Yet again, NOTA is the winner...

NOTA = None Of The Above

A number of local elections took place across England on Thursday May 1^st. As ever, the pundits are focusing on who ‘won’, with a particular emphasis on the much hyped rise of the self styled populists, Reform. What is striking about much of this punditry is how it seems to be avoiding the massive elephant in the room, the turnout, which was low, often hovering around the 30-35% mark. For a maverick like me with anarchistic tendencies, the turnout is, as has been the case many times in the past for me, the big story.

This is what I had to say after the local elections last year:

Firstly, they turn their backs... 4.5.24

Will the new councillors who will be taking their seats at City Hall for the first time pause to think about the low turnout in many of the peripheral areas of the city and resolve to find ways to bring the people there back in from the bleak margins? I'd like to think they would but somehow, I get the feeling that will not happen. Change will only happen when a tipping point is reached and things blow up.

Some brief thoughts on local elections and disengagement 27.4.24

All of this begs the question - who is going to fill the political vacuum in working class areas? At the very least, the thinking behind the old IWCA slogan - working class rule in working class areas - needs to be given some serious consideration. What also needs to be given some serious thought is whether that aim can be achieved within a system that's blatantly rigged, or whether more radical action is required.

You know what, it can get pretty tedious to keep on having to repeat what I’ve written about disengagement from the political process, low turnouts and the complete lack of legitimacy of the ‘winning’ ruling groups and mayors. I think the vast majority of people do actually ‘get it’ to be honest. It’s the pundits and some sections of the activist class who don’t ‘get it’ or, refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room that are the problem. Hence my having to write yet another piece on those who presume to rule over us having zilch in the way of legitimacy because the vast majority of eligible voters, taking in those who chose not to vote, have not given them their consent.

Where I live, there was an election for the mayor of the West of England Combined Authority (WECA). This authority is made up of delegated representatives from the local authorities that comprise WECA – Bath & North East Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bristol. The only directly elected position is that of the mayor. It’s a bit of an odd regional formation because the local authority where Bristol Airport is located, North Somerset, is not part of WECA. But, that’s a story for another day, and for someone else to write…

Helen Godwin (Labour) was the ‘winner’ in the WECA mayoral election which this time around, was done on a ‘first past the post’ basis. I’ve put quote marks around the word ‘winner’ for a very good reason as I’ll explain. Firstly, here’s a link to a breakdown of how the voting played out across the three authorities that make up WECA: How our different areas voted in the West of England mayoral election - The Week In | 2.5.25. Out of the eligible voters in the electorate, a total of 205,028 votes were cast. The turnout was 30%. Godwin received 51,197 votes. Godwin was elected on 25.5% of the vote amounting to just 7.5% of the total electorate. She can spin that any way she wants but, the harsh truth is that she has no meaningful legitimacy. As has been pointed out in this guest piece on B24/7: ‘Do we now have a mayor without a mandate?’ - Thom Oliver | B24/7 | 2.5.25.

The outcome where Godwin, the winning candidate for Labour, is backed by less than one in ten eligible voters highlights a major weakness in the current voting system’s ability to reflect the full breadth of political preferences across the region.

In Lincolnshire, there were elections for the county council and also, for the mayor of what has been dubbed, Greater Lincolnshire. Reform took control of the county council and also, the role of the mayor, filled by one Andrea Jenkyns. This is how these elections were covered: Reform take control of Lincolnshire County Council - Nathan Hemmingham | BBC News | 2.5.25 and: Greater Lincolnshire Mayor election results - BBC News.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of commentary from those who see the gains made by Reform as a slide towards ‘fascism’ through to those who see it as a welcome shake up of British politics. Yet again, what all of these commentators seem to have ignored is the turnout. In Lincolnshire, the turnout was 29.9%. Andrea Jenkyns, the new mayor of Greater Lincolnshire won 42% of the votes cast. More people voted against her than for her – that’s the first past the post system for you. When you set Jenkyns vote against the total electorate, taking in those who didn’t vote, her share falls to just under 12.6%. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?

Right, I’ve spent a fair bit of time looking at voting results, percentages and turnouts. Believe it or not, despite all of the above, I’m not an election nerd! I’m merely using the data gathered from the elections to make the point that people have lost faith in local and regional governance. The majority of eligible voters did not take part in the local and regional elections. They silently delivered their verdict on a system they perceive does not meet their needs, hopes and aspirations. Regardless of who won and where they won, the ‘winning’ ruling groups and mayors have no meaningful legitimacy. The voters have not given them a mandate to govern. The voters have in effect, rejected them. It was a case of None Of The Above thank you very much.

What happens next? Well, that’s an interesting question…