Richard Willis's Blog

First for local news and first for comment

Reading’s Alternative Vote Referendum Results

For those of us who followed the recent referendum result with some interest, it would be fair to say that the result was surprisingly emphatic. Reading was little different from the national outcome but there were some interesting differences across the various wards of the borough.

The overall Reading results were YES 17,605 and NO 27,571, with 306 spoilt ballots.

I have been sent the results of the referendum by ward:

   Abbey – YES 1264: No 1360 (Spoilt 21)

   Battle – YES 1121: NO 1312 (Spoilt 32)

   Caversham – YES 1306: NO 1721 (Spoilt 11)

   Church – YES 914: NO 1698 (Spoilt 18)

   Katesgrove – YES 1121: NO 1119 (Spoilt 26)

   Kentwood – YES 918: NO 2074 (Spoilt 13)

   Mapledurham – YES 733: NO 1377 (Spoilt 11) (This includes all postal votes cast on the day)

   Minster – YES 1107: NO 1808 (Spoilt 16)

   Norcot – YES 964: NO 1607 (Spoilt 26)

   Park –  YES 1938: No 1538 (Spoilt 30)

   Peppard – YES 1058: NO 2548 (Spoilt 16)

   Redlands – YES 1430: NO 1363 (Spoilt 18)

   Southcote – YES 787: NO 1861 (Spoilt 18)

   Thames – YES 1371: NO 2497 (Spoilt 13)

   Tilehurst – YES 838: NO 2159 (Spoilt 11)

   Whitley – YES 735: NO 1525 (Spoilt 26)

It is interesting that three wards appear to have voted “Yes” – Park, Katesgrove and Redlands. I say “appear” as the postal votes for every ward that were cast on the day are included in the Mapledurham totals and therefore Katesgrove may in fact have voted “No”! Two voted narrowly for “No” – Abbey and Battle; and the rest voted strongly “No”. Since Park, Katesgrove and Redlands, saw strong Green or Lib Dem campaigns, both of whom supported the “Yes” campaign, it is perhaps not surprising that they appear to have delivered “Yes” votes but it is surprising that such a long-standing Lib Dem held ward as Tilehurst voted so strongly for the “No” side.

UPDATE: I have been contacted by a reliable source who was at the count and who tells me that the Mapledurham totals only include the PVs that were cast on the day itself. All others were included in the relevant wards.

Advertisements

June 1, 2011 - Posted by | Local, National

2 Comments »

  1. I think you have been misled about the Mapledurham results. For the local government elections, around 18,000 electors had postal votes. Of these, over two-thirds returned their postal votes. I imagine the AV postal voting rate was similar. ie around 12,000 or more AV votes were cast by post. It may be that some non-Mapledurham spoilt AV postal votes were tipped into the Mapledurham spoilt votes box. But I do think that valid postal AV votes ARE included in their proper ward totals.

    Comment by Christine | June 2, 2011 | Reply

  2. On the face of it, your comment that the Yes vote was higher where Greens/Libdems campaigned strongly would back up the belief that a better result for the Yes campaign might have been achieved by having a stand-alone referendum rather than one on the same day as local and Scottish/Northern Irish/Welsh assembly elections. Clever Mr. C, stiffing Clegg jr. like that.

    Comment by Jonny | June 2, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: