What was the 2016 EU Referendum result on the Wirral and the UK? The 2016 EU Referendum result on Wirral was as follows: Remain 88,931 (51.6%) Leave 83,069 (48.4%) 137 ballot papers were rejected. Total votes cast 172,137 (turnout 70.96%). However nationally the result was different: Leave 17,410,742 Remain 16,141,241 25,359 ballot papers were … Continue reading “What was the 2016 EU Referendum result on the Wirral and the UK?”
What was the 2016 EU Referendum result on the Wirral and the UK?
front of polling card EU Referendum 2016
The 2016 EU Referendum result on Wirral was as follows:
However there were a number of things that happened during the EU Referendum campaign that could trigger a legal challenge to the result.
I outline below an email I sent yesterday to the Returning Officer Eric Robinson here on Wirral about a UKIP poster telling me to vote Leave propped up on the wall of my local polling station.
He sent me a very quick and polite reply back!
Dear Eric Robinson,
I went to vote today this morning at my polling station at
which is a polling station for polling district AC in the Bidston and St. James ward.
When I left the polling station, I saw outside a few yards from the entrance to the polling station (still in the grounds of the school being used as a polling station) against a wall a large UKIP poster on corrugated plastic suggesting I vote leave.
Obviously it didn’t influence me as I have already voted, but I immediately brought it to the attention of one of your election staff who was in the corridor outside the room used for voting.
She immediately came with me and removed the UKIP poster which shouldn’t have been there and commented that "they keep sneaking in".
It was in a position that people had to pass to get in to the polling station, however I will point out it wasn’t there when I entered the polling station.
Please could you regard this as a recorded compliment to that member of staff for the efficient and effective way that they dealt with my query and removal of the poster.
I would also be keen to know if you in your capacity as Returning Officer will be writing to UKIP (and/or referring this matter to the police) reminding them that leaving posters outside polling station entrances propped up against walls suggesting which way people vote is not allowed!
Thank you,
—
John Brace
3/10/2016 UKIP have been in touch to state that they wouldn’t sanction what happened at the polling station detailed above.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Where is your polling station (for Wirral voters) for the 2016 EU Referendum vote?
front of polling card EU Referendum 2016
Today is polling day in the EU Referendum vote. Here is the question on the ballot paper.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Polling stations are open on the Wirral from 7.00 am and close at 10.00 pm. You don’t need your polling card to vote, but you will need to tell the polling clerk your name and address.
The first letter of your unique electoral number (eg A) refers to the ward (in this case Bidston & St James). The second letter (eg E) refers to the polling district within that ward.
Each polling district has its own polling station.
Due to this being a national election and the results from various areas needing to be collated, the Electoral Commission estimates a result could be declared around 6.00 am on Friday 24th June 2016.
EU Referendum: A look back to 1975, the AV Referendum and what will happen next?
The big political story that seems to completely dominate the news cycle now is the EU Referendum (in which Wirral Council are running the election here on the Wirral).
I was present six years ago at the count in Wallasey Town Hall for the AV Referendum (you can see below the photos I took) and it was obvious before the result was declared which way people felt on that issue.
AV Referendum count Civic Hall Wallasey May 2011 photo 2 resizedAV Referendum count Civic Hall Wallasey May 2011 resized
However in around a fortnight we’ll know the outcome of the EU Referendum and I’ve seriously (although I’ve made my mind up which way I’m voting) no idea which way it’ll go.
The opinion polls are so close that the difference between remain and leave is within the margin of error of the poll. Essentially what this means is that the EU Referendum will be decided by people who haven’t made their mind up yet.
I am also sensing a generational divide in how people talk about the EU Referendum. My generation was born in a UK that was part of the EU. We have no personal experience of what it was like before the UK joined. We’ve never been asked to vote on it. We also never lived through a European war (apart from the Yugoslav wars).
The older generation (who are more likely to vote and pensioners also have the time to be politically active) still remember the horrors of World War II. Some of them lived through it. It was something that deeply affected them and their families.
Yet it was out of people who had known the horrors of war that the European dream was created. So what did the dreamers of the European dream want?
They wanted countries to work together for the common good, to respect human rights so the horrors that happened during two world wars wouldn’t happen again (or at least if any tried something similar they’d be punished), for European people to respect the rule of law, for there to be democracy, justice, free trade, to eradicate poverty* and to promote peace.
*No James, they didn’t want Wirral Council to bungle the handling of European money for economic regeneration.
Fine ideals in principle that not many would argue are a “bad idea”.
However either it hasn’t worked out quite how the idealists planned it to and/or Europe just gets a bad press in this country?
People in this country (including myself) campaigned against going into Iraq again in 2003 (yes I had a political past as an activist). I’m still not holding my breath over the publication of the Chilcot report, however I did at the time when I read the "dodgy dossier" describe it as propaganda, but as the cliché goes lessons need to be learnt (albeit 13 years after it happened). However that is besides the point.
The outcome of the AV Referendum on Wirral five years ago was very clear-cut.
Yes – 28,627 (28.1%)
No – 73,120 (71.9%)
It was a vote for keeping things the same, for the status quo. Lots of people had voted using first past the post for generations and even those pressing for voting reform really wanted STV (Single Transferable Vote) not AV (which was seen as a compromise).
However, back to the EU Referendum. Personally I don’t know what will happen next if a majority vote to leave. If truth be told, nobody really does. Predictions seem to be the verbal equivalent of crystal ball gazing dressed up in soundbites designed to arouse an emotional response from voters and attract press coverage.
For my generation a vote for the status quo, therefore the situation they’ve known all their lives is a vote to remain. For others who have known more of their life in the UK outside the EU the status quo is different.
So what was the result in 1975?
This was what was asked then (seems very similar to what’s been asked now really).
The Government has announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s terms of membership of the European Community.
Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
Yes 17,378,581
No 8,470,073
The Tory infighting over this issue has however damaged them as a political party. To be fair though, they’re not the only political party that has been split on the European issue.
On the 23rd of this month when people will be voting in the polling stations I hope they will think through their decision.
Although I have made up which way I am voting, the choice is down to you (or at least the readers of this who have a vote or some influence in it). Think through what will happen next after the votes are counted.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
What were top 7 most viewed articles and top 7 most viewed videos for May 2016?
Power
Well just over a month has passed since polling day the election for a Merseyside PCC and local councillors on the Wirral and on the 23rd June 2016 there will be a referendum about membership of the EU.
As I’ll be at Wirral Council’s Cabinet meeting on Monday morning, instead I thought I’d look back at the most read stories of last month (May 2016) and some of the most watched videos. Both are in order of most viewed (so the top number 1 slot was the one that attracted the most interest).
Since I wrote this story question marks have also been raised about the election of two further Wirral councillors not referred to by name in the article, which leads to unanswered questions about over a quarter of the 23 councillors elected. If all six elections had been (or are in the next 2 years) declared null and void*, no political party would have a majority on Wirral Council.
*Highly unlikely considering how this country works or doesn’t work and I’d like to point out that councillors/candidates are innocent until proven guilty and that trial by media doesn’t count.
Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?
Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?
Power
George Orwell “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
This is a tale of power, money, elections and the public right to know. What happens next following this is a reflection of the society we all live in. I strongly suspect that very little will result. I’ve used my editorial independence to write this as my conscience is clear if these matters are in the public domain.
I would like to point out that until recent years the chairs of committees at Wirral Council were shared across the political parties. Labour however decided in the recent past that they wanted to keep the power that rests with chairs to themselves. Therefore that is the reason why all the main characters in this are Labour politicians. It’s nothing personal and I have no axe to grind against the Labour Party.
Like all good stories this tale indeed starts well before the election started. However, we will skip ahead to the beginning of the elections in 2016.
All candidates have to fill out what are termed nomination papers and deliver these nomination papers to Wirral Council by a deadline to be included in the election. The four candidates this tale (who were each elected as councillors) are Anita Leech, Janette Williamson, Mike Sullivan & Bill Davies (real name William Davies).
During the election (but not now after the result is declared) you have a legal right to inspect the nomination papers and request copies. I requested these 4 nomination papers from the Returning Office Eric Robinson.
In addition to the nomination papers, in order to be a valid and legal nomination various pieces of legislation need to be attached too. These pieces of legislation deal with who is disqualified from being elected. I presume the point of having to attach these for a valid nomination is to prevent candidates and agents at a later date claiming ignorance of what they mean.
The declaration they each have to sign (which also has to be witnessed) states the following,
“I declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief I am not disqualified for being elected by reason of any disqualification set out in, or decision made under, section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, section 78A of the Local Government Act 2000 or section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 (copies of which are printed overleaf), and I do not hold a politically restricted post, within the meaning of Part 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, under a local authority, within the meaning of that Part.”
The nomination papers of each candidate are linked to at the end of this article.
The first part of section 80 declares:
“ 80 Disqualifications for election and holding office as member of local authority.
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 81 below, a person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a member of a local authority … if he—
(a) holds any paid office or employment (other than the office of chairman, vice-chairman or deputy chairman [or, in the case of a local authority which are operating executive arrangements which involve a leader and cabinet executive, the office of executive leader or member of the executive]) appointments [or elections] to which are or may be made or confirmed by the local authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority or by a joint committee [or National Park authority] on which the authority are represented or by any person holding any such office or employment; or
So what does that mean? Well he above also means she, but the employment bit means councillors cannot also be employees of Wirral Council as it represents a conflict of interest. Section 81 provides an exception for teachers and other people employed by schools (who are technically classed as local council employees) to be elected as councillors.
As you can see from the above, any Leader of a Council or Cabinet Member is also not excluded from being elected on those grounds.
Edited: 9/5/16 It’s been pointed out that s.80(1)(a) is open to different interpretations and chairman could be interpreted as all people with the title of Chair or just the Chair of Wirral Council (the Mayor). The guidance the Electoral Commission produce for Returning Officers on the matter is here and makes it very clear about the disqualification of candidates represented on outside bodies. That guidance however makes it clear that the relevant dates about disqualification (as determined in previous legal cases) are the date of nomination and the date of election.
Each of the four candidates I name above were at the time of their nomination and election holders of paid office at Wirral Council. I outline below which paid offices they held and the annual amounts they received. These are additional allowances in addition to the basic allowances they receive as councillors.
Anita Leech – Chair of the Planning Committee (£4,585) Janette Williamson – Chair of the Transformation and Resources Policy and Performance Committee (£4,585) Mike Sullivan – Chair of the Regeneration and Environment Policy and Performance Committee (£4,585) Bill Davies – Chair of the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee (£4,585) and Chair of the Standards and Constitutional Oversight Committee (£1,375).
None of these four individual resigned their chairs before the date they were elected and they continue receiving allowances for these at the time of writing.
I presume the whole point of this is to ensure a level playing field and free, fair and open elections. After all if one candidate can turn round and say “Vote for me, I’m Chair of the Planning Committe” and in theory use their taxpayer funded paid office to pay for their election expenses is that fair?
The observant among you will have already realised that the above disqualification also rules out those councillors representing the Council on outside bodies (off the top of my head the Police and Crime Panel, the Merseytravel Committee (or other committees of the Combined Authority) and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) are a few that I could name.
However I am not covering these here and it’s up to you the reader if you wish to explore whether any candidates in the election would seem to be disqualified on these grounds.
So what you may say? Even if the above four resigned, that would leave 35 Labour councillors and only 27 opposition councillors. As I say, I haven’t considered whether any candidates would be disqualified on any other grounds and as the deadline for submitting election expenses is a month away I haven’t inspected the declared election spending of candidates too.
However as the public have a right to know, here are the nomination papers of the four candidates I have named above.
Obviously the individuals (and their agents) have some unanswered questions as to whether they knew the above at the time of their nomination. It is only however my job to observe this anomaly and report on it, rather than be in a position to take action to resolve the matter one way or another.
The nomination papers are multi-page TIFF files as these were the format supplied by Wirral Council. I have not converted them to image files that can be read by a browser as I felt it best to leave them as they originally were.
I will end this with a big caveat, the above is merely how it seems from here. The people named could be totally ignorant of what disqualifies people from being a councillor (which would seem to be a difficult position to maintain as they had to include the legislation with their nomination papers). I could be wrong and the above could just be an arcane legal point.
