DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Elections Handbook 2008Complete

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Elections Handbook 2008Complete LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2008 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2008 The 2008 Local Election Results Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher with the assistance of Galina Borisyuk, Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole, Elena Long and Lawrence Ware Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre University of Plymouth Local Elections Handbook 2008 © Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Published by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA ISBN 978-0-948858-43-7 Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................... vii Using the Handbook .......................................................................................xix Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities ......................................................... 1 London Mayor and Assembly Election Results .............................................. 11 Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results ............................................. 29 Unitary Council Election Results .................................................................... 61 Shire District Council Election Results .......................................................... 83 Welsh Unitary Council Election Results ...................................................... 127 Appendix ...................................................................................................... 159 Acknowledgements We would like, as always, to acknowledge the response by Electoral Administrators to our requests for information, which now extends to cover data on postal ballots, spoilt papers etc. As our demands grow we hope that more local authorities take advantage of our offer to provide free of charge a detailed record of our data holdings from 1973 onwards for their particular authority. There should also be a special mention for the team at London Elects, their provision of electoral data sets new standards in the field and we welcome their innovations and comprehensiveness. Our thanks also go to the Electoral Commission, which provided support for our data collection, principally that concerning the numbers for postal and in person voting. Each handbook requires a great deal of work from a team based here in Plymouth. Our gratitude to them as always. Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher November 2008. v vi Introduction Local elections took place in England and Wales on May 1st, 2008. The London mayor and assembly election dominated media coverage, with the incumbent Ken Livingstone seeking a third consecutive term, but across the rest of England, a total of 137 local authorities held elections. These comprised 36 metropolitan boroughs, 78 shire districts, 19 unitary councils and a further four ‘shadow’ councils in newly established unitary areas. Most of these authorities were electing a fraction of the seats although whole council elections took place in a number that were either implementing ward boundary changes or new structures. All 22 local authorities in Wales held whole council elections. About a third of local authorities joined the growing band that prefers to organise the count on the day following rather than overnight. The last election to declare was that for London mayor and assembly, announced shortly before midnight on Friday May 2. Although the London Assembly has just 25 elected members, elsewhere more than 4,100 council seats in 3,400 wards were at stake, around a third located in Wales and a slightly smaller percentage than that in the shires. Generally, these council seats were last fought in June 2004 after the elections were postponed from May to coincide with those for the European Parliament. Then, Labour suffered a backlash from its policy on Iraq and the Conservatives advanced at the expense also of the Liberal Democrats. Prior to the campaign it seemed that Labour’s previous performance had been so bad (the worst since the late 1960s) that a further setback was unlikely and that the Conservatives would find it difficult to make progress. However, Gordon Brown’s decision in his last budget before becoming Prime Minister to abolish the 10p in the pound tax rate, combined with rapidly rising fuel and food prices, meant the electoral mood turned further against Labour. A strong Conservative showing was confirmed when Boris Johnson ousted Livingstone from the post of London mayor. Labour’s misery was complete and the party made no attempt to disguise the severity of its losses. Our estimate of the national equivalent vote placed the Conservatives on 43%, three points higher than in 2007, Labour on 24% (down two points) and in third place the Liberal Democrats on 23% (down one point). Inevitably, given boundary changes, estimating precisely the number of seats being defended by each party added some element of uncertainty to the post-election analysis. In our view, media reports under-estimated the overall scale of gains and losses. Despite its already high base the Conservatives made a net gain of around 300 seats, Labour recorded net losses of more than 400 seats with the Liberal Democrats finishing marginally ahead of where they had started. Further gains vii were made by candidates standing for a range of minor parties, principally the Greens, while in Wales, Plaid Cymru made a net gain of 31 seats. Table 1 is a summary of the state of the parties in local councils and seats. Across England there are now more Conservative councillors than Labour and Liberal Democrats combined while the party currently holds 44% of council seats in Great Britain. Almost half of the councils in Britain are under Conservative control. A total of 34 councils (one in five) underwent some change in political control (Table 2). The Conservatives added a further nine authorities with Labour losing control in 10. A notable gain for the Conservatives was the metropolitan borough of Bury (visited on Friday by David Cameron), which it last controlled at the height of the Thatcher era. There were further advances in other boroughs, including Birmingham, Oldham, North Tyneside, Salford and Sunderland. Across all 36 boroughs the Conservatives only narrowly missed out-polling Labour (Table 3) giving the party further encouragement that it is moving beyond its electoral base in southern England. Other noteworthy Conservative successes came in Nuneaton and Bedworth, Labour controlled since 1973, Harlow, Southampton and Redditch, whose parliamentary seat is currently held by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. The capture of the Vale of Glamorgan (again, warranting a visit from the busy party leader) doubled the number of Welsh councils under its control. Although Labour gained enough seats to take control in Slough, it lost control of Hartlepool, Reading and Wolverhampton as well as a clutch of authorities in Wales, including Blaenau Gwent where the party has suffered from internal divisions. In Cardiff the party now lies in third place, a far cry from 1999 when it controlled 50 seats there. Liberal Democrats lost control of Liverpool and Pendle although in the former it then re-claimed control when an Independent Labour councillor was swiftly recruited to the cause. By contrast, the victories in Burnley, Sheffield and St. Albans were rather more conventional. Almost seven million votes were cast and more than one in three went to Conservative candidates, a quarter was cast for Labour and a fifth for the Liberal Democrats. Almost one in five voters supported either an Independent candidate or favoured one of a multitude of minor parties. Eight in ten wards featured a candidate from one of the two main parties with the Liberal Democrats contesting just five hundred fewer. One in five wards was fought by the Green party. In Wales, Plaid Cymru contested more wards than did both Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Some measure of the scale of Labour’s decline (and Conservative recovery) is voting in the metropolitan boroughs. This is always a good point of comparison because of the repeating and symmetrical electoral cycle in these authorities. Fewer than nine thousand votes separated the two parties, a gap that might have been narrower had the Conservatives contested as many wards. In 2004 the Conservatives were seven percentage points behind Labour and won seventy fewer wards. Labour’s vote continues to be better distributed, however, winning 8% more wards and finishing seventy seats ahead of its rival. Nevertheless, the Conservative party now finds itself in a much stronger position to challenge Labour in its heartland. In Walsall an absolute majority of voters chose Conservative candidates and in another eight boroughs more than four in ten votes were cast in the party’s favour. The electoral advantage moves to the Conservatives in the shire districts. Here, the party won 46% of votes and 58% of the seats while Labour struggled to finish behind the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats’ performance across the different types of local authority confounds the often expected fate for a third party under first past the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive
    To: Members of the Development Management Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive Councillors: Chair – J Grime Town Hall P Carey, G Friend, B Maher, T McCarthy, L Sankey Street Morgan, K Mundry, R Purnell, S Wright, J Warrington Wheeler, B Barr, S Parish. WA1 1UH 22 September 2020 Development Management Committee Wednesday, 30 September 2020, 6.00pm Venue – This meeting will take place remotely in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 - Section 78 Members of the public can view this meeting by visiting www.warrington.gov.uk/committees Agenda prepared by Jennie Cordwell, Senior Democratic Services Officer – Telephone: (01925) 442139 E-mail: [email protected] A G E N D A Part 1 Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion. Item 1. Apologies for Absence To record any apologies received. 2. Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 1 Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached. Item Page No. 3. Minutes 4 To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September 2020 as a correct record. 4. Planning Applications 21 Report of the Director of Growth 2018/32247 - FORMER PARKSIDE COLLIERY TO THE EAST OF THE 23 A49, WINWICK ROAD, NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS, WA12 8DB 2020/36900 - WARRINGTON ROAD, HATTON, WARRINGTON 285 2020/37026 – BRIDGE FARM, DAM LANE, RIXTON WITH 307 GLAZEBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA3 6LE 2020/36842 – ARLEY LANDFILL SITE, FORREST WAY, 330 WARRINGTON, WA4 6YZ 5.
    [Show full text]
  • City Hall Rich List 2020
    City Hall Rich List 2020 Darwin Friend June 2020 Introduction Scrutinising staffing costs at local and national level is a hallmark of our mission to make government more accountable to taxpayers. This principle underpins our annual Town Hall Rich List, which details remuneration of the highest paid people across local government.1 It should also apply to municipal government. The Greater London Authority (GLA) is one of the biggest local authorities in the UK; it includes a number of well-known bodies and a powerful mayor. Sadiq Khan, the current mayor of London, has complained about financial woes, while the staffing costs of City Hall employees have risen by 82 per cent, from £36 million in 2016-17 to £65.5 million in the 2020-21 proposed budget.2 Meanwhile, the mayor has increased the band D council tax precept by just under nine per cent in 2019-20, and London taxpayers have gone from paying £295 in 2015-16 to £332 in 2020-21 for the GLA.3,4 The City Hall Rich List details the employees working for the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police whose total remuneration exceeds £100,000. Key findings ▪ There were at least 654 people employed by the GLA and its subsidiary bodies in 2018-19 who received more than £100,000. Of these, 154 received over £150,000 in total remuneration. In 2015-16, 653 received more than £100,000 and 147 employees collected over £150,000. ▪ In 2018-19 the body with the highest number of employees with remuneration in excess of £100,000 was Transport for London, with 518 employees.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Report 793 795 London Road
    793-795 London Road - proposed red route restrictions Consultation summary July 2016 Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 1 Background ................................................................................................................ 2 2 Scheme description .................................................................................................... 2 3 The consultation ......................................................................................................... 4 4 Overview of consultation responses ............................................................................ 5 5 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ........................................... 7 6 Conclusion and next steps .......................................................................................... 7 Appendix A – Response to issues raised .............................................................................. 8 Appendix B – Consultation Materials ..................................................................................... 9 Appendix C – List of stakeholders consulted ....................................................................... 13 Executive Summary Between 5 February and 17 March 2017, we consulted on proposed changes to parking restrictions at the area in front of 793-795 London Road, Croydon. The consultation received 11 responses, with 7 responses supporting or partially supporting
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Paper Pack for By-Election of Hyde Newton on 5Th
    Nomination Paper Office Use Only No of Nomination Paper Time delivered Date delivered Initials Tameside Metropolitan Borough in order of delivery ELECTION OF A BOROUGH COUNCILLOR for Hyde Newton Date of Election: Thursday 5 February 2009 We the undersigned, being local government electors for the said Ward , do hereby nominate the under-mentioned person as a candidate at the said election. PLEASE COMPLETE IN CAPITALS (except where a signature is required) Candidate’s Other forename(s) Commonly used Commonly used Home Address surname forenames Description (if any) use no more than 6 words surname in full (if any) (if any) in full Title Email Address Telephone Electoral Number Signature Print Name as Signed Polling District Number Letters Proposer Seconder We the undersigned, being local government electors for the said Ward, do hereby assent to the foregoing nomination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Notes 1. The attention of candidates and electors is drawn to the rules for filling up nomination papers and provisions relating to nomination papers contained the election rules in Schedule 2 to the Local Election (Principle Areas) Rules 2006. 2. Where a candidate is commonly known by some title they may be described by their title as if it were their surname. 3. Where a candidate commonly uses a name which is different from any other name they have, the commonly used name may also appear on the nomination paper, but if it does so, the commonly used name (instead of any other name) will appear on the ballot paper. 4. But the ballot paper will show the other name if the Returning Officer thinks that the use of the commonly used name may (a) be likely to mislead or confuse electors, or (b) that the commonly used name is obscene or offensive.
    [Show full text]
  • Land at Love Lane, Woolwich
    Simon Fowler Avison Young – UK By email only Our Ref: APP/E5330/W/19/3233519 Date: 30 July 2020 Dear Sir CORRECTION NOTICE UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 Land at Love Lane, Grand Depot Road, John Wilson Street, Thomas Street, and Woolwich New Road, Woolwich SE18 6SJ for 1. A request for a correction has been received from Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of the Appellant’s in respect of the Secretary of State’s decision letter on the above case dated 3 June 2020. This request was made before the end of the relevant period for making such corrections under section 56 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (the Act), and a decision has been made by the Secretary of State to correct the error. 2. There is a clear typographical error in the IR, specifically at IR12.18 where there is an incorrect reference to Phase 4 when the intention was to refer to Phase 3. The correction relates to this reference only and is reflected in the revised Inspector’s report attached to this letter. 3. Under the provisions of section 58(1) of the Act, the effect of the correction referred to above is that the original decision is taken not to have been made. The decision date for this appeal is the date of this notice, and an application may be made to the High Court within six weeks from the day after the date of this notice for leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Free School – Opening September 2018 Report on Section 10 Public Consultation 9Th June 2017-8Th September 2017
    Laurus Ryecroft Proposed free school – opening September 2018 Report on Section 10 public consultation th th 9 June 2017-8 September 2017 laurustrust.co.uk 4 October 17 Page 1 of 21 Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 3 The proposer group ............................................................................................................... 4 Initial phase ........................................................................................................................... 4 Statutory consultation ............................................................................................................ 6 Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 7 Statutory consultation results and responses ........................................................................ 9 Other responses to the consultation .................................................................................... 18 Conclusion and next steps .................................................................................................. 21 Appendices: Appendix 1 – Section 10 consultation information booklet Appendix 2 – Consultation questionnaire Appendix 3 – Promotional material Appendix 4 – Stakeholders laurustrust.co.uk 4 October 17 Page 2 of 21 Executive summary Laurus Ryecroft is a non-selective, non-denominational 11-18 secondary school in the pre-opening
    [Show full text]
  • Icm Research Job No (1-6) 960416
    ICM RESEARCH JOB NO (1-6) KNIGHTON HOUSE 56 MORTIMER STREET SERIAL NO (7-10) LONDON W1N 7DG TEL: 0171-436-3114 CARD NO (11) 1 2004 LONDON ELECTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION: Good morning/afternoon. I am ⇒ IF NO 2ND CHOICE SAY: from ICM, the independent opinion research Q7 So can I confirm, you only marked one company. We are conducting a survey in this area choice in the London Assembly election? today and I would be grateful if you could help by (14) answering a few questions … Yes 1 No 2 ⇒ CHECK QUOTAS AND CONTINUE IF ON Don’t know 3 QUOTA Q1 First of all, in the recent election for the ***TAKE BACK THE BALLOT PAPERS*** new London Mayor and Assembly many people were not able to go and vote. Can you tell me, did ♦ SHOW CARD Q8 you manage to go to the polling station and cast Q8 When you were voting in the elections for your vote? the London Assembly and London Mayor, what (12) was most important to you? Of the following Yes 1 possible answers, can you let me know which were No 2 the two most important as far as you were Don’t know 3 concerned (15) ⇒ IF NO/DON’T KNOW, GO TO Q9 Q2 Here is a version of the ballot paper like the These elections were a chance to let one used for the MAYOR ELECTION. the national government know what 1 (INTERVIEWER: HAND TO RESPONDENT). Could you think about national issues you please mark with an X who you voted for as I felt it was my duty to vote 2 your FIRST choice as London Mayor? MAKE SURE Choosing the best people to run 3 RESPONDENT MARKS BALLOT PAPER IN London CORRECT COLUMN I wanted to support a particular party 4 I wanted to let the government know Q3 And could you mark with an X who you my view on the Iraq war 5 voted for as your SECOND choice? ? MAKE SURE RESPONDENT MARKS BALLOT PAPER IN ⇒ VOTERS SKIP TO Q16 CORRECT COLUMN Q9 Here is a version of the ballot paper like the ND one used for the MAYOR ELECTION.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Wakefield
    Final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Wakefield Report to The Electoral Commission July 2003 © Crown Copyright 2003 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit. The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Electoral Commission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G. This report is printed on recycled paper. Report no. 342 2 Contents Page What is The Boundary Committee For England? 5 Summary 7 1 Introduction 13 2 Current electoral arrangements 15 3 Draft recommendations 19 4 Responses to consultation 21 5 Analysis and final recommendations 23 6 What happens next? 67 Appendices A Final recommendations for Wakefield: Detailed mapping 69 B First draft of electoral change Order for Wakefield 71 C Guide to interpreting the first draft of the electoral Order 76 3 4 What is The Boundary Committee for England? The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of The Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The functions of the Local Government Commission for England were transferred to The Electoral Commission and its Boundary Committee on 1 April 2002 by the Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 no. 3692). The Order also transferred to The Electoral Commission the functions of the Secretary of State in relation to taking decisions on recommendations for changes to local authority electoral arrangements and implementing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Policing in the 21St Century
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Policing in the 21st Century Seventh Report of Session 2007–08 Volume II Oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 30 October 2008 HC 364-II Published on 10 October 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chairman) Tom Brake MP (Liberal Democrat, Charshalton and Wallington) Ms Karen Buck MP (Labour, Regent’s Park and Kensington North) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Ann Cryer MP (Labour, Keighley) David TC Davies MP (Conservative, Monmouth) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Patrick Mercer MP (Conservative, Newark) Margaret Moran MP (Labour, Luton South) Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Gary Streeter MP (Conservative, South West Devon) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following Member was also a Member of the Committee during the inquiry: Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the Boundary Commission for England 2013 Review North West Region Greater Manchester and Lancashire
    Submission to the Boundary Commission for England 2013 Review North West Region Greater Manchester and Lancashire Andrew Teale December 4, 2011 Abstract This submission disagrees with and presents a counter-proposal to the Boundary Commission for England’s proposals for new parliamentary con- stituency boundaries in Greater Manchester and Lancashire. The counter- proposal allocates seven whole constituencies to the boroughs of Stockport, Tameside and Oldham, nine whole constituencies to the boroughs of Man- chester, Salford and Trafford, and twenty-four whole constituencies to the rest of the region. No comment is made on the Boundary Commission’s proposals for the rest of the North West region or for any other region. Contents 1 Introduction2 1.1 The statutory criteria.........................2 1.2 Splitting of wards...........................3 2 Theoretical entitlements4 3 Southern Greater Manchester5 3.1 Manchester, Salford and Trafford..................5 3.2 Oldham, Stockport and Tameside.................. 10 4 Lancashire and Northern Greater Manchester 14 4.1 Crossing the boundary between Greater Manchester and Lancashire 16 4.2 Rochdale................................ 17 4.3 Bolton, Bury, Wigan and Rossendale................ 18 4.4 South Lancashire........................... 22 4.5 East Lancashire............................ 23 4.6 North Lancashire........................... 24 4.7 Summary................................ 25 5 Closing remarks 28 1 1 Introduction This document is my submission to the 2013 Review of Parliamentary constit- uency boundaries. I should first introduce myself. I am the editor and webmaster of the Lo- cal Elections Archive Project (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/), the in- ternet’s largest freely available collection of British local election results. I have been for some years a contributor to election-related web forums, and this submission is based on material originally posted on the Vote UK forum (http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/) and in some cases modified in the light of comments made.
    [Show full text]
  • Tameside Locality Assessments GMSF 2020
    November 2020 Transport Locality Assessments Introductory Note and Assessments – Tameside allocations GMSF 2020 Table of contents 1. Background 2 1.1 Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) 2 1.2 Policy Context – The National Planning Policy Framework 3 1.3 Policy Context – Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 5 1.4 Structure of this Note 9 2. Site Selection 10 2.1 The Process 10 2.2 Greater Manchester Accessibility Levels 13 3. Approach to Strategic Modelling 15 4. Approach to Technical Analysis 17 4.1 Background 17 4.2 Approach to identifying Public Transport schemes 18 4.3 Mitigations and Scheme Development 19 5. Conclusion 23 6. GMSF Allocations List 24 Appendix A - GMA38 Ashton Moss West Locality Assessment A1 Appendix B - GMA39 Godley Green Garden Village Locality Assessment B1 Appendix C - GMA40 Land South of Hyde Locality Assessment C1 1 1. Background 1.1 Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) 1.1.1 The GMSF is a joint plan of all ten local authorities in Greater Manchester, providing a spatial interpretation of the Greater Manchester Strategy which will set out how Greater Manchester should develop over the next two decades up to the year 2037. It will: ⚫ identify the amount of new development that will come forward across the 10 Local Authorities, in terms of housing, offices, and industry and warehousing, and the main areas in which this will be focused; ⚫ ensure we have an appropriate supply of land to meet this need; ⚫ protect the important environmental assets across the conurbation; ⚫ allocate sites for employment and housing outside of the urban area; ⚫ support the delivery of key infrastructure, such as transport and utilities; ⚫ define a new Green Belt boundary for Greater Manchester.
    [Show full text]
  • 4097 Mayor Manifesto.AW
    WHO THEY ARE WHAT THEY SAY HOW TO VOTE On 10 June 2004, you, the residents and voters of Greater London will be Who am I voting for? able to vote in elections to choose: The Mayor of London has powers over a wide range of services in London, ■ The Mayor of London including: transport; policing; fire and safety; urban regeneration; economic ■ 25 members of the London Assembly development; and arts and culture. ■ Nine members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to represent London This booklet contains information to help you decide who you want to vote How do I vote? for and how to vote. In the election for the Mayor you have two votes – one for a first choice On page 1, opposite, there is an explanation of the role of the Mayor of and one for a second choice. You will be given a ballot paper like this: London, including a picture of the ballot paper and details of how to vote. Mark an X in the first column next to On pages 2 to 21, there is more detailed information from each of the the name of the person who is your first candidates who want to be Mayor on what they would do if they were choice for Mayor of London. If you do elected. The contents of these pages are the candidates’ own responsibility. not vote in this column, your ballot On page 22 there is an explanation of the role of the London Assembly, paper will not be counted. along with details of how to vote and a picture of the ballot paper.
    [Show full text]