Too good to miss – fresh in from Grald Hunter

News is filtering in that Gerald Smith may not yet realise the full significance of his caution and it’s potential for embarrassment both for him and a real test for the Labour Party which will expose the gulf between rhetoric and reality!

Grald Hunter might like to share the private joke with us implicit in his moniker?

Grald-Hunter says:

August 4, 2011 at 10:55 pm

Ha ha ha ha, at last he’s been outed and publicly humiliated :-)

I just knew it would happen sooner or later … it was always going to happen to a Muppet with an ego and a gob bigger than their miniscule brain … :-)

But hang on a minute … it’s “just an error that people make” … well if that don’t take the biscuit … ah well at least it’s consident with the responses from those in the dock on the receiving end of justice every day in our Magistrates and Crown Courts … “it’s just an error”, as in I GOT CAUGHT … yeah and from a supposedly highly-experienced and veteran councillor and public servant with aeons of expertise in this field … oh really, lol,

And now here’s the best bit –

“Cautions and criminal records”
“A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it does go on your criminal record.

“The police will record your caution on their databases. This means that your caution may in some circumstances be told to an employer or used in court as evidence of bad character. The police will also keep a record of photographs, fingerprints and any evidence taken in your case”.

“If you are cautioned for a sexual offence, you could be placed on the sex offenders register”.

“The police may give your name and address to any victims of your crime if they ask for it. This means you might be sued for damages by a victim”.

I once heard a veteran British Army tank sergeant retort the following line to a very arrogant, overbearing and very-new inexperienced cavalry Second Lieutenant who was demanding respect … “Sir, rank you may well wear, but respect from me you have yet to earn” … Touche :-)

Read the full story and other comments here.

Should Chris Read have known better?

Chris Read the Labour Party member and Wickersley Ward candidate in May’s local elections, now elected as a councillor on RMBC, who turned out to be from Swinton was revealed also to be a full time Labour apparatchik! who works in York! For York Labour Party, in a prior posting and was therefore confirmation that indeed he should have known better!

The issue of Chris Read being a Labour employee who drove a ‘coach and horses’ through the rules on completion of nomination papers in order to procure a ballot paper that was essentially deceptive in nature and caused considerable attention and potential embarrassment for Yorkshire & Humber Labour Party would, you would have thought, been dealt with by now! But the fact that this issue won’t go away, and no one locally or regionally, has told him to stop his stupidity and put a halt to him being less than truthful to his constituents, speaks volumes about the tolerance of the Labour Party to abuses and wrongdoing such as this!

We have demonstrated beyond per adventure, that his creative approach to what constitutes a Full Postal Address, is not legal and will be vigorously challenged should any future repetition of this deceptive little scheme occur. An apology and correction of his Members Interests declaration would not go amiss!

Were Chris Read’s nomination papers correctly completed? The definitive answer!

Or, has the Advertiser mislead it’s readers?

Read comments here.

I read Gareth Dennison’s piece in last weeks Advertiser with interest. The story was cobbled together from copied emails provided by Rob Foulds, I was party to this circulation. So I was aware that by Friday, the story as published, was substantially misleading, because the final piece of the jigsaw from the Electoral Commission was not reported, and was the clincher in determining where the truth lies in this case.

I fully expected this to be covered again in this weeks Advertiser in view of the fact that Gareth knew the previous week, by the time the Advertiser hit the streets in fact, that his story was incomplete and gave a misleading impression as to where the actual fault lay. Needless to say I experienced anger and more than a little frustration at this thoroughly unprofessional journalistic behaviour, I expected better.

Labour in Rotherham are comfortable that their dominance will not be effectively challenged by anyone and have become careless and arrogant with their actions, especially so, since the Stone Age began.

The case of Chris Read’s address is an example of the way this dominance finds expression. This stunt was not the result of ignorance, but a calculated conspiracy involving the Labour Party and Senior Officers, who should know better! By election night, both Labour Councillors and Officers, were singing from the same hymn sheet about Chris Read and had let slip the extent of the discussions on this issue. I won’t name them, but I am indebted to them for the illumination they provided!

Unfortunately the Advertiser also fell for this official line, as though it was established fact, instead of the perverse interpretation of those blinded by self delusion and prejudice seeking a specific outcome. Where have the Advertisers objectivity and critical abilities gone? They must return! The Advertiser and it’s journalists really must start asking questions, instead of swallowing the Labour line, hook line and sinker!

Martin Kimber, Rotherham MBC Chief Executive, I am told is someone not easily persuaded to change his mind even when contradictory evidence comes to light! Stubborn and obstinate are words frequently used by those who work with him. Tim Mumford, just about to retire as the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Admin, advised that their perverse interpretation of the nomination procedures was legal! It was not! They had convinced themselves that the phase ‘commonly understood’ meant they could accept a deficient nomination with the address incomplete! They couldn’t have been more incorrect on this point as the definitive evidence from the Electoral Commission shows!

The Labour Party also convinced themselves that they had come up with a ruse that was legal, even though their own Legal Handbook advised otherwise, and would conveniently conceal the fact that Chris Read was not a local candidate and improve their chances of winning this difficult to predict ward that has developed a penchant for voting Tory in recent years. Those involved, among others, were the ‘grinning goon,’ Reg Littleboy and Chris Read’s Agent, Sue Ellis from Wickersley Labour Party, who put their plan into action.

Despite crude criticism of Rob Foulds for his apparent pettiness on this issue, his critics are wrong in almost every particular. This issue is very important as it demonstrates all the current failings of the Labour Party and Senior Officers. Respect for either the Law or their professional duties is subject to compromise that breaches the codes of conduct that apply here. The ‘blue badge abuse scandal‘ and the reinterpretation of legal orders to allow a councillor to escape justice, is another example of this unacceptable attitude at work! As is the issue over the Printer installed in the ‘Members Room’ by the Labour Party and Kimber’s inadequate response, another of the seemingly partisan approaches taken by  Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford that these recent examples shine a light on.

Sarah Hopson, from the Electoral Commission has confirmed Rob’s contention that a candidate has to complete the form and “the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations.” and that his address must be “commonly understood,” Chris Reed gave his address as Church Street, Rotherham which was wholly misleading and gave no common indication that he actually lives in Swinton. By the way, “commonly understood” means, how the locals would address themselves, it does not provide a cover for a deceptive address as in this instance!

It is clear that this deliberate deception was not legal or acceptable, this should serve as a lesson to the Labour Party locally, their arrogance will get them into trouble and nowadays their activities are being watched more closely than ever before!

Rob Foulds emerges from this sorry little tale of Labour chicanery, vindicated and with his dignity intact. Labour however have again demonstrated that there is no trick, they will not stoop to, to keep control of what happens in Rotherham! The Advertiser does not come out of this well either, they really must adopt a questioning attitude and not take the ‘official line’ as correct when they are in possession of the full facts! The police response, initially encouraging, was most disappointing. Even so, they acknowledged that deficiencies existed and undertook to remedy this in future elections.


From: Sarah Hopson <>
Date: 27 May 2011 14:47
Subject: RE: Local Elections 2011, Rotherham
To: “” <>

Dear Mr Foulds

Thank you for contacting the Electoral Commission about your experience during the May 2011 local elections in Rotherham. The Electoral Commission has no power to intervene in, or investigate allegations of electoral offences however; your e-mail has been passed to me to inform you of our guidance on the matters you have raised.

The first point that you raise is outlining the particulars of the address that the other candidate put on their nomination form.

The advice contained within our Candidates and Agents guidance on this matter is that the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations. We cannot comment on any individual cases as this would be a matter for the courts to decide. Any allegations of false statements on nomination forms must be reported to the police. However, it should be noted that where a home address is not absolutely correct, the nomination would not be open to successful challenge as long as the address can be commonly understood. This is covered in section 50 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Your second point is about the failure to act by the Electoral staff. Returning Officers and their staff have to accept the information written on a nomination form on face value. They have no power to perform investigations into the details provided other than checking the electoral registration details of subscribers and that any description provided complies with the requirements of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006. They are tasked with checking that every item required has been completed and copying the details contained on the nomination form verbatim from the form onto the official documentation e.g. official notices and ballot papers.

Once the Returning Officer has made a decision that a nomination paper is valid, it cannot be challenged during the election, it can only be challenged after by way of an election petition. Just to note, the deadline for election petitions for 5 May elections has now passed.

I hope that this information is useful to you, if I can provide you with any further guidance on electoral matters please do contact me using the details given below.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Hopson

Regional Liaison Officer The Electoral Commission


From: <>
Date: 24 May 2011 16:42
Subject: Re: Local Elections Rotherham 2011
To: Rob Foulds <>

Dear Mr Foulds

I have now examined your complaint and researched the relevant legislation
and Electoral Commission guidance notes and respond as follows:

As you indicate the address “2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA” would
perhaps be enhanced by the addition of ” Swinton”.
A person standing in that Ward does not have to reside in that Ward to
be a candidate providing he meets one of the four qualifications. Most
residents in Wickersley will know S64 isn’t their postcode.
Only the Labour Party Handbook gives actual specific guidance to include
the name of the village and in fact the more authoritative Electoral
Administration Act example you quote fails to give the village/area
within Basingstoke.
As you concede, it can be argued that his description does adequately
allow his address to be identified.
You received on the 6th April the “statement of persons nominated” which
included Mr Read’s name and address and on the 8th April the “Notice of
Poll” again including his name and address in the same form. However you
did not raise the matter until the evening of Polling Day when someone
else alerted you. I understand you are the Clerk to Bramley Parish
Council and perhaps better acquainted with these matters than most
candidates would be.
No changes could have been made to the nomination paper or new papers
submitted after the deadline and there is no legal requirement for
election staff to provide an informal inspection service for nomination

I have discussed the matter with my line manager and we are both agreed
that as no offence appears to have been committed by Mr Read no further
Police action will be taken The matter will be recorded with the Police
National Information Coordinating Centre, which reports to ACPO and The
Electoral Commission and I will ensure when we provide briefings to
candidates in future I will stress this area of the legislation. I did
attend the Rotherham briefing on the 6th April 2011, but I do not recall
this specific area being the subject of any questions.

Gary Blinkhorn
Research and Development Unit
Economic Crime Unit


Wickersley Notice of Poll Read here: Does this represent a Full Postal Address? I don’t think so!!!


Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”


Original Complaint: To read click here.


Previously published:

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

Rob Foulds

In the wake of the local elections this year and the dirtiest campaign, from parts of the Labour Party, ever in Rotherham! Much has been made of the fact that Rob Foulds did not live in Rother Vale Ward where he stood as a Rotherham Independent candidate last year. Labour has taken every opportunity to draw attention to this fact believing that this would be damaging to Rob Foulds’s reputation.

Rob Foulds stood in the Rother Vale Ward, which he can see from his front window, because Richard Russell was a ‘bussed in’ Labour candidate from far away West Melton, just next door to Brampton Bierlow, part of the Dearne Valley and not the most ‘local’!

Richard Russell Deselected 'Dud'

Richard Russell was also a decidedly poor candidate, rejected by his home ward of Hoober, where  Labour Party members deselected him after 28 years as their councillor because they already had quite enough of this insufferably arrogant, ignorant and greedy**(See note below) Councillor, whose abilities appear to be in inverse proportion to his ego! A right numpty, in fact!

Interestingly and very illuminating, Richard Russell always gives as his address Wath-upon-Dearne. Say that to the neighbours, and they will tell you they live in West Melton or even Brampton Bierlow! What planet is he on? His wife Pat is also a councillor, representing the far away Silverwood ward. There seems to be a pattern emerging don’t you think?

The fact that Labour members from the Rother Vale ward selected this dud, previously rejected candidate, to represent them is evidence that Labour is completely contemptuous of the voters! And the stupidity of Labour members in Rother Vale was also made abundantly clear by their outrageous choice.

Another factor was also important for Rotherham Independents, the clamour from residents of the ward for a more able and local candidate. The resentment in the ward, even among fiercely loyal Labour voters was clear. This was eventually persuasive and crucial in deciding to contest the Rother Vale ward last year, I understand. This resulted in Rob Foulds reducing the Labour majority and gaining 1,700 votes, quite a surprise in this most tribal of Labour seats and with the backdrop of a simultaneous General Election, very surprising indeed!

Chris Read - Wickersley's Local Candidate?

When it became known that Wickersley Labour Party had selected a candidate with no local connexions, from far away Swinton, Rob decided to take a stand on this issue and made it an important plank of his campaign! Rob Foulds lives in the Wickersley ward and was fully entitled to be aggrieved that Labour was not fielding a local candidate but one from the only point where Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster meet, the Dearne Valley! To add insult to injury, Chris Read cannot drive, which will make serving the residents, difficult if not impossible, in the long term! Wait until winter comes!

Labour made the decision to do everything to conceal this fact from the Wickersley voters, the issues involved will be explored in detail in a later posting. The result reflected this but Rob’s vote put him in second place pushing the Tories into third place! Quite a result!

Notes: Greedy** Richard Russell made into third position in the greed list for last year receiving a total of £29,127.72 and Pat, his wife and fellow councillor, received a total of £13,640.64. Between them they got £42,768.36! Plus any benefits accrued by sitting on outside bodies, a not inconsiderable sum to add to their pensions! No wonder Richard Russell and Pat Russell became ‘carpet baggers’ to get on the Council, in Pats case, or to stay on after being deselected by Hoober ward members who know him best!

News just in! Police to probe Labour Dirty Tricks!

Police to investigate the Dirty tricks played by Gerald Smith and Holderness Labour!

Following the elections on May 5th this year when Labour went well beyond the acceptable, issuing election leaflets that were deceptive and libellous in the Parish of Aston-cum-Aughton, a complaint has been made to the Police in this case and it can now be reported that the Police have opened an investigation!

We are aware that there are similar problems in the Parish Council of Anston, where Iain St John and the local Labour Party have also been reported to the Police and we understand that this will be formally investigated as well.

Comment: Labour really need to understand that they don’t own Rotherham, they cannot expect to act outside of what is legal, decent and honest! The people own Rotherham! They need to understand that simple fact! Increasingly the public are no longer prepared to let them get away with their control freak, arrogant, greedy and dictatorial ways! Power to the people! We say!!…

Previously published: Click Here.

Election of Borough Councillors for Maltby

The results are in and Christine Beaumont (Labour) has been duly elected for Maltby with 1881 votes.
Michaek Burke (BNP) 388 votes, John Kirk (Ind) 370, Derek Johnson (Con) 322 and Michael Conlon 215 votes.
A turnout of only 35.7% speaks for itself at the interest/apathy coming from Maltby. Interesting that BNP have more votes than Con or Ind. This shows either that the BNP have more supporters who want to see their policies implemented, or that those who have little faith in the current majority want something “different”. I tend to think it’s the latter.
Maltby Town Councillor Jenny Andrews(Labour) has been elected as RMBC councillor for Hellaby. Mrs Andrews has previously been Chair of MTC. She has also previously classed herself as Labour, then Independent, now apparently Labour again. A bit better turnout out at Hellaby with 42.67%.
Results of the election to Maltby Town Council on a further post.

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”

Pretty conclusive to me, don’t forget this is the minimum required to comply with elections legislation.

Chris Read’s address was therefore deficient and should have been corrected by the Returning Officer who failed to do so even though he could and should have done so, using his legal powers, referred to by the Electoral Commission’s:

Managing a local government election in England: guidance for Returning Officers

I quote from it:

“Candidate’s home address:

4.37 The candidate’s full home address must be included. If, however, any detail is wrong or omitted, the nomination is not automatically invalid if the description of the place is such as to be commonly understood. Also, the Returning Officer has a power to correct minor errors in nomination papers, the use of which is considered below under ‘Correction of minor errors’.”

Who is this, perhaps incompetent, individual who doesn’t seem to understand his professional obligations, legal duties or even the extent of his powers?

Why, it’s our old friend, Martin Kimber, the Chief Executive of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Returning Officer, under a professional obligation to be impartial but appears to have been particularly partisan in this instance.

Martin Kimber’s spokesperson’s explanation in this week’s Advertiser, is at least disingenuous, based as it is on a false interpretation of the legal requirements or incomplete information! Either way, Kimber is going to have some awkward questions to answer!

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

Chris Read

When Labour selected their candidate for the Wickersley Ward of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council they knew straight away that they had a problem, they had selected, not a local Wickersley resident, but a resident of Swinton, Mexborough and if that were not difficulty enough he doesn’t even own a car nor drive!

Why was this a problem for Labour? Swinton lies a stones throw from both Barnsley and Doncaster! Not exactly local then! The issue of lack of personal transport will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to represent Wickersley as well as he should.

This is a rapidly increasing problem for Labour in Rotherham, as they have many ‘bussed in’ councillors liberally sprinkled around Rotherham. Wouldn’t it be useful if they could simply keep this information from voters in the future?

That is exactly what Rotherham Labour Party decided to do, conceal the truth from the voters of Wickersley Ward, quite outrageous!

I got an inkling of the issues ahead, when upon my arrival at the count at Magna at 10 pm, Councillor Alan Atkin from Wath Ward, without being in fact asked, couldn’t restrain himself from giving me an explanation, that bore much more than a striking resemblance to the official answer, I was given later by Maggs Evers, the Council’s Elections Officer?

Others I spoke to at the count, freely acknowledged that much discussion had taken place about this within Labour circles, and involving I understand, both the Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive, Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford respectively. Martin Kimber, it should not be overlooked, was acting as Returning Officer for the elections held on May 5th. If Martin Kimber or Tim Mumford were involved, the conflict of interest issues might well prove problematic.

How did they do it? The issue of how to conceal the inconvenient fact of his domicile on election literature was easily achieved, nothing in the text of the leaflets from Labour mentioned that Chris Read lived elsewhere than within the Ward. The imprint also is not required to have the address of the candidate, only their name, provided that the promoter and publisher were properly identified. A deception indeed! But at least perfectly legal.

How about the Ballot Paper? Surely his full address should be stated there? Apparently not, according to the opinion of RMBC! This is of course where most of the discussion and debate was focussed, how to procure a ballot paper that was essentially deceptive by confusing the issue of where he lives and effectively conceal the facts from Wickersley voters by manipulation.

What goes on the ballot paper is the address information given on the nomination paper. That’s when a bright idea came to them, if the candidate was nominated using the following address 2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA, then that is what would appear on the Notice of Poll, displayed at Polling Stations and on the ballot paper. Read Wickersley Notice of Poll here Wickersley.

I am advised that the correct full postal address for Chris Read is in fact; 2A Church Street, Swinton, Mexborough, S64 8QA, quite a difference!

A result for Labour you might think? As this stunt will, no doubt. be pulled across the Borough next year by Labour Candidates wishing to conceal their often distant domicile fearing their electorates won’t like it.

Rob Foulds

Will it work? Unfortunately for Labour, one of the other candidates Rob Foulds, the Rotherham Independent candidate, he is not happy about this and will not rest until every avenue of this disgraceful and deceptive episode is explored and any wrongdoing exposed! They may have scored a spectacular ‘own goal’ on this one as Rob Foulds is a doughty fighter for what is right, if ever there was one!

Another potential problem for Tim Mumford to ponder upon is that this ruse may well turn out not to have been such a good idea once all facts are known. The ballot paper may well be ‘legal’ but the legality of the original nomination is quite a different matter.

As a Full Postal Address is required by law for the nomination to be valid, this does not look to be a valid nomination to me, because the address is deficient and believe it should not have in fact been accepted!

A final point. This trick goes against the advice contained in Labour’s own ‘Keep it Legal‘ election manual! The Labour Party devotes considerable attention to issues such as this and I am confident that if this was such a good idea Labour would have advised so.

Borough Council Elections 2011 Results

Anston & Woodsetts Ward:

Anston & Woodsetts
Name Description Votes Vote%
Dalton Labour 1562 40.2 Elected
Edmundson Conservative 965 24.8
Foulstone Green 164 4.2
Hickson UKIP 326 8.4
Jepson Independent 462 11.9
Thornton Independent 406 10.5
Total Votes 3885
Electorate 8910
Turnout% 43.9

Boston Castle Ward:

Boston Castle
Name Description Votes Vote%
Bingham TUSAC 211 5.1
Hussain Conservative 1156 28.1
Shaw Liberal 303 7.4
Woffenden UKIP 606 14.7
Wooton Labour 1836 44.6 Elected
Total Votes 4112
Electorate 9347
Turnout% 44.3

Brinsworth & Catcliffe:

Brinswoth & Catcliffe
Name Description Votes Vote%
Cooke Conservative 668 19.7
Fielhouse BNP 581 17.1
Roddison Labour 2147 63.2 Elected
Total Votes 3396
Electorate 9019
Turnout% 37.9


Name Description Votes Vote%
Beighton Conservative 761 23.2
Havenhand Labour 1725 52.7 Elected
Hickson UKIP 324 9.9
Smith Independent 465 14.2
Total Votes 3275
Electorate 9299
Turnout% 35.6

Hellaby Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Andrews Labour 1638 42.5 Elected
Cutts Conservative 1550 40.2
Fairfax UKIP 664 17.2
Total Votes 3852
Electorate 9153
Turnout% 42.7

Holderness Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Hunter Conservative 1089 30.8
Pitchley Labour 2450 69.2 Elected
Total Votes 3539
Electorate 9453
Turnout% 38.2

Hoober Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Hamilton Labour 1948 60.4 Elected
Pallant UKIP 572 17.7
Scutt Liberal 155 4.8
Taylor Conservative 549 17.2
Total Votes 3224
Electorate 8962
Turnout% 36.3

Keppel Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Cutts UKIP 866 23.5
Kaye Labour 1812 49 Elected
Middleton Liberal 314 8.5
Robinson Conservative 699 18.9
Total Votes 3691
Electorate 9275
Turnout% 40

Maltby Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Beaumont Labour 1881 59.2 Elected
Burke BNP 388 12.2
Conlon 215 6.7
Johnson Conservative 322 10.1
Kirk Independent 370 11.6
Total Votes 3176
Electorate 8994
Turnout% 35.7

Rawmarsh Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Baldwin BNP 327 10.4
Hamilton Labour 1911 60.6 Elected
Nichols UKIP 470 14.9
Taylor Conservative 446 14.1
Total Votes 3154
Electorate 9461
Turnout% 33.5

Rother Vale Ward:

Rother Vale
Name Description Votes Vote%
Hunter Conservative 562 18.3
Ridgway Independent 628 20.4
Swift Labour 1884 61.3 Elected
Total Votes 3074
Electorate 9039
Turnout% 34.4

Rotherham East Ward:

Rotherham East
Name Description Votes Vote%
Dodson Labour 1951 64 Elected
Ilyas Liberal 328 10.7
Kramer Conservative 269 8.8
Ross JLDP 128 4.2
Stevenson BNP 369 1.1
Total Votes 3045
Electorate 8988
Turnout% 34

Rotherham West:

Rotherham West
Name Description Votes Vote%
Foden Labour 2130 61.9 Elected
Middleton Conservative 368 10.7
Vines UKIP 941 27.4
Total Votes 3439
Electorate 9204
Turnout% 34.7

Silverwood Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Jones Conservative 750 21.3
Stone Labour 1700 48.1 Elected
Wilkinson UKIP 1079 30.6
Total Votes 3529
Electorate 9502
Turnout% 37.4

Sitwell Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Gilding Conservative 1899 43.3 Elected
Khan Labour 1545 35.3
Wilkinson UKIP 938 21.4
Total Votes 4382
Electorate 9427
Turnout% 46.8

Swinton Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Brown Conservative 463 13.5
Doyle Labour 2135 62.4 Elected
O’Dell UKIP 823 24
Total Votes 3421
Electorate 8939
Turnout% 38.4

Valley Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Lakin Labour 2034 64.8 Elected
Pearson BNP 468 14.9
Todd Conservative 639 20.3
Total Votes 3141
Electorate 8979
Turnout% 35.2

Wales Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Beck Labour 2089 54.3 Elected
Flynn UKIP 600 15.6
Shaw Conservative 1160 30.1
Total Votes 3849
Electorate 8613
Turnout% 45

Wath Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Bailey UKIP 917 26.1
Higgins Conservative 524 14.9
Sangster Labour 2080 59 Elected
Total Votes 3521
Electorate 9135
Turnout% 38.9

Wickersley Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Dowdall UKIP 483 12.5
Foulds Independent 1058 27.5
Read Labour 1717 44.5 Elected
Ross Conservative 596 15.5
Total Votes 3854
Electorate 9205
Turnout% 42

Wingfield Ward:

Name Description Votes Vote%
Guest BNP 514 17.1
Hammond Conservative 363 12.1
Sharman Labour 1648 54.8 Elected
Vines UKIP 481 16
Total Votes 3006
Electorate 8993
Turnout% 33.6