Amber Valley
2010 Results:
Conservative: 17746 (38.61%)
Labour: 17210 (37.45%)
Liberal Democrat: 6636 (14.44%)
BNP: 3195 (6.95%)
UKIP: 906 (1.97%)
Monster Raving Loony: 265 (0.58%)
Majority: 536 (1.16%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 20153 (47.7%)
Conservative: 14086 (33.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 5068 (12%)
Other: 2963 (7%)
Majority: 6068 (14.4%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 16318 (34.4%)
Labour: 21593 (45.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 6225 (13.1%)
BNP: 1243 (2.6%)
UKIP: 788 (1.7%)
Other: 1224 (2.6%)
Majority: 5275 (11.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 15874 (35.7%)
Labour: 23101 (51.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 5538 (12.4%)
Majority: 7227 (16.2%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 18330 (33.5%)
Labour: 29943 (54.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 4219 (7.7%)
Referendum: 2283 (4.2%)
Majority: 11613 (21.2%)
Boundary changes: the original boundary commission proposals had abolished the Amber Valley seat, moving Heanor to a new North Derby seat with Belper forming a new Belper and Ripley constituency. At review stage the Labour party`s alternative proposals which kept Amber Valley were accepted and the new Amber Valley seat loses Crich ward to
Profile: The Amber Valley constituency covers the towns of Alfreton, Ripley and Heanor and the surrounding countryside. All three towns are former coal mining areas and tend to vote Labour, but the more Conservative rural sections of the seat balance this out to an extent, making the seat a marginal.
Current MP: Nigel Mills (Conservative) Works for PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Amber Valley councillor. He was the partner of Gillian Shaw, the Conservative candidate in 2001 and 2005 who died in 2006.
Nigel Mills (Conservative) Works for PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Amber Valley councillor. He was the partner of Gillian Shaw, the Conservative candidate in 2001 and 2005 who died in 2006.
Judy Mallaber(Labour) born 1951. Educated at St Anne`s College Oxford. Worked as research officer for NUPE and at the local government information unit (more information at They work for you)
Tom Snowdon (Liberal Democrat) Born Hartlepool. Educated at Brinkburn Grammer School and Wolverhampton University. Chartered engineer. Contested Derbyshire North East 2005.
Sue Ransome (UKIP) Michael Clarke (BNP)Sam `Thing (Official Monster Raving Loony) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 84080
Male: 48.8%
Female: 51.2%
Under 18: 21.9%
Over 60: 21.6%
Born outside UK: 1.7%
White: 99.2%
Asian: 0.3%
Mixed: 0.4%
Christian: 75%
Full time students: 1.8%
Graduates 16-74: 11.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 37.3%
Owner-Occupied: 75.8%
Social Housing: 15.5% (Council: 12.6%, Housing Ass.: 2.9%)
Privately Rented: 5.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 6.8%
What were the wards of this constituency from 1983 to 1997, and from which districts?
Very interesting analysis on .. er Analysis on BBC Radio 4 about the loss of WWC support for Labour in this seat (and others like it). Richard in particular will find it interesting as it explores alot of the themes he has developed on this site
htttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zlgdl
Thanks for the link, sounds interesting.
Thanks Pete but you might have warned me that Woy featured.
I can’t see that ‘Blue Labour’ taking off as Labour has now become the apparchiks party and aisde from having different interests the apparchiks openly despise the WWC.
I agree that this argument is unlikely to win out in the Labour party, especially with Ed Miliband as leader, but it certainly well illustrated the issues we have discussed a lot here. I’m sorry to inflict Roy Hattersley on you. At the time I posted I didn’t even know he was on the show as I ahd heard only a snippet on Pick of the Week and posted the link to the full programme before actually listening to it myself (or actually while doing so). He’s quite as pompous and out of touch as ever
Here as in so many districts there should be significant Labour gains this year. However, the Tories almost certainly have too large a majority to lose control this year at least. Labour’s banker looks like Ripley ward but the party will hope for 2 gains in Belper wards as well. There is at least one other outside chance. It does seem that some of Labour’s better hopes don’t come up for election this year, and it will therefore be 2012 at the earliest when the Tories lose control. CON HOLD in this year’s elections.
I agree, Barnaby, although the Tories overall control will be on knife edge and will certainly be lost next year.
I’m not sure Labour will gain anything in Belper though. They may do, but equally they may not. Belper has been solidly Conservative in local elections for a while now I believe.
Having said that, I can’t remember off the top of my head how the wards went last year when the general election was on the same day.
I think last years results should be quite a good guide as to what will happen this year in most boroughs. Although there is no general election this time, Labour will do a lot better than recently because they are in oppostion-producing a similar sort of overall picture to the 2010 local elections.
2
whoops – that was interesting wasn’t it……. 2 of the Belper wards up for election this year were close enough in 2007 to suggest that Labour have a decent chance of taking them this year. It is however quite true Shaun that Labour has underperformed badly in the town for quite some time.
2010 results
Belper E – C 1533 L 818 LD 848
Belper S – C 1237 L 840 LD 816
Not sure Belper E is up this year. Central is though and is a Labour target, though the swing needed isn’t that small. South I think is up for election this year and is clearly a Labour target too, especially if the large LD vote can be squeezed which must be pretty likely.
I pretty much agree with Shaun.
Amber Valley will be close, definitely not a push over for Labour. It depends on the wards up for election, which I’m not really up to date on.
My hunch is that the western side of the borough will remain Conservative, including Belper. As in neighbouring Derbyshire Dales, a lot of the LD vote there will be quite friendly to the Tories.
The more industrial eastern side – Alfreton, Ripley and Heanor – will swing back more strongly to Labour, although the BNP and UKIP are also potential factors here too.
I have a lot of family in Amber Valley and have visited regularly all my life.
Most of the wards in the East which are up for election are already Labour-held and those which aren’t are very difficult targets, Ripley being the main exception.
Up for election this year –
Alfreton (Lab maj 476)
Alport (C – 512)
Belper C (C – 302)
Belper E (C – 307)
Belper N (C – 72)
Belper S (C – 246)
Crich (C – 306)
Duffield (C – 674)
Heage & Ambergate (C – 401)
Kilburn, Denby & Holbrook (C – 527)
Ripley (C – 40)
Ripley & Marehay (L – 117)
South West Parishes (C – unop)
Swanwick (C – 85)
Wingfield (C – 608)
I can’t quite believe the results in Amber Valley this year. thought I was looking at results from a few years ago at first!
There were a couple of close calls in Belper South and in Ripley, but the Tory performance here was far and away above what most people will have expected.
Ripley was probably considered a definate loss. The only question was how big Labour’s lead would be, so to win that one was particularly impressive.
Indeed the tories did quite well here and are surely now just about certain to hold on here with the boundary changes so labour would be more sensible to target Erewash.
Notional majority of 2300 was lower than I expected here actually for the redrawn constituency renamed Mid Derbyshire ( I expected around 4000).
Regarding Amber Valley council I assume the tories should hang on although it’s a real bellwether council in my view:
Con 23
Lab 22
Looking through the list of wards up this year, I’d have thought Labour should make around 6 gains minimum in Amber Valley. The two BNP of course and 4 Tories.
I agree with you.
I have a lot of family who live in Amber Valley. It has become very much a bellweather constituency, whereas the council district is slightly more Tory leaning due to the western wards not being part of the parliamentary seat.
Some of the demographic change here has been incredible. For example a large part of Swanwick ward consists of the industrial village of Ironville (where the ironwork for St Pancras station was made). When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, Ironville had a reputation as one of the roughest places in Derbyshire. Even in the 1980s the Tories would not have won its council ward in a million years, yet Swanwick ward has now been Tory held for quite a long time.
If Labour’s surging poll lead is reflected in the local election results, this is one of the places where we will see the impact.
I meant Riddings ward not Swanwick
I have Labour down to gain 7 seats in Amber Valley which would produce the configuration predicted by A Cairns. In order to take a majority Labour would need to win Belper East (where they were about 11% behind last year) or possibly one of the two seats which are up in Kilburn etc. In the latter they were 13% behind but a double vacancy offers greater opportunities. So not impossible for Labour to take outright control but it will be a very good night for them if they do
I noticed during the local election night and the following day that several Conservatives, including the Prime Minister made references to them holding Amber Valley council as a demonstration that they weren’t doing as badly (and by implication Labour weren’t doing as well) as the general feeling of the overall results was suggesting.
I was a little puzzled by this, as my memory of looking at this council before the election was that as only 1/3 of seats were up, and as the council is more Conservative than the constituency of the same name (because of territory from Derbyshire Dales?) – i had assumed that it was nigh on impossible that Labour ever could have gained Amber Valley council this time around. As such I was thinking that the claims above were a little sneaky!
Do others agree? Or Im a wrong and Amber Valley could have been a plausible target for Labour if they had done a little better than they actually did. For info I get a vote share for the Amber Valley constituency element of Amber Valley council of Labour 49%, Conservative 38%, Oth 10%, Lib Dem 3% (involves rolling forward figures for 2 wards that voted in 2011 but not this time and note Lib Dems only stood in 10 of the 15 wards up). So Labour clearly won the Amber Valley constituency element of the council
Maybe they should have referred to Swindon council instead to make their point? (contained 2 ‘swing’ seats and the whole council was up).
I agree with David.
One of the reasons why I favour all out elections – so the mandate and result is clear.
West Lancashire is another council the Tories held but which I suspect (like Plymouth which did change) had Labour ahead.
I’m in favour of all out elections but I think 4 years between them is too long for urban areas like Birmingham and Manchester – I think elections should be held every 3 years in those areas. Every 4 years outside the big conurbations is okay IMO.
I understand your point Andy but would be inclined to think that a democratic mandate should generally be the same in munipalities wherever they are.
municipalities*
“Do others agree? Or Im a wrong and Amber Valley could have been a plausible target for Labour if they had done a little better than they actually did. For info I get a vote share for the Amber Valley constituency element of Amber Valley council of Labour 49%, Conservative 38%, Oth 10%, Lib Dem 3%”
If you are correct, that is a marvellous result for the Conservatives in Amber Valley constituency in a mid term election. As currently drawn, Amber Valley is not naturally Conservative and would have been Labour in 1992. Some of that Labour vote will revert to Lib Dem in a general election and governments always improve on their mid term doldrums.
I agree. Another good result for the Tories here. They held on to at least one seat that many expected them to lose and came out with a majority higher than anyone expected.
Labour will take it next time though, but for now its another two years of Tory control in Amber Valley, taking them to a total of 14 years unbroken control by 2014.
I’d have thought in anyone’s book that has to be an extraordinary result.
Having said that, Amber Valley did fall out of labour’s grasp extremely quickly once they took power in 1997(They only controlled it for 3 years). Perhaps at a local level its just the norm for the Tories to perform well here.
If elections should be held on the same basis everywhere, I would then personally favour all-out elections every 3 years and that would therefore have to apply to the London boroughs as well.
Has Alfreton been in this seat since 1983, and which seats was it in before then?
It has been in Amber Valley since then yes. Wasn’t it in Ilkeston before that?
Yes it was in Ilkeston from 1950 to 1983, before that it was in Belper (1918-50) and Derbyshire Mid (1885-1918)
Was this quite possibly the only constituency in 2001 where all the candidates (3) were female?
Not quite, Liverpool Garston managed the same feat.
Of the nine county divisions in Amber Valley District three look to be safe Conservative on the new boundaries: Alport & Derwent, Duffield & Belper South and Horsley. Three look safe Labour: Alfreton & Somercoates, Greater Heanor and Heanor Central.
Ripely East & Codnor might have been Tory in 2009 but Labour should win next year. Belper meanwhile should be Conservative. I make the Tories ahead by just under 400 on district results in 2011 and 2012 (you have to use both sets of results as some wards are not contested in every round of district elections).
The closest contest will probably be in Ripley West & Heage. I make the Tories ahead by fewer than 200 votes on district results, largely due to the inclusion in the division of Wingfield ward. The ward is solidly Tory, and is certainly more use to the Conservatives in this marginal division than it is in the safe Alport & Derwent as is the case on the current boundaries.
One factor that will hold Labour back in most of Derbyshire (certainly here and in Erewash) is that the Lib Dems have been weak in so many areas for so long, so there is litte of their vote to squeeze.