Nottingham North

2015 Result:
Conservative: 7423 (21%)
Labour: 19283 (54.6%)
Lib Dem: 847 (2.4%)
Green: 1088 (3.1%)
UKIP: 6542 (18.5%)
TUSC: 160 (0.5%)
MAJORITY: 11860 (33.6%)

Category: Very safe Labour seat

Geography: East Midlands, Nottinghamshire. Part of the Nottingham council area.

Main population centres: Nottingham, Bulwell.

Profile: A largely residential seat curling around the north of Nottingham. This is essentially Nottingham`s council estate seat, dominated by large local authority housing developments like Aspley. While private ownership has increased through right-to-buy it remains a seat with one of the highest proportion of local authority owned housing in the country. Bulwell to the north of the seat was originally a seperate market town, but overtime has become a residential suburb of Nottingham.

Politics: Generally a safe Labour seat, Nottingham North was briefly held by the Conservatives after their 1983 landside, but has since reverted to type. The former Conservative MP, Richard Ottaway, would later become MP for Croydon South.


Current MP
GRAHAM ALLEN (Labour) Born 1953, Nottingham. Educated at Forest Fields Grammar School and Leeds University. Former trade union officer. Tower Hamlets councillor 1982-1986. First elected as MP for Nottingham North in 1987.
Past Results
2010
Con: 8508 (25%)
Lab: 16646 (49%)
LDem: 5849 (17%)
BNP: 1944 (6%)
Oth: 1338 (4%)
MAJ: 8138 (24%)
2005*
Con: 5671 (19%)
Lab: 17842 (59%)
LDem: 5190 (17%)
UKIP: 1680 (6%)
MAJ: 12171 (40%)
2001
Con: 7152 (24%)
Lab: 19392 (65%)
LDem: 3177 (11%)
Oth: 321 (1%)
MAJ: 12240 (41%)
1997
Con: 8402 (20%)
Lab: 27203 (66%)
LDem: 3301 (8%)
Oth: 637 (2%)
MAJ: 18801 (45%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

Demographics
2015 Candidates
LOUISE BURFITT-DONS (Conservative)
GRAHAM ALLEN (Labour) See above.
TONY SUTTON (Liberal Democrat)
STEPHEN CROSBY (UKIP)
KAT BOETTGE (Green)
CATHY MEADOWS (TUSC)
Links
Comments - 32 Responses on “Nottingham North”
  1. 2015 IMO:

    Lab 56
    UKIP 18
    Con 15
    LD 6
    Others 5

    Nottingham is VERY dependent on tax credits etc.

  2. I grew up in Nottinghamshire, and north Nottingham has been an utter shithole for as long as I can remember, meaning 30 years plus. Though it’s undoubtedly even worse now than it was then. The more visible decline however has been in the east and south constituencies, south especially, which was always the nice side of the city.

  3. I can’t see UKIP getting 18% of the vote here in a General Election, I’d be shocked to see them get over 10%

    Fancy them to beat the Lib Dems though.

  4. The obvious reason why 2010-2015 is 1979-1983 in reverse is because the SDP was formed in 1981 and UKIP surged in May 2013.
    Nothing difficult to understand here!

    The coalition parties have also been ‘tanking’ in Nottingham by elections this year!

    One of my cousins also has a psychology/sociology background and studied in Nottingham and now lives in Melbourne (so I know a lot about Australian politics and Crosby’s court cases over there as well).

  5. H Hemmelig, your comment about north Nottingham being an ‘utter shithole’ did amuse me. However your comments about South comprising what used to be the nice side of town intrigued me. Do you have many memories of what the South side was like? I live in Lenton now as a student and it’s a grotty, malattended area but you can tell in pre-student domination days that many streets would’ve been respectable suburban streets. Just wondered if you remember anything about what this patch of Nottingham used to be like, really.

  6. Green PPC for this seat is Kat Boettge, who was top of the East Midlands Euro elections list last year: http://www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/news/local/greens-challenge-mp-allen-1-7072172

  7. Labour Hold. 12,000 majority.

  8. What were the boundaries of this seat in 1955 and 1974?

  9. What were the boundaries of the old Nottingham North West which existed from 1950 to 1955?

  10. Wollaton Hall was in the old Nottingham North West which existed from 1950 to 1955, this seat comprised Broxtowe, St Albans and Wollaton wards

  11. List of MPs representing leave seats and voting against article 50:

    Graham Allen – Nottingham North – 64% Leave
    Mary Creagh – Wakefield – 62% Leave
    Paul Farrelly – Newcastle-under-Lyme – 62% Leave
    Chris Bryant – Rhondda – 61% Leave
    Ann Clwyd – Cynon Valley – 57% Leave
    Tom Brake – Carshalton & Wallington – 56% Leave
    Eilidh Whiteford – Banff & Buchan – 54% Leave
    Alan Whitehead – Southampton Test – 51% Leave

  12. Graham Allen is retiring
    Labour new candidate is local councillor Alex Norris

  13. Could be a tough seat here for Labour to hold. Strong Leave vote and New Candidate.

  14. That is a crazy thing to say. Labour will be just fine here.

    In general people should think twice before speculating on any seat with a Labour majority in excess of 20%. For these seats to fall would require a swing similar to what Tony Blair got, except *towards the government*. It is also a swing beyond what even the most optimistic of polls (or the most pessimistic, if you don’t relish living in a de facto one-party state) are predicting.

  15. Bulwell Forest Ward By-election, 19.10.17:

    Labour 1,420 54% (+8%)
    Cons 966 37% (+17%)
    UKIP 141 5% (-15%)
    Green 52 2% (-6%)
    LibDem 31 1% (-3%)

    Turnout: 24%.

  16. There were 2 other by-elections yesterday in wards within Nottingham North constituency

    Basford (resignation of Alex Norris who was elected MP in June)

    Lab 68.2% (+19.4% on 2015 using top candidates)
    Con 19.7% (-0.3)
    UKIP 5.8% (-10.3)
    Green 3.9% (-9.3)
    LD 2.4%

    Bestwood

    Lab 63.4% (+7.7)
    UKIP 14.9% (-7.0)
    Con 14.7% (-1.1)
    LD 2.8%
    Green 2.5% (-4.1)
    Bus Pass Elvis 1.7%

  17. The Conservatives failing to overtake UKIP here is very bad indeed…

    I wonder if UKIP had a local who was well known?

    Though that hasn’t really mattered much elsewhere.

  18. I think its sad that its got to this stage but Lancs blatant selective reporting has just reached a new low here. To report the one promising result for the Cons and then ignore the two other results in adjacent wards contained within the same seat and held on the same night…there is literally no excuse for posting one and not the other two.

  19. I find his selection of facts and statistics fascinating – particularly as he is a journalist with a national paper.

    But not in the way which is presumably intended.

  20. I’m not getting into slagging off Lancs, who does take the time and trouble to track these rather time consuming things and post them.

    The results here were quite interesting. Bulwell is the nicest part of this seat, on its northern boundary, in many ways more similar to Sherwood than inner city Nottingham. This result will perhaps give the Tories comfort in Sherwood and similar close marginal.

  21. Rivers10 – “there is literally no other excuse.”

    Er perhaps except for the simple fact that I post them when they come through on Vote 2007 or elsewhere before I go to bed.

    That is now the third occasion where you have accused me of something, when there is a very simple, logical explanation, if you had bothered to take any time to think about it rather than spouting off in faux indignation.

    If anyone else works late or happens to be up when results come through they can post them on here, as they usually do.

    James E – again untrue and whilst not as defamatory as what Tristan has said, if my name was ever used in any of these sentences, your post would be actionable.

  22. Oh get over yourself.

  23. Actually I was going to thank Lancs Observer for posting the results. I’ve had some harsh words to say to him but it is quite a lot of work to compile the results with percentage changes, and work out which constituency they belong to, and he does usually post all the results not just the ones most favourable to the Conservatives. I don’t think he has posted the result of the by-election in Meopham N ward on Gravesham council which was (hardly surprisingly) a very easy Conservative win.

  24. James E: “I find his selection of facts and statistics fascinating – particularly as he is a journalist with a national paper.”

    Lancs Observer: “James E – again untrue…defamatory.. ”

    No offence meant, Lancs.

    But what job do you actually do?

    :-0

  25. Lancs
    “Er perhaps except for the simple fact that I post them when they come through on Vote 2007 or elsewhere before I go to bed”

    I’d buy that if it wasn’t for the fact that Bulwell Forest declared 2nd of the three Nottingham wards.

    As for this being the 3rd occasion there’s been a logical explanation I’d be curious for you to clarify when these other occasions where? As I recall every time I’ve accused you of being generous with the truth you’ve either called me a naïve student or refused to respond.

    I don’t mean to be offensive its just this attempted veneer of impartiality when everybody here knows your political leanings and what’s more everybody here has their own strong leanings so their not gonna be swayed by you repeated attempts to modify reality to suit an agenda.

  26. Thanks Barnaby.

    Rivers10 – “declared” yes, but these were hardly balcony declarations that the BBC were waiting on. They were not posted online where I looked before bed (for the fairly obvious reason that the two safe wards were hardly newsworthy).

    Ok, let’s take the chronology in turn to see whether you have any cause for complaint:

    1. Four weeks ago Rivers10 complained that we don’t need to see safe ward by-elections being reported on here.

    2. Two weeks ago Rivers10’s new complaint was that posting ward by-election results was “spamming” the site and pleaded to have just the interesting ones posted on one page.

    3. Another poster disagreed and stated that not posting them on their correct constituency pages risked other readers missing the results the next day.

    4. Three days ago, Rivers10’s (as well as contradicting himself) then stated that I had deliberately ignored and not posted the results from the two safe Nottingham wards.

    I’s suggest the above might indicate to any objective readers, that almost whatever is posted, you’d still find something to moan about, however unjustified it happened to be.

    Incidentally, your latest slur is again untrue (“repeated attempts to modify reality to suit an agenda””) – so that’s now the fourth false accusation. I have always responded. Perhaps I naively thought you had accepted fault by your failure to respond at the time, when I had corrected you previously.

    There’s no reason why you should be aware of this but the Press Code is quite clear in our duty to be fair, accurate and impartial. Journalists are free to campaign and editorialise but it must be clearly stated where Opinion and not fact are stated. That’s something I do even if all don’t take seriously and even though I’m not writing on here in that capacity, I’d happily put my name to any statistics quoted as fact.

    http://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice

    I don’t believe I have ever called you a naïve student (so perhaps that’s a fifth false accusation); although, I recall agreeing with HH when he reminded you that some things you can only fairly comment upon once you have that experience of having worked full-time for a few years.

    After all, otherwise it’s merely based on hypothesis from what you have read (hence your lengthy academic posts on here in the past), rather than life experience. Yes, that may sound patronising to a 22-year-old, but it is also true which you’ll no doubt agree with in a decade’s time. That doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily alter your outlook, but it will at least then be based on reality rather than just having been raised by two trade unionist reps (as you said previously).

  27. “2. Two weeks ago Rivers10’s new complaint was that posting ward by-election results was “spamming” the site and pleaded to have just the interesting ones posted on one page.”

    I’ve myself sometimes complained about people spamming the site in the past but I don’t know how anyone could have such a complaint now. The site has turned into a graveyard, there a re some days now when not a single new comment is posted.

  28. Absolutely agree. I think more people would visit if the site were updated though there must be other reasons too. Clearly a site where it describes Canterbury as a “safe Conservative seat” for example is in urgent need to bringing up to date. The election was months ago. The endless off-topic discussions act as a deterrent to me to some extent, though clearly not to the people taking part in them. The main page is almost unreadable, you almost feel you’re intruding if you put an actual poll’s figures in there & they witter on regardless in many cases.

  29. And I hope you had an enjoyable birthday yesterday H.Hemmelig.

  30. Lancs
    I was inclined to respond with a rebuttal of your post (belive me I’ve been keeping a ally of this for a while and can quote multiple occasions when you have posted blatant lies on this site) but the comments from HH and Barnaby swayed me, this is ultimately a pointless and unpleasant discussion, if you are so adamant that you are impartial then prove it to me going forward.

  31. Thanks Barnaby

    Rivers – it’s always good to read your perspective so I hope you stick around

  32. HH
    Thank you, I enjoy your contributions too so I hope you stick around as well

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)