← Wyre Forest (all cycles) · 4 May 2023 cohort

Wyre Forest 2023

Local elections held 4 May 2023.

12 ward races
33 seats
1 elected below the proportional quota
3.0% of seats below quota
6 unfairly awarded seats
18.2% 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 12 wards in this cycle, parties received the vote totals below. The proportional column shows what each party would have won if the 33 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
Conservative Party22,19741.7%2060.6%1442.4%+6
Independent9,79918.4%618.2%618.2%0
Labour Party8,87116.6%412.1%515.2%-1
Green Party6,26811.8%13.0%412.1%-3
Liberal Democrats6,15411.5%26.1%412.1%-2
Total53,289100.0%33100.0%33100.0%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

Lickhill · single-seat

Marginal winner Winning candidate's share of valid ballots. 40.7% Proportional quota 50.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. −9.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 1 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 654

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
1Little, D.Conservative Party26640.7%−9.3 ptsElected
2Schmeising-Barnes, T.Liberal Democrats14522.2%
3Thorneycroft, S.Labour Party13720.9%
4Sheppard, D.Independent10616.2%

Electorate 2,127 · Back to ward index

Bewdley and Rock · 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. 36.4% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +11.4 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,988

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
1Bourne, E.Conservative Party93915.7%47.2%+22.2 ptsElected
2Morehead, D.Conservative Party84114.1%42.3%+17.3 ptsElected
3Wilson, N.Conservative Party72312.1%36.4%+11.4 ptsElected
4Stanczyszyn, R.Labour Party68511.5%34.5%
5Edginton-White, C.Independent62910.5%31.6%
6Knowles, N.Labour Party60810.2%30.6%
7Bell, J.Green Party4617.7%23.2%
8Coleman, A.Independent3726.2%18.7%
9Geary, N.Green Party2975.0%14.9%
10Coleman, R.Independent2534.2%12.7%
11Gollop, C.Liberal Democrats1562.6%7.8%

Electorate 6,985 · Back to ward index

Offmore and Comberton · 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. 37.0% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +12.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,618

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
1Oborski, F.Liberal Democrats77716.0%48.0%+23.0 ptsElected
2Miah, S.Liberal Democrats68514.1%42.3%+17.3 ptsElected
3Carroll, L.Labour Party59912.3%37.0%+12.0 ptsElected
4Grace, N.Liberal Democrats56111.6%34.7%
5Bishop, R.Conservative Party54811.3%33.9%
6Hopkins, B.Conservative Party4829.9%29.8%
7Swain, O.Independent4389.0%27.1%
8Stooke, M.Conservative Party4389.0%27.1%
9Caulfield, B.Green Party3266.7%20.1%

Electorate 7,308 · Back to ward index

Areley Kings and Riverside · 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. 37.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +12.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,516

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
1Henderson, K.Conservative Party79517.5%52.5%+27.5 ptsElected
2Russell, D.Conservative Party65614.4%43.3%+18.3 ptsElected
3Sutton, A.Conservative Party56212.4%37.1%+12.1 ptsElected
4Warren, C.Labour Party51911.4%34.2%
5Bartram-Savage, N.Labour Party48510.7%32.0%
6Lloyd, R.Independent4249.3%28.0%
7Thomas, J.Independent3257.1%21.4%
8Wood, V.Green Party3076.8%20.3%
9Foster, J.Independent2886.3%19.0%
10Schmeising-Barnes, I.Liberal Democrats1864.1%12.3%

Electorate 6,365 · Back to ward index

Wribbenhall and Arley · 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. 51.3% Proportional quota 33.3% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +18.0 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 2 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,334

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
1Harrison, P.Conservative Party69225.9%51.9%+18.5 ptsElected
2Byng, J.Conservative Party68525.7%51.3%+18.0 ptsElected
3Harper, N.Labour Party42616.0%31.9%
4Bailey, C.Green Party27210.2%20.4%
5Watkins, P.Independent2569.6%19.2%
6Ireland, R.Green Party2087.8%15.6%
7Harvey, C.Liberal Democrats1294.8%9.7%

Electorate 4,284 · Back to ward index

Blakebrook and Habberley South · 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. 44.2% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +19.2 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,533

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
1Caulfield, V.Green Party76516.6%49.9%+24.9 ptsElected
2Onslow-Fage, T.Conservative Party69015.0%45.0%+20.0 ptsElected
3Whitehouse, L.Labour Party67814.7%44.2%+19.2 ptsElected
4Smith, J.Conservative Party55112.0%36.0%
5Davis, J.Green Party51111.1%33.3%
6Stokes, E.Conservative Party50511.0%32.9%
7Wood, C.Green Party3858.4%25.1%
8Beavis, A.Liberal Democrats2124.6%13.8%
9Worth, H.Liberal Democrats1874.1%12.2%
10Ford, S.Liberal Democrats1142.5%7.4%

Electorate 6,851 · Back to ward index

Franche and Habberley North · 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. 44.7% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +19.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,672

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
1Brookes, B.Conservative Party82316.4%49.2%+24.2 ptsElected
2Connolly, G.Conservative Party79315.8%47.4%+22.4 ptsElected
3Ross, D.Conservative Party74714.9%44.7%+19.7 ptsElected
4Beckingham, J.Labour Party68513.7%41.0%
5Madden, J.Liberal Democrats55111.0%33.0%
6Walker, O.Liberal Democrats52610.5%31.5%
7Watkins, M.Independent4929.8%29.4%
8Allsopp, L.Green Party3987.9%23.8%

Electorate 7,505 · Back to ward index

Foley Park and Hoobrook · 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. 47.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +22.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,473

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
1Desmond, N.Conservative Party83418.9%56.6%+31.6 ptsElected
2Gale, N.Conservative Party74216.8%50.4%+25.4 ptsElected
3Gale, K.Conservative Party69415.7%47.1%+22.1 ptsElected
4Smith, D.Labour Party56112.7%38.1%
5Cassidy, C.Liberal Democrats44910.2%30.5%
6Hine, D.Green Party3467.8%23.5%
7Atkinson, N.Green Party2786.3%18.9%
8Meekings, S.Independent2625.9%17.8%
9Finch, D.Green Party2545.7%17.2%

Electorate 7,383 · Back to ward index

Mitton · 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. 48.1% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +23.1 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,525

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
1Martin, N.Independent77116.8%50.5%+25.5 ptsElected
2Rogers, C.Conservative Party73316.0%48.1%+23.1 ptsElected
3Griffiths, J.Labour Party73316.0%48.1%+23.1 ptsElected
4Morris, D.Conservative Party68414.9%44.8%
5Dawes, B.Conservative Party63813.9%41.8%
6Allarton, M.Green Party54611.9%35.8%
7Pratt, P.Liberal Democrats47110.3%30.9%

Electorate 7,502 · Back to ward index

Broadwaters · 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. 51.7% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +26.7 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,183

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
1Rayner, M.Independent89325.2%75.5%+50.5 ptsElected
2McDonnell, M.Labour Party63417.9%53.6%+28.6 ptsElected
3Young, P.Independent61117.2%51.7%+26.7 ptsElected
4Totty, A.Liberal Democrats43112.1%36.4%
5Muir, T.Conservative Party37310.5%31.5%
6Pedley, C.Conservative Party35410.0%29.9%
7Williams, H.Conservative Party2527.1%21.3%

Electorate 6,674 · Back to ward index

Wyre Forest Rural · 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. 53.3% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +28.3 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 2,293

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
1Hart, M.Conservative Party1,43320.8%62.5%+37.5 ptsElected
2Drew, R.Conservative Party1,32519.3%57.8%+32.8 ptsElected
3Hardiman, I.Conservative Party1,22217.8%53.3%+28.3 ptsElected
4Cox, D.Labour Party88612.9%38.6%
5Jones, D.Labour Party80911.8%35.3%
6Spohrer, K.Green Party3785.5%16.5%
7Davis, G.Green Party3364.9%14.7%
8Gorecki, M.Liberal Democrats2914.2%12.7%
9Warren, D.Green Party2002.9%8.7%

Electorate 7,597 · Back to ward index

Aggborough and Spennells · 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. 61.6% Proportional quota 25.0% Below quota Marginal winner's share minus the proportional quota for this race. Negative = below; positive = above. +36.6 pts Valid ballots (est.) Estimated voters: total votes ÷ 3 seats. Source data does not publish a ballot count for this cycle. 1,855

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
1Dyke, H.Independent1,32423.8%71.4%+46.4 ptsElected
2Dyke, P.Independent1,21321.8%65.4%+40.4 ptsElected
3Aston, J.Independent1,14220.5%61.6%+36.6 ptsElected
4Cave, O.Conservative Party4838.7%26.0%
5Price, G.Labour Party4267.7%23.0%
6Jordan, T.Conservative Party3666.6%19.7%
7Sherrey, R.Conservative Party3285.9%17.7%
8Akathiotis, R.Liberal Democrats2835.1%15.3%

Electorate 6,570 · Back to ward index