Pendle
2010 Results:
Conservative: 17512 (38.88%)
Labour: 13927 (30.92%)
Liberal Democrat: 9095 (20.19%)
BNP: 2894 (6.42%)
UKIP: 1476 (3.28%)
Christian: 141 (0.31%)
Majority: 3585 (7.96%)
2005 Results:
Labour: 15250 (37.1%)
Conservative: 13070 (31.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 9528 (23.2%)
Other: 3284 (8%)
Majority: 2180 (5.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 13454 (33.9%)
Labour: 17729 (44.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 5479 (13.8%)
UKIP: 1094 (2.8%)
BNP: 1976 (5%)
Majority: 4275 (10.8%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 14235 (30.3%)
Labour: 25059 (53.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 5460 (11.6%)
Referendum: 2281 (4.8%)
Majority: 10824 (23%)
No Boundary Changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Andrew Stephenson (Conservative) Educated at Royal Holloway College, University of London. Macclesfield Councillor from 2003-2007.
Andrew Stephenson (Conservative) Educated at Royal Holloway College, University of London. Macclesfield Councillor from 2003-2007.Gordon Prentice(Labour) (more information at They work for you)Afzal Anwar (Liberal Democrat) born 1974, Nelson. Barrister.Graham Cannon (UKIP)James Jackman (BNP)Richard Masih (Christian Party) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89248
Male: 48.8%
Female: 51.2%
Under 18: 25.7%
Over 60: 20%
Born outside UK: 8.1%
White: 84.9%
Asian: 14.1%
Mixed: 0.7%
Other: 0.2%
Christian: 65.4%
Muslim: 13.4%
Full time students: 2.5%
Graduates 16-74: 13.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 35.9%
Owner-Occupied: 75.1%
Social Housing: 12.7% (Council: 9.6%, Housing Ass.: 3%)
Privately Rented: 8.7%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 20.4%
Having watched past election nights on YouTube and the coverage last year, I have to agree with HH on the decline in quality of the BBC’s election programmes. Jeremy Vine is nowhere near as good as Peter Snow. Couldn’t they have asked his son to take over as he is just as likeable as his father and is perfectly capable of giving intelligent analysis as polls come in? I have no idea who would be a good replacement for Dimbleby once he calls it a day? Maybe Emily Maitlis could do a decent job of it?
Andrew Neill is one of the few figures on the right that I have time for simply because he’s totally bonkers! His bizarre asides to camera during This Week and The Daily Politics are always worth watching. I’m well aware that he probably has this stuff written for him but he manages to make it seem like his own material.
IMO Election night should mainly be about two things: showing declarations and showing textual results from seats where there aren’t any cameras. Of course there should be some expert commentary and interviews as well. Peter Sissons did a good job of that in 1992 I thought and Jeremy Paxman since.
The number of results being shown has been going down since about 1992 and I think that’s because they expert anoraks to use the internet to look up results.
I agree about the decline of election night programming. These days, it lacks any psephological sophistication. That is a shame because it makes for very superficial and rather ill-informed coverage.
I also agree with all of the above.
The BBC seem to think that viewers of election night programmes are not really interested in the ‘unimportant’ results where they do not have cameras, what we REALLY want to see is a group of celebrities and/or ‘ordinary’ people spouting off their own political views in some pub, cafe, marketplace or warehouse floor.
Of course there should be some space for those sorts of features, but not to the extene that they take-over from the results.
In these days of hundreds of satellite and cable channels, you would have thought that TV would be better at catering for detailed minority interests such as ours than when there were only three channels.
Instead, lack of resources has led to dumbing down and a race away from specialised intellectual programmes towards every channel showing the X Factor or Big Brother.
As Bruce Springsteen sang – “57 channels and nothing on”.
Yes, I often think of ’57 Channels’ when flicking through the tv menu. It’s increasingly a race to the bottom.
Too many repeats are being shown as well. I love watching NCIS, but it’s often an episode I’ve already seen.
Twenty years ago it used to excite me that the Americans had 85 channels and wished we could have that many in the UK. Now I’m not so sure.
BBC Parliament should put more emphasis on psephology and include live by-election coverage – including council by-elections. Some discussion of opinion polls and prospects for future elections would be of interest to us too.
I disagree somewhat there though. I think that the sort of coverage you talk about should be on BBC1 or BBC2 rather than segregated in the backwater of BBC Parliament or News 24.
BBC Parliament is for uninterrupted raw coverage. But lets be honest, 99% of the time that is tediously dull. We need the commentary as well and you can best do that with a well made BBC1 or BBC2 special.
I believe that with the BBC cutbacks proposals, BBC2 is intended to become much more orineted towards currant affairs, so we might well see a return to such quality political programmes all year around, and particularly during by-elections.
I meant to write “election anoraks” above rather than “expert anoraks”.
I thought you meant to write “expect anoraks” actually which is what I read it as?
Surely in the full context that would make sense, whereas the word ‘election’ there would not
“The number of results being shown has been going down since about 1992 and I think that’s because they expert anoraks to use the internet to look up results.”