Aldridge-Brownhills
2010 Results:
Conservative: 22913 (59.31%)
Labour: 7647 (19.79%)
Liberal Democrat: 6833 (17.69%)
Green: 847 (2.19%)
Christian: 394 (1.02%)
Majority: 15266 (39.52%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 17774 (48.1%)
Labour: 12062 (32.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4579 (12.4%)
Other: 2561 (6.9%)
Majority: 5713 (15.5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 18744 (47.4%)
Labour: 13237 (33.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 4862 (12.3%)
BNP: 1620 (4.1%)
UKIP: 1093 (2.8%)
Majority: 5507 (13.9%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 18974 (50.2%)
Labour: 15206 (40.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 3251 (8.6%)
Other: 379 (1%)
Majority: 3768 (10%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 21856 (47.1%)
Labour: 19330 (41.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 5184 (11.2%)
Majority: 2526 (5.4%)
Boundary changes: only the most minor boundary changes, with part of St Matthew`s ward and an insignificant sliver of Pheasey Park Farm transferring to
Profile: Aldridge-Brownhills is a seat of two halves – Aldridge is an affluent and highly Conservative dormitory town made up a middle-class suburbia while Brownhills to the North of the constituency is a former coal mining town which tends to vote Labour. The other commuter villages in the constituency also tend to be Tory, particularly Street, which borders on the rock solid Tory territory of Sutton Coldfield.
Current MP: Richard Shepherd(Conservative) born 1942, Aberdeen Educated at Isleworth Grammar and the LSE. Unmarried. Is the director of a food retail business and a former member of Lloyds. Shepherd started out in politics as an assistant to Sir Teddy Taylor. He stood himself in Nottingham East in 1974 and was successfully elected for Aldridge-Brownhills in 1979 (the same election that Teddy Taylor lost Glasgow Cathcart). He is an independently minded libertarian, a long term supporter of freedom of information and a Euro-sceptic. He was one of the 8 Conservative MPs who had the whip withdrawn from them under the Major government for rebelling over Europe. In 2000 he unsuccessfully stood as Commons speaker, being nominated by Martin Bell (more information at They work for you)
Richard Shepherd(Conservative) born 1942, Aberdeen Educated at Isleworth Grammar and the LSE. Unmarried. Is the director of a food retail business and a former member of Lloyds. Shepherd started out in politics as an assistant to Sir Teddy Taylor. He stood himself in Nottingham East in 1974 and was successfully elected for Aldridge-Brownhills in 1979 (the same election that Teddy Taylor lost Glasgow Cathcart). He is an independently minded libertarian, a long term supporter of freedom of information and a Euro-sceptic. He was one of the 8 Conservative MPs who had the whip withdrawn from them under the Major government for rebelling over Europe. In 2000 he unsuccessfully stood as Commons speaker, being nominated by Martin Bell (more information at They work for you)
Ashiq Hussain (Labour) Derby councillor 1997-2004. Awarded the MBE for services to Derby 2004.
Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat)
Karl Macnaughton (Green) Born 1975, Solihull. Educated at Park Hall School and Wolverhampton University.Sue Gray (Christian Party) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 74224
Male: 48.6%
Female: 51.4%
Under 18: 21.5%
Over 60: 24.7%
Born outside UK: 2.8%
White: 96.6%
Black: 0.5%
Asian: 1.9%
Mixed: 0.7%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 81.5%
Sikh: 0.9%
Full time students: 1.9%
Graduates 16-74: 12.9%
No Qualifications 16-74: 36.9%
Owner-Occupied: 77.4%
Social Housing: 17.7% (Council: 16%, Housing Ass.: 1.7%)
Privately Rented: 2.5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 9.7%
Indeed, an extremely impressive result for Mr Shepherd. This must be the highest share of the vote and majority (numerical or percentage) that he has ever had? Looking at the figures it looks like there has been a drop in turnout, but still a very good performance.
“This must be the highest share of the vote and majority (numerical or percentage) that he has ever had?”
Definitely.
“Looking at the figures it looks like there has been a drop in turnout…”
According to the font of all knowledge (otherwise known as Wikipedia
) the turnout was in fact slightly up; so it would appear that the electorate of this seat has actually fallen. I don’t know how accurate that is.
not sure about that,
would population still be going down in Brownhills? – more likely missing people on the register I guess.
Tory share of the vote is certainly several points higher than in 1979 to 1992 (I think 1992 was the highest of those 4 elections). I wonder whether that makes it an all time high.
I suspect the lack of ‘rightist’ parties played a part – they got 2713 votes here in 2005 and would have probably received over 3000 if they had stood again.
Tory share higher than Sutton Coldfield for the first time ever I think.
Noticed a mistake in the description at the top of the page, which says “Street” not “Streetly”.
I think this result will turn out to be something of an aberration.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there aren’t any boundary changes brought in for the next election, so this seat is exactly the same as in May. I’d say that Richard Shepherd is likely to retire at the next election, and the new Tory candidate would likely face a UKIP candidate, possibly also a BNP candidate. If both those parties had contested the seat this year, they could’ve got around 9% of the vote at least (they got almost 7% in 2005), reducing the Tory share to 50%. At the next election I wouldn’t be surprised to see Labour return to at least 25% of the vote. Combine those assumptions and the majority falls to around 25% – similar to in the 1980s.
And that’s assuming no adverse effect from boundary changes.
some of the issues you state are correct but the labour vote collapsed. interestingly labour got more votes in the local elections in this seat than in the general.
The Labour Party selected completely the wrong candidate for this constituency and that is refelcted in the results. They only exist in one of the wards and are hardly active there. Even some Labour clubs in this constituency did not put Labour posters up (i am told tacit support for other parties). The lib dems could have come 2nd here with a little more push.
Whoever ran the Labour campiagn got it very very wrong personally attacking Richard Shepherd and campaigning about Fox Hunting (something that is a hot topic on the doorsteps round here – not)
Mr Hussein was obviously trying to get a profile with Walsall Labour for when Bruce stood down – hard luck there then
The by-election for the Rushall Shelfield ward took place on the 11th November, which is a ward the Conservative’s have held for some time, although it is not one of their safest wards. It was a close run thing with only 28 votes between the Conservative and Labour candidates, the Conservative candidate only just held on to it.
For some reason, and they are not say why, the Liberal Democrat’s chose not to stand, which makes me wonder if their vote went to Labour. If this was the case, and they had the intention of helping their new Tory chums, then it may have been a tactic that almost backfired.
What puzzles me, however, when the electorate have a choice of voting none racist UKIP or racist BNP, why do more of them choose the nasty option as they did in this vote? Are they so disgusted with the three main parties they just want to shock by voting for the nastiest party they can find?
I have put a posting with all the results on my blog at: http://derekbennetteu-sceptic.blogspot.com/2010/11/another-by-election.html
Close shave in Rushall-Shelfield ward as the Tories held off a Labour challenge by just 28 votes. This was a swing of 6% to Labour since the general election, higher than opinion polls are showing.
Though to be fair the Tory vote share was unchanged, with a big swing from LD and BNP to Labour.
(according to the report on ConHome)
That’s true, but that’s what is essentially happening out there; the Tory vote in all but a few polls is unchanged or up since May, Labour has gone up at the expenses of the LDs & others.
Agreed
Has Aldridge been in;
Lichfield 1918 – 1950
Walsall South 1950 – 1974
Aldrdige-Brownhills 1974 – present
Shepherd didn’t half do well here in 2010. Mind you he has a good track record. The swing against him in ’97 was ‘just’ under 8% and he retained over 47% of the vote.
I know for a fact that Richard Shepherd expected to lose his seat in 1997.
I went to university with a Tory activist from Aldridge Brownhills, with whom I happened to be walking down the Strand shortly after the 97 election when we bumped into Shepherd walking the opposite way.
He described his result as “a real miracle”.
I cannot imagine there are many, if any, more Tory MPs who expected to lose in 97 yet didn’t. There are a great many who lost who never ever expected to lose – one of many being my own former MP Jacqui Lait.
I don’t think Michael Fabricant was particularly confident of winning Lichfield in 1997.
I enjoyed that little anecdote, H Hemmelgi!
Incidentally, Shepherd’s vote fell by under 7.5% which suggests his independent-mindedness did him no harm in that neck of the woods.
Absolutely….the other decisive factor was that the referendum party understandably did not stand against him (as a prominent Euro-rebel).
In many seats in 1997 the Referendum party got 2 or 3 thousand votes.
It also suggests that the Richard Shepherd was a lot more realistic about Conservative chances prior to 1997 than was usual in the party.
One of the things that annoyed me most about the Major-Heseltine-Clarke was the arrogant complaceny it exuded.
The former deputy chairman of Kingston & Surbiton Conservative Association told me that Richard Tracey had expected to win the seat by 10,000 (he actually lost by 50 votes to Ed Davey)
Another possible example of a Tory MP who might have expected to lose in 1997 is David Heathcoat-Amory in Wells, whose majority was only 11.5% in 1992.
Possibly Eastbourne might have been expected to fall in 1997 aswell.
I’m sure Solihull was expected to be “Con hold”
but that’s another matter.
I think H-A survived in Wells in 97 because of the higher than expected Labour vote for Eavis of Glasto fame.
‘I cannot imagine there are many, if any, more Tory MPs who expected to lose in 97 yet didn’t.’
Michael Shersby in Uxbridge was apparently wary, althoiugh he held on (just) and given the scale of their gains, I was surprised Meriden didn’t go Labour
If they had been a by-election in Meriden instead of leaving the seat vacant due to the death of Iain Mills in early 1997 then Labour would have gained it and then held it at the General Election.
I suspect a lot of them overestimated their personal vote to a degree and were probably a little surprised on the day but having said that, when 5 figure majorities started being swept away there can’t have been too many who weren’t at least slightly nervous.
“when 5 figure majorities started being swept away there can’t have been too many who weren’t at least slightly nervous”
I remember on the 1997 election coverage both Gillian Shepherd looking rather down as though she expected to lose and even John Redwood looking as though he were fighting for his political life.
Neither of them would have probably seriously expected to lose during the campaign however.
All I remember about John Redwood from that coverage was footage of him walking around talking on his mobile, the suggestion being that he was planning his leadership campaign even at that stage (which probably wasn’t true but that was certainly what was suggested!)
Yes I had fogotten that. Perhaps he was just upset about what was happening nationally then. There was at least one scene of him talking to supporters in the hall in which he looked worried. But I can’t remember if that was before the telephone scenes or after.
Who knows? They all would have been nervous, as I expect all politicians at all levels are at election counts (even if you’re miles ahead the next 3 boxes could be those ones packed with votes for your opponent with none for you!)
Thing is though that the BBC would have given the impression they wanted. Not hard to find an MP or candidate looking worried at an election count, just as its not hard to find one speaking on the phone. Its not showing whether the worry was justified by the ballots just as its not showing who is on the other end of the phone
“All I remember about John Redwood from that coverage was footage of him walking around talking on his mobile, the suggestion being that he was planning his leadership campaign even at that stage (which probably wasn’t true but that was certainly what was suggested!)”
Remember that everybody expected a fight between Portillo and Heseltine for the leadership after the 1997 election. Nobody expected Portillo to lose his seat, which threw the contest wide open to others on the right such as Redwood. With Portillo suddenly out of the race, Redwood most likely urgently needed to get going on an unplanned campaign.
The day after the general election, Heseltine had a heart attack which also ruled him out for the leadership.
Had Portillo or Heseltine not suffered their misfortunes at that election, they would have become party leader and the Tory party’s time in the wilderness would most likely have been shorter and less painful.
‘Had Portillo or Heseltine not suffered their misfortunes at that election, they would have become party leader and the Tory party’s time in the wilderness would most likely have been shorter and less painful.’
Not sure about that
The Michael Portillo of 1997 was a very different character from the Michael Portillo of today and i suspect he might have made the Tory even more unpopular had he led the party
He was his defeat afterall that made him rethink his ways
Redwood leading the party after 1997 would have been worse than Hague as at least Hague did not have an almost vilian like character in the press that seemed to follow John Redwood. Personally I do not think that Portillo would have made much difference to Tory fortunes following the landslide. Ken Clarke would have been the best person to lead the party at that time (and I am not a big fan of Ken) as he was praised for being an effective chancellor. He was also more moderate than many of the leading Tories at that time and could have come across as a knowledgeable and experienced leader capable of challenging Tony Blair.
I agree with Tim. The Portillo of 1997 was not as electable as the Portillo of 2001. And although I really admire Redwood, he was never leadership material (one could compare him with Sir Keith Joseph). Given Clarke’s views on Europe, Hague was the only viable candidate to lead the party. The logical conclusion is that to some extent, 2001 was unavoidable. Opportunities for the Tories only started to open up around 2002.
“Given Clarke’s views on Europe, Hague was the only viable candidate to lead the party.”
Why wouldn’t you judge Michael Howard to have been a viable candidate?? If it hadn’t been for Ann Widdecombe and the “something of the night” business, plus Hague’s duplicity, he could easily have won the 97 leadership election.
Hague shouldn’t have done the dirty on Howard and remained as his running mate. If he hadn’t have done that he might even be PM now.
yawn
Not this Tim Jones discussion all over again about the Tories in 1997/2001
‘Not this Tim Jones discussion all over again about the Tories in 1997/2001′
if you don’t like it don’t join in
unlike the others commenting, you seldom have much of any interest to say on such subjects anyway, apart from harping on about negative campaigning by lib dems, which is hypocritical given you support a party that in the past has had no qualms about running wholly negative campaigns when it suits them and have thought nothing about playing the race card, the gender card and slinging as much mud as they can against whoever they happen to be up against.
What was it the lovely Peter Griffiths said to voters in the 1960s?
To be fair today’s Tory party is no worst or better than the other three parties – amd they could have been a lot more negative in the latest general election campaign – but to try and make out that the Lib Dems have a monopoly on negative campaigning is wishful thinking on your part
“Had Portillo or Heseltine not suffered their misfortunes at that election, they would have become party leader and the Tory party’s time in the wilderness would most likely have been shorter and less painful.”
I disagree.
Portillo and Heseltine were regarded as particularly arrogant and detestable faces of the Conservatives at that time.
Portillo improved as a human being through losing but not as a politician.
It could be said that the same experience happened to Hague in 2001.
As a pro-coalition libdem sympathising tory I would confidently agree that the liberal electioneering is considerably more dirty than labour (or in my opinion) us.
The misleading bar charts, ridiculous claims and predictions and trying to make out what a nice friendly bunch the LDs are all while smearing and being negative are just awful. At least we and Labour dont pretend to be so damm nice
It’s not just dodgy claims and charts but deeply unpleasant personal smears aswell. They are very passionate and angry about something – but no idea what it is about. A sort of cotton wool brain middle class attitude but with a sprinkling of surprisingly rough looking activists aswell – I saw a fat man with an earing.
“Portillo and Heseltine were regarded as particularly arrogant and detestable faces of the Conservatives at that time”
Agreed.
If you take out Portillo’s defeat and Heseltine’s heart attack I’m not sure how much of a contest there would have been in 1997.
It could well have taken Lilley, Howard and Hague out of the race and possibly Ken Clarke as well, all of whom would probably have supported Portillo or Heseltine, and its not unthinkable that even they could have come to something of an agreement.
Its fair to say that neither were hugely popular, but the result shows that no Tories were popular anyway, so it was a case of choosing one unpopular person or another unpopular person. Can’t have been much worse than what actually did happen!
“Had Portillo or Heseltine not suffered their misfortunes at that election, they would have become party leader and the Tory party’s time in the wilderness would most likely have been shorter and less painful”
Well I don’t want to bore everybody by turning this into a re-run of the Witney thread. I’ll just say that that assertion is nonsense and leave it at that. If people want a re-run of the full arguments, they can be seen on Witney.