Southport

2015 Result:
Conservative: 12330 (28%)
Labour: 8468 (19.2%)
Lib Dem: 13652 (31%)
Green: 1230 (2.8%)
UKIP: 7429 (16.8%)
Others: 992 (2.2%)
MAJORITY: 1322 (3%)

Category: Marginal Liberal Democrat seat

Geography: North West, Merseyside. Part of the Sefton council area.

Main population centres: Southport.

Profile: The northern part of Sefton borough council, following the coast up west of South Ribble. Southport is an up-market seaside tourist town, with the second longest pier in Britain and six golf courses. Less brash and more genteel than nearby Blackpool, it has also become a commuter town for Liverpool and Preston.

Politics: A Conservative seat for most of the time since the First World War, it was finally won by the Liberals in 1987 (Ronnie Fearn having previously contested the seat four times) and has since been a marginal Lib Dem/Conservative contest, returning to the Tories in 1992 but being won back by Fearn in 1997.


Current MP
JOHN PUGH (Liberal Democrat) Born 1948, Liverpool. Educated at Prescott Grammar School, Maidstone Grammar School and Durham University. Former RE and philosophy teacher. Sefton councillor 1987-2001, former leader of Sefton councillor. First elected as MP for Southport in 2001.
Past Results
2010
Con: 15683 (36%)
Lab: 4116 (9%)
LDem: 21707 (50%)
UKIP: 2251 (5%)
MAJ: 6024 (14%)
2005*
Con: 15255 (37%)
Lab: 5277 (13%)
LDem: 19093 (46%)
UKIP: 749 (2%)
Oth: 827 (2%)
MAJ: 3838 (9%)
2001
Con: 15004 (36%)
Lab: 6816 (17%)
LDem: 18011 (44%)
UKIP: 555 (1%)
Oth: 767 (2%)
MAJ: 3007 (7%)
1997
Con: 18186 (36%)
Lab: 6125 (12%)
LDem: 24346 (48%)
Oth: 571 (1%)
MAJ: 6160 (12%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

Demographics
2015 Candidates
DAMIEN MOORE (Conservative) Born Cumbria. Educated at University of Central Lancashire. Supermarket manager. Preston councillor.
LIZ SAVAGE (Labour) Born 1973, Liverpool. Educated at St Bedes RC High School and Bradford University. Teacher. West Lancashire councillor since 2011.
JOHN PUGH (Liberal Democrat) See above.
TERRY DURRANCE (UKIP)
LAURENCE RANKIN (Green)
JACQUELINE BARLOW (Southport Party)
Links
Comments - 440 Responses on “Southport”
  1. PT “I’m not saying you can’t get a price…” – Good, because you implied that above when you said “If they have any sense they won’t offer them”

    But even your example is wrong: in fact oddschecker often advertise enhanced multiple odds on football because contrary to your suggestion it’s actually v unlikely for a team to win all 3 hence the great odds on offer (to attract punters).

    It’s – obviously – rare for it to happen, but has happened in most sports. IIRC that fat bookie wrote a book about how he lost all of his money when Dettori went thru the card and he’d accepted huge acca bets.

  2. The Dettori example you gave is not a good one as it’s not the same team. It’s Dettori with 6 or 7 different partners.

  3. bm11 – In Alyn & Deeside I heard of at least 2 occasions on the doorstep of people saying they weren’t voting for the Conservative candidate “because we don’t need anymore of that lot”

  4. Deep – same jockey = same Party.

    7 horses = 7 different seats and candidates.

    I’m aware of the theory, but thankfully it doesn’t apply as we have different swings in each seat.

    You implied bookies would be mad to offer the resultant high % odds – but that’s precisely what they do on a daily basis. It’s simply rare for it to come off and as I said a treble in a GE in most instances would only result in a 4/1 bet not a 800,000/1 bet.

  5. CRAY HOPCROFT

    “Imagine going back to 2015 and being told that Labour would have just over 200 seats in December 2019, and Putney and Battersea would be among them”.

    Labour still won Battersea in 1983 when they only won 209 seats, and Hyndburn, Bolton North East, Wolverhampton North East, Dewsbury, Barrow, Bridgend, and Bury South, etc, all voted Conservative. Of course, Battersea was very different then. It was a combination of Battersea North, which was safely Labour, and Battersea South, which was very marginal, and had swapped sides several times. Northcote Road had a market which operated daily, with several traders still operating from barrows on the pavement. By 1987 though, people who couldn’t afford Chelsea and Fulham had started arriving, and the Conservatives took it. Putney I think was won by David Mellor by over 7000.

  6. LANCS: Firstly don’t misquote me. It was POLLTROLL who wrote that (at 5.15pm yesterday) not me!

    And whether the accumulator results in 4/1 accumulated odds or 800,000/1 is irrelevant. No bookmaker would accept an accumulator on constituencies at the advertised prices. It would have to a special price, called a combined price. And this would be hard to obtain btw.

    Plse educate yourself on ths matter by reading carefully the Ladbrokes link I posted above.

  7. And by re-reading POLLTROLLs comments on page 8, as he is correct.

  8. Or that Labour would have a smaller majority in Normanton than Canterbury and lose kensington by a smaller majority than leigh.

  9. Deep – fair enough, but PT absolutely is not correct.

    His hypothesis is the direct opposite of the prospective bet I sought! He said bookies would be silly to offer such a bet (due to the high liability – but that is precisely what multiple bets are and why they are offered).

    If you sought eg 3 Cons gains or 3 Lab holds (in seats acc to polls) you would be offered low odds and deservedly so ie the bookies would be right in doing so, as all would be Evens or less (odds-on).

    I would have sought – as I said – an unlikely double or treble based on my psephology etc and thankfully they have agreed that they will be accepted over the ‘phone and if not, simply ask to speak to a dealer/manager.

  10. It would’ve been nice if you had apologised for misquoting me.

    And you stated POLLTROLL was wrong when he quite correctly wrote : “Quite sensible that bookies don’t allow accumulators for politics because the results of varying seats aren’t independent”.

    This is after you wrote, naively: “…it would have been 800/1 for Leigh, Redcar & Hyndburn in a Tory treble!”

    And quite frankly I don’t believe that you have got an agreement from a bookmaker for accumulators on seat betting.

    Is this the Tory world we can all look forward to till 2024? Mistakes, followed by misdirection and arrogance with no humility?

  11. ‘Is this the Tory world we can all look forward to till 2024? Mistakes, followed by misdirection and arrogance with no humility?’

    Yup! Still, at least you get Brexit out of this. Someone like me doesn’t even have that consolation.

  12. Deepthroat – thankfully something doesn’t cease to be a fact simply because you don’t like or believe it. I have the email and that is a fact.

    I stated PT was wrong, because he was. PT claimed – and you agreed he was right – that bookies don’t offer sports bet multiples in that way and shouldn’t offer politics multiples (due to the exponential liability). In fact they do.

    He was also wrong, as you were to claim that you won’t get as good as odds. Actually, you get even better odds because bookies offer enhanced odds or boosts for every extra leg you add to a multiple bet above a treble. This is the case with Unibet and 4 others, as again I checked.

    I had thought I had already explained why he was wrong and why, with evidence (but the above is for the benefit of other readers who may wish to place bets in future).

    Indeed even the specific example he went on to assert was also false – as I checked. I can bet on eg Lpool winning the next 3 games and place a treble on the same and the odds are offered are better than merely multiplying the single bet odds.

    But then I recall after the EU Ref, I had to explain to you that most £ had been placed on Remain – due to City hedge funds – when in fact more people had bet on Leave due to small bets ie the wisdom of the crowd. So no, I don’t need to ‘educate’ myself on betting given that I have won 90% of the political bets I have placed over the past 15 years.

  13. It’s actually not rocket science. Of course bookies want to offer huge odds, in order to entice punters in for the albeit small prospect of a huge win.

    The only reason the fat bookie I mentioned lost everything – when Dettori went thru the card at Ascot – is cos he was a sole trader.

    Ladbrokes and other huge orgs simply offset their liabilities elsewhere. Indeed, there’s even a firm that allows people to bet on any lottery in the world. Now that company doesn’t go and buy you a lottery ticket with the numbers you select in Spain or Hungary – they simply take out insurance against the very unlikely event that your numbers come up.

    Where political betting differs from sports betting is that those with inside knowledge such as players or jockeys are barred from betting on the latter, whereas psephologists and MPs are not barred from the former. But I suppose Shadsy et al rely on believers from Momentum or Remainains betting on their own side, irrespective of the evidence, so that the bookie may still win overall.

  14. BM11 – you’re right.

    In fact, so far, I’ve counted 8 seats where ethnic Cons PPCs failed to gain the seat but the (white) Brexit % was quite large.

    One name rang a bell too: I think Kash Ali was the failed Tory candidate from the Oldham by-election?

  15. Yeah it’s same guy. The tory share of the vote and votes received even went down in Halifax. The only bame tory gain was Wakefield.

  16. “Yup! Still, at least you get Brexit out of this. Someone like me doesn’t even have that consolation.”

    Cheer up. You sound like someone who is doing OK in life so look on the bright side. You won’t have Prime Minister Corbyn reposessing your house for non-payment of his emergency 80% land value tax, and Tescos isn’t going to be nationalised.

    I’m happy that so many northern towns finally decided to throw the red-rosetted donkey off a cliff after decades of Labour taking them for granted. By showing willingness to throw out their complacent political establishment they will be rewarded with some much needed attention and investment – good for them. Here deep in the southern Tory shires – I hope our blue rosetted donkeys take careful note.

  17. If the Tories ever lose government in the future it will probably involve losing some southern true blue seats.

  18. Undoubtedly

  19. HH- maybe I got the tone all wrong. I’m fine, and was happy Corbyn and his crew didn’t get into power. I was dreading that more than Brexit and Johnson’s crew of hard right cronies like Raab and Patel to be honest, although I’m perfectly happy to.admit the latter doesn’t please me either. Perhaps Lancs is right…there aren’t just enough centrist liberals like me around to have any impact on elections. C’est la vie. And yes I am appreciative of what I have, as I’m sure you are.

  20. LANCS. You seem incapable or more probably unwilling to understand the concept of “related contingency”.

    There’s a big difference between selecting three seats to be won by a single party in a GE and a team winning three consecutive football matches and expecting an accumulator to be paid out AT THE ADVERTISED INDIVIDUAL PRICES.

    So what I’m saying is, for example: CON to win:
    SEDGEFIELD 3/1
    BISHOP AUCKLAND 5/1
    NW DURHAM 6/1

    Accumulated, this is a 168/1 treble.

    But no bookie would offer you a treble on those CON GAINs esp since they are contiguous constituencies. You would have to call up and ask for a ‘combined prce’.

    This price would be about 10/1, at the most, rather than 168/1.

    I find it difficult to believe someone who says they are a succesful and experienced politics punter who exclaims: “Apparently it would have been 800/1 for Leigh, Redcar & Hyndburn in a Tory treble!”

    I hope now you an finally admit you were wrong and apologise to both me and PT.

    Or at the very least shut up on the matter.

  21. “But no bookie would offer you a treble on those CON GAINs esp since they are contiguous constituencies. You would have to call up and ask for a ‘combined prce”. And I’m sorry I would have to see the evidence before believing that you’ve received an approval for accumulators on seat betting I elections.

  22. And on related contingency…remember a GE is essentially one event. 3 football wins are three separate events and are not normally considererd related enough to warrant rules under related contingency betting rules.

  23. And if you are a highly successful politics punter with a 90% success date, I’m surprised your vets are accepted. I had some good success on GE2015 but not huge amounts and I was more or less blocked by Ladbrokes. After my success in EU2016, two no bookies now offers me more than a couple of pounds on seat betting and my account is severely restricted when I’m betting on other political bets.

  24. LANCS: “In fact, so far, I’ve counted 8 seats where ethnic Cons PPCs failed to gain the seat but the (white) Brexit % was quite large.”

    Interesting, would you mind naming the seats, would save me a lot of time. Thanks

  25. Deepthroat: why would I apologise to PT when I pointed out why he was wrong – and even you have gone on to agree by saying it wasn’t you who stated his points:

    a) that bookies would be mad to accept multiple politics bets; and
    b) that the football bet he mentioned wouldn’t be offered (which it in fact is).

    I can hardly misquote you, when I didn’t even quote you in the first place! I actually said fair enough, when you retreated from backing PT points by distancing yourself and specifically saying it wasn’t you who claimed that.

    The only point you were correct on is that bookies won’t accept such bets online: which is what I stated in my reply. I was told that I should call and ask to speak to a dealer or manager who has knowledge of politics bets, but that they will accept the proposition (a politics seat multiple bet) next time.

    The only tip I can give you is shop around (see oddschecker). Most of my bets were only £5 – £20 staked on Parl by-elections from Oldham etc so I’m hardly breaking their bank.

    Happy to, although bm11 has named most of those seats on here so far.

  26. Tristan – don’t worry, there’s plenty of you about and you still disproportionately fill the BBC, law, Civil Service, etc.

    But in seat terms, it is a problem that most liberals tend to inhabit Camden, Muswell Hill, Islington, Oxford, Brighton, Bristol, Manchester, Glasgow etc.

    Just look at the Green majority in Brighton or Thangam D’s in Bristol West compared with the result there a decade or two ago.

  27. The new wards added here are all small and are about the same combined as one existing ward.

  28. “Tristan – don’t worry, there’s plenty of you about and you still disproportionately fill the BBC, law, Civil Service, etc.

    But in seat terms, it is a problem that most liberals tend to inhabit Camden, Muswell Hill, Islington, Oxford, Brighton, Bristol, Manchester, Glasgow etc.”

    Those places are mostly where the relatively poorer liberals live. There is a more elite class of filthy rich liberal, to be found in the likes of Richmond, Barnes, Kensington, Westminster and Hampstead. A producer at the BBC is likely to live in Muswell Hill, an obscenely paid top presenter or the Director General will live in Kensington or Richmond (indeed Chris Patten is “Lord Patten of Barnes”).

    A feature of this election has been that a fair few of the filthy rich liberal seats remain Tory controlled. Watching high paid BBC presenters grimacing while interviewing Corbynista politicians, I find myself imagining how little they will want to pay Corbyn’s taxes on the rich, and probably secretly voted Tory.

  29. Good God Hemmy, do you understand how much you sound like some Novara Media fluffer with that last comment?

    Look at the way the Corbynite left views Laura Kuenssberg – not as a dedicated public servant, but a class enemy ripe for the gulag. Indeed, they increasingly see the whole BBC as a saboteur which they must “reform” (ie convert to their oen personal Pravda). I’m sure plenty of beeboids voted Tory, but I’m equally sure that their motivations for doing so went well beyond a selfish desire to hoard wealth.

  30. “Look at the way the Corbynite left views Laura Kuenssberg – not as a dedicated public servant, but a class enemy ripe for the gulag.”

    You’re the one who voted for them mate!

  31. “I’m equally sure that their motivations for doing so went well beyond a selfish desire to hoard wealth.”

    How many billionaires and multi millionaires do you know? I have spent 20+ years working for them. I own a 5 bed house in the home counties and yet (in my work life) I am far poorer than anyone else I know or work with!! My experience is that your belief in the altruism of the exceptionally wealthy is very naive indeed, whatever virtue signalling they might post on twitter.

  32. Fair point, but equally I imagine there’s a big difference between your corporate clients and the people who work for the BBC, who are rich but are in no way “billionaires”; and who, moreover, are a self-selecting sample of people who prefer the public service ethos of the BBC to more lucrative opportunities with commercial rivals.

  33. “I imagine there’s a big difference between your corporate clients and the people who work for the BBC, who are rich but are in no way “billionaires”; and who, moreover, are a self-selecting sample of people who prefer the public service ethos of the BBC to more lucrative opportunities with commercial rivals”

    I very much doubt that much of that is true, except the billionaire point. Commercial rivals often aren’t more lucrative than the BBC, on the contrary they are subject to dwindling ad revenues and don’t have the cushion of a guaranteed licence fee income.

  34. The BBC is a clear sign of Horseshoe politics- Corbynties and ERG fans have a similar hatred of it.

  35. Clearly so. I’m a fan but nevertheless its funding model is unfit for the netflicks age and will need to be addressed eventually. Given the likelihood of a majority Tory government until at least 2029, the BBC will have to build bridges with the Tory right if it isn’t going to be butchered up.

  36. ‘I’m a fan but nevertheless its funding model is unfit for the netflicks age and will need to be addressed eventually’

    Me too and whilst what you say is undoubtedly true I’m wary of doing anything to the BBC that might diminish its status as the best broadcaster in the world ‘by miles’

    And let’s face it – any organisation that can attract equal hatred from both the ERG and the Corbyinites must be doing something very right

  37. This Corbynite support state broadcasters. Should be funded more progressively

  38. I only hope you don’t mean State broadcaster in the Russian/Iranian/Zimbabwean/N Korean sense!

    As much as Abbott reading the News would amuse.

  39. I meant the BBC

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)