Comment: A Storm In a Teacup? No, Rules on Candidacy Should Be Re-examined

Published on: 30 May, 2026
Updated on: 30 May, 2026

By Martin Giles

Our story about the eligibility of a Surrey County Council employee (Questions Raised About Successful West Surrey Candidate’s Eligibility) who stood as a candidate in the recent local election has caused a stir. And so it should.

Compliance with electoral law underpins our democracy. We only have to look at the United States to see how vulnerable elections can be, even in a well-established democracy.

Of course we are talking, in this instance, of a single candidate in a local election. But it is still important the rules are followed. One commentator on social media, Lib Dem Cllr Vanessa King, called the matter “a storm in a teacup” and proceeded to make an abusive ad hominem attack, labelling me “at best a gossip columnist”.

Such knee-jerk, Trump-like accusations are a common tactic of politicians when attempting to deflect from the real issue and I will leave others to assess the sagacity and accuracy of her remark, and what it tells us.

Here on The Dragon we are more interested in the truth, so let’s return to that.

Joanne Shaw was elected to the new West Surrey Council shadow authority as a Liberal Democrat representing Guildford East. It is a fact that questions have been raised about her eligibility to stand that they were raised before the election.

Key in this story , and not mentioned enough, is the response from Vicky Hibbert, assistant director for Governance and Democratic Services at SCC, in response to former R4GV county councillor Fiona Davidson on April 8. Hibbert told Davidson: “Based on the views gathered, it appears likely that a Surrey County Council employee would be ineligible to stand.

“Even though the new Council is a separate entity from Surrey during the Shadow year, it would still be involved in decisions related to the conclusion of Surrey, which would disqualify a Surrey employee from being elected as a councillor.

“However, we would advise all potential candidates to take independent legal advice in this situation.”

The social media comment By Cllr Vanessa King and some responses.

Ms Hibbert’s response is crucial. She did not rely solely on her own view, but sought a response from the Electoral Commission and Electoral Services Managers in Surrey, who specialise in this area.

Her conclusion was, and it bears repeating: “Even though the new Council is a separate entity from Surrey during the Shadow year, it would still be involved in decisions related to the conclusion of Surrey, which would disqualify a Surrey employee from being elected as a councillor.”

But it appears that neither SCC nor GBC, who Shaw notified of her intent to stand, felt able to tell her this because Electoral Commission guidance to those administering elections, quoted in GBC’s response to Davidson and copied below, places all the responsibility on the candidate:

The EC’s guidance to electoral administrators expressly states, as follows:

Accepting nominations at face value

You must not:

undertake any investigation or research into any candidate. Your duty does not go beyond seeing that a nomination form is correct on face value

You should not:

investigate whether a name given on a nomination form is genuine

You should:

disregard any personal knowledge you may already have of the candidate
determine nominations on the basis of the form itself

Paul Follows, the leader of the new West Surrey Council and its majority Lib Dem Group, told The Dragon that Shaw contacted the relevant bodies at GBC and SCC before standing for election and there was “no issue raised”.

But “no issue raised” does not mean that they confirmed she was eligible and was presumably why both SCC and GBC keep reiterating the line that “candidates are advised to seek their own legal advice on eligibility to stand for election”.

Unfortunately, Shaw has declined to tell us if that is what she did.

If she didn’t it might be considered foolhardy but the bigger issue here is whether the system is “fit for purpose”. Laws are often complicated and the overlap of the new shadow authority with the still existing Surrey County Council creates a additional complication.

Shouldn’t Jo Shaw, as an SCC employee, have been given clear advice on her eligibility. It would be in everyone’s interest to have done so. The current uncertainty helps no one.

Other council employees might wish to stand for other shadow authorities as the government’s recklessly rushed reorganisation rolls out. They should not face the same uncertainty as Jo Shaw.