← Hinckley & Bosworth (all cycles) · 4 May 2023 cohort

Hinckley & Bosworth 2023

Local elections held 4 May 2023.

16 ward races
34 seats
4 unfairly awarded seats
11.8% of seats unfairly awarded

Each race compares the marginal winner's share of valid ballots to the proportional quota — the share they'd need under any common proportional method. How the numbers are derived →

If votes were counted by party

Across the 16 wards in this cycle, parties received the vote totals below. The proportional column shows what each party would have won if the 34 seats had been shared out in proportion to votes received (how, with caveats). The Δ column is the actual seat count minus the proportional seat count — positive numbers are parties First-Past-the-Post over-represented; negative are parties it under-represented.

PartyVotesVote %Seats won% of seatsProportional seatsProportional %Δ
Liberal Democrats28,19548.0%2264.7%1852.9%+4
Conservative Party21,61736.8%1029.4%1338.2%-3
Labour Party5,94010.1%25.9%38.8%-1
Green Party1,0761.8%00.0%00.0%0
Independent1,0591.8%00.0%00.0%0
Reform UK6801.2%00.0%00.0%0
UK Independence Party (UKIP)1440.2%00.0%00.0%0
Total58,711100.0%34100.0%34100.0%0

Vote share vs seats won

The top bar is each party's share of votes cast in this council. Below, one square per seat, coloured by the party that won it — first the actual First-Past-the-Post result, then what a proportional method would have produced from the same vote totals. Divergence between the bar and the actual grid is the indictment of the method.

Vote share
Actual seats
Proportional seats

Council composition: what this election replaced

The 2023 cycle was an all-out election — every seat was contested. The two opencouncildata snapshots below show the council immediately after the 2023 election (current) and on the eve of it (2022), so you can see what the result replaced.

Current (2023)
Previous (2022)

Wards in this council

Sorted with the largest gap below the quota first. Click any ward to jump to its full result.

Race results

Cadeby Carlton and Market Bosworth with Shackerstone · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 50.2% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +0.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,215

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Cook, M.Conservative Party61050.2%+0.2 ptsElected
2Tessier, A.Liberal Democrats48039.5%
3Dams, G.Labour Party12510.3%

Electorate 2,978 · Back to ward index

Twycross and Witherley with Sheepy · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 61.7% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +11.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,035

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Sutton, B.Conservative Party63961.7%+11.7 ptsElected
2Mayne, R.Liberal Democrats39638.3%

Electorate 2,597 · Back to ward index

Earl Shilton · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 38.9% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +13.9 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,015

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Weightman, A.Liberal Democrats78913.1%39.2%+14.2 ptsElected
2Allen, C.Conservative Party78513.0%39.0%+14.0 ptsElected
3Allen, R.Conservative Party78313.0%38.9%+13.9 ptsElected
4Paczek, B.Liberal Democrats78112.9%38.8%
5Ladkin, C.Conservative Party76312.6%37.9%
6Weightman, P.Liberal Democrats68811.4%34.1%
7Faver, I.Labour Party3585.9%17.8%
8Sharma, C.Labour Party3515.8%17.4%
9Wheeler, A.Labour Party3245.4%16.1%
10Carter, R.Green Party2494.1%12.4%
11Chesire, P.Reform UK1732.9%8.6%

Electorate 8,176 · Back to ward index

Barwell · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 41.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +16.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,441

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Simmons, M.Conservative Party60614.0%42.0%+17.0 ptsElected
2Green, C.Labour Party59713.8%41.4%+16.4 ptsElected
3Smith, H.Conservative Party59313.7%41.1%+16.1 ptsElected
4Buck, J.Labour Party53712.4%37.3%
5Parkinson, R.Labour Party53212.3%36.9%
6Daldry, C.Conservative Party51311.9%35.6%
7Nash, M.Independent3758.7%26.0%
8Roberts, R.Independent3087.1%21.4%
9Wells, C.Green Party2636.1%18.2%

Electorate 7,020 · Back to ward index

Ambien · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 66.4% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +16.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 951

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Surtees, M.Conservative Party63166.4%+16.4 ptsElected
2Cope, G.Liberal Democrats32033.6%

Electorate 3,013 · Back to ward index

Markfield Stanton and Fieldhead · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 50.0% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +16.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,560

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Lambert, C.Labour Party79725.6%51.1%+17.8 ptsElected
2Harris, C.Conservative Party77925.0%50.0%+16.6 ptsElected
3Quilter, L.Conservative Party67421.6%43.2%
4Martin, R.Labour Party67421.6%43.2%
5Wren, L.Green Party1956.3%12.5%

Electorate 4,792 · Back to ward index

Groby · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 54.4% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +21.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,609

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Cartwright, M.Liberal Democrats94729.4%58.9%+25.5 ptsElected
2Hollick, T.Liberal Democrats87627.2%54.4%+21.1 ptsElected
3Richardson, G.Conservative Party61719.2%38.3%
4Hyde, D.Conservative Party52416.3%32.6%
5Hagan, J.Independent1615.0%10.0%
6Robinson, K.Reform UK932.9%5.8%

Electorate 5,365 · Back to ward index

Burbage St. Catherines and Lash Hill · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 54.6% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +21.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,428

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Glenville, D.Liberal Democrats84729.7%59.3%+26.0 ptsElected
2Stead-Davis, P.Liberal Democrats77927.3%54.6%+21.2 ptsElected
3Thomas, M.Conservative Party62121.7%43.5%
4Nickerson, N.Conservative Party60921.3%42.6%

Electorate 4,655 · Back to ward index

Hinckley Castle · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 59.6% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +26.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,362

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Bray, S.Liberal Democrats86131.6%63.2%+29.9 ptsElected
2Mullaney, L.Liberal Democrats81229.8%59.6%+26.3 ptsElected
3Brown, J.Conservative Party32912.1%24.2%
4Leman, M.Conservative Party27910.2%20.5%
5Ross, J.Labour Party2238.2%16.4%
6Macgregor-Devin, G.Labour Party2198.0%16.1%

Electorate 5,098 · Back to ward index

Ratby Bagworth and Thornton · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 62.3% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +29.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,524

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1O'Shea, O.Conservative Party1,06234.8%69.7%+36.4 ptsElected
2Boothby, C.Conservative Party95031.2%62.3%+29.0 ptsElected
3Martin, A.Labour Party37812.4%24.8%
4Wren, M.Green Party36912.1%24.2%
5Mullaney, D.Liberal Democrats1635.3%10.7%
6Robinson, N.Liberal Democrats1264.1%8.3%

Electorate 5,668 · Back to ward index

Hinckley Trinity · 2-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~2× smaller. 63.2% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +29.9 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,162

This is a 2-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~2×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 2, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 2 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 2. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Cope, D.Liberal Democrats87437.6%75.2%+41.9 ptsElected
2Moore, J.Liberal Democrats73431.6%63.2%+29.9 ptsElected
3Hills, A.Conservative Party28212.1%24.3%
4Walker, R.Conservative Party24110.4%20.7%
5Lythgoe-Cheetham, R.Labour Party1928.3%16.5%

Electorate 5,459 · Back to ward index

Hinckley de Montfort · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 57.2% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +32.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,500

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Mullaney, M.Liberal Democrats1,59721.3%63.9%+38.9 ptsElected
2Hodgkins, L.Liberal Democrats1,47819.7%59.1%+34.1 ptsElected
3Gibbens, S.Liberal Democrats1,42919.1%57.2%+32.2 ptsElected
4Kirby, J.Conservative Party83911.2%33.6%
5Bray, J.Conservative Party7309.7%29.2%
6Roulston, D.Conservative Party7039.4%28.1%
7Davis, J.Labour Party3094.1%12.4%
8Egginton, A.Reform UK2132.8%8.5%
9Silcock, K.Reform UK2012.7%8.0%

Electorate 8,233 · Back to ward index

Newbold Verdon with Desford and Peckleton · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 58.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +33.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,437

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Crooks, J.Liberal Democrats1,59321.8%65.4%+40.4 ptsElected
2Bools, M.Liberal Democrats1,52520.9%62.6%+37.6 ptsElected
3Webber-Jones, R.Liberal Democrats1,41519.4%58.1%+33.1 ptsElected
4Bedford, P.Conservative Party1,03414.1%42.4%
5Hills, R.Conservative Party91312.5%37.5%
6Paterson, J.Conservative Party83111.4%34.1%

Electorate 7,097 · Back to ward index

Barlestone Nailstone and Osbaston · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 84.0% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +34.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 932

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Crooks, B.Liberal Democrats78384.0%+34.0 ptsElected
2Lee, M.Conservative Party14916.0%

Electorate 2,628 · Back to ward index

Burbage Sketchley and Stretton · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 61.9% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +36.9 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,417

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Walker, B.Liberal Democrats1,53421.2%63.5%+38.5 ptsElected
2Flemming, R.Liberal Democrats1,53021.1%63.3%+38.3 ptsElected
3Williams, P.Liberal Democrats1,49620.6%61.9%+36.9 ptsElected
4Iliffe, S.Conservative Party88512.2%36.6%
5Sherwin, M.Conservative Party86211.9%35.7%
6Wallace, P.Conservative Party80111.0%33.1%
7Robinson, W.UK Independence Party (UKIP)1442.0%6.0%

Electorate 8,077 · Back to ward index

Hinckley Clarendon · 3-seat (bloc vote)

Marginal winner Voter-share estimate of the lowest-vote elected candidate. Comparable to the proportional quota. The raw vote share would be ~3× smaller. 66.4% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +41.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,620

This is a 3-seat ward under bloc vote — each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so summing candidate votes overcounts voters by ~3×. We show share of votes (matches the council's published figure) and share of voters (est.) (raw share × 3, the figure comparable to the proportional quota). Why two columns →

RankCandidatePartyVotesShare of votes Candidate votes ÷ total votes cast in this ward. Matches the share the council publishes.Share of voters (est.) Estimated share of voters who supported this candidate, comparable across single- and multi-seat wards. Each voter could cast up to 3 votes, so we approximate ballots as total votes ÷ 3. This is the figure compared against the proportional quota.Below quota Each elected candidate's share of valid ballots minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = won the seat below the quota; positive = cleared it.Elected
1Gibbens, C.Liberal Democrats1,14623.6%70.7%+45.7 ptsElected
2Pendlebury, A.Liberal Democrats1,12023.0%69.1%+44.1 ptsElected
3Lynch, K.Liberal Democrats1,07622.1%66.4%+41.4 ptsElected
4Howard, L.Conservative Party3417.0%21.0%
5Stapleton, V.Conservative Party3306.8%20.4%
6Baddeley, P.Labour Party3246.7%20.0%
7Young, D.Conservative Party3096.4%19.1%
8Moore, B.Independent2154.4%13.3%

Electorate 7,182 · Back to ward index