opponent elected is clearly the most appropriate one at that. Giving a free do-over to political incompetents on the basis of sympathy from judicial incompetents is despicable.

I think the problem in this case ( as with the school dinner lady case mentioned elsewhere ) is that the illegibility of the candidate is not clear cut and certainly could ( and IMO should ) be appealed so that the law is clarified .