Birkenhead
2010 Results:
Conservative: 6687 (18.93%)
Labour: 22082 (62.51%)
Liberal Democrat: 6554 (18.55%)
Majority: 15395 (43.58%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 20093 (64.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 5933 (18.9%)
Conservative: 5256 (16.8%)
Other: 58 (0.2%)
Majority: 14160 (45.2%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 4602 (16.6%)
Labour: 18059 (65%)
Liberal Democrat: 5125 (18.4%)
Majority: 12934 (46.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 4827 (16.7%)
Labour: 20418 (70.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 3722 (12.8%)
Majority: 15591 (53.8%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 5982 (15.2%)
Labour: 27825 (70.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 3548 (9%)
Referendum: 800 (2%)
Other: 1168 (3%)
Majority: 21843 (55.5%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Frank Field(Labour) Born 1942, London. Educated at St Clement Danes Boys Grammar School and Hull University. Prior to his election worker as a teacher and Director of the Low Pay Unit. Hounslow councillor 1964-1968. Contested South Buckinghamshire 1966. MP for Birkenhead since 1979. DHSS spokesman 1983-1984 before becoming Chair of the social services/security select committees for much of the 1980s and 1990s. Following the 1997 election he was made Minister of State for social security, with a brief to “think the unthinkable”. He resigned from the government the following year, reportedly having been refused a promotion to Secretary of State. He has subsequently been a consistent internal critic of the Labour government, leading the rebellion over the 10p tax rate and criticising Gordon Brown`s leadership. He is seen as something of a semi-detached member of the Labour party – he was a young Conservative in his youth, serves on the board of a free-market think tank (Reform), has praised Margaret Thatcher and is occassionally touted as a potential defection to the Conservative party. In 2009 he dropped out of the race to be speaker because of a lack of support from his own side of the House (more information at They work for you)
Andrew Gilbert (Conservative) Solicitor and lecturer. Huntingdonshire district councillor since 2006.Frank Field(Labour) Born 1942, London. Educated at St Clement Danes Boys Grammar School and Hull University. Prior to his election worker as a teacher and Director of the Low Pay Unit. Hounslow councillor 1964-1968. Contested South Buckinghamshire 1966. MP for Birkenhead since 1979. DHSS spokesman 1983-1984 before becoming Chair of the social services/security select committees for much of the 1980s and 1990s. Following the 1997 election he was made Minister of State for social security, with a brief to “think the unthinkable”. He resigned from the government the following year, reportedly having been refused a promotion to Secretary of State. He has subsequently been a consistent internal critic of the Labour government, leading the rebellion over the 10p tax rate and criticising Gordon Brown`s leadership. He is seen as something of a semi-detached member of the Labour party – he was a young Conservative in his youth, serves on the board of a free-market think tank (Reform), has praised Margaret Thatcher and is occassionally touted as a potential defection to the Conservative party. In 2009 he dropped out of the race to be speaker because of a lack of support from his own side of the House (more information at They work for you)
Stuart Kelly (Liberal Democrat) Electrician. Wirral councillor. Contested Ellesmere Port and Neston 2001, Birkenhead 2005.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 84124
Male: 47%
Female: 53%
Under 18: 25.3%
Over 60: 20.4%
Born outside UK: 3.2%
White: 97.9%
Black: 0.3%
Asian: 0.5%
Mixed: 0.6%
Other: 0.7%
Christian: 79.2%
Full time students: 2.7%
Graduates 16-74: 14%
No Qualifications 16-74: 35.5%
Owner-Occupied: 59.8%
Social Housing: 26.3% (Council: 16.5%, Housing Ass.: 9.8%)
Privately Rented: 11.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 16.4%
Think we might just hold this one.
I wouldnt be so cocky. In light of what is about to happen in Ealing Southall-you may get a few councillors defecting to the opposition
Oh dear – the trolls are out in force now, eh? Even as used as I am with Focus letters and their claims (I don’t agree with all of ‘em, you know….) it will be a cold day in Hell before Birkenhead went Tory!
Liam,
What is about to happen in Southall???
Do voters not get a say these day?
Yes, tell me what’s going to happen in Southall? In any case I’ll find out when I canvass there on Thursday.
I only posted that tell to see if anyone seriously thought Birkenhead could be lost. Not that surprised though that someone actually thinks it could happen.
I think it was teh 1987 General election that the BBC flashed Birkenhead up as a Liberal (or SDP?) gain. Presumably the researchers they employed were prepared to seriously believe this could have happened – you would think that anyone with the most basic knowledge would have smelt a rat.
The only way there could be a Conservative MP here would be for Frank Field to defect.
Which although I certainly don’t expect it would make more sense than Quentin Davies’ defection.
The fight here is to be second- last time the Liberals edged in partly because of a poor Conservative Candidate. The Liberals on the new boundaries get a boost from the inclusion of the two Prenton boxes gained from Wirral West at least in local Government terms. In their Wirral West days, St. Stephens went Conservative while Prenton Dell went Labour at General elections but Lib Dem at local. The other Liberal stronghold is Oxton which has solidly returned Lib Dem Councillors since 1979 with one near scare in 1984. The Conservative have not had a Councillor in the old constituency since 1984-1988 which was in Claughton Ward although between 1991 and 1996, the old Prenton elected two Tories
In a General Election would estimate that in Birkenhead and Bidston Wards, the Conservatives will be a poor second, in Oxton, it will be a three way fight while in Claughton the Conservatives will be a good second and in Rock Ferry, the Conservatives will edge it over the Liberals. To work out who will be second depends on the national trend. Currently I ezxpect the Toiries to be back in 2nd place although as always Frank Field will have this time a low five figure majority
Curious that the Conservatives have not disintegrated here as they have done in more affluent places on the opposite side of the Mersey.
I’ve just seen Pete’s comment about BBC researchers. I think the answer to that is that the people employed to type the results into the computers don’t have to have any knowledge of British elections, so it’s quite possible for them to make that kind of mistake.
I have had an otherwise apparently rational person claim that the BBC newsflash in the 1981(?) GLC election that the Liberals had won Bermondsey was not due to the obvious cause stated by Andy, but was a slightly distorted piece of genuine psychic foreknowledge of the result of the parliamentary by-election two years later. (The conversation was during the byelection campaign, so I was told afterwards that it constituted a genuine prediction – that there was ample other evidence to foretell the result did not diminish the fervour of the claim).
As someone will undoubtedly ask, the person in question originated from California and was an avid student of the cinematic work of Ronald Reagan.
I ahdnt heard about that Bermondsey ‘result’ in 1981 – that is peculiar to say the least. I do remember that bermondsey was also one of those the BBC falsely called as a Labour gain, perhaps in 1992 which is ironic.
It doesnt just happen here. I remember also in 1992 in the US election abour a dozen styates had been called for Perot before somebody realised surely there was some mistake.. (ands this wasnt a case of the US networks just stating what the result should eb int heir opinion, as in 2000 where they were suggesting Gore was about to win verywhere and seemed quite put out that the electorate hadnt done what they were told)
I was born in Birkenhead. Frank Field was the MP here even when I was born here. Whatever happens to the fortunes of the Labour party, he still remains popular. He maintains a high media profile and as one person in our party put it “says all the right things”.
He is in a very safe seat (and will be there for some time to come).
But he’s been pretty critical of Gordon Brown and his government… aren’t local Labour members even a little irritated?
During his reselection battles during the 1980′s there was an argument in the Tabloid press that if Frank Field (due to his work with the Child Poverty Action Group) is not left wing enough for Labour,then who is?
Frank Field has always been something of a maverick. He has particular disagreements with brown with regard to targetted and means-tested benefits. he is also very anti-Europe.
I do sometimes wonder what keeps him in the Labour party, but like other maverick MP’s (Kate Hoey comes to mind) they would be equally maverick in other parties. Field’s universalism in terms of social security would be strongly opposed by the Tories, and his little Englander stance would make him unwelcome in the LD’s.
As I have mentioned on the Vauxhall thread, Frank Field and Kate Hoey are apparently risking expulsion from the PLP, as their membership of “IWantAReferendum” is incompatible with holding the Labour whip.
It will be interesting to hear a member of the government explain how trying to honour your manifesto commitment is incompatible with holding the Labour whip
The manifesto commitment was to have a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty before it was ratified. It did not refer to something of lesser status, so it is not being broken. It would be a waste of money to have a referendum on an abandoned Treaty which is not going to be put into effect.
The EU reform treaty may be unpopular with the press but The electorate couldn’t care less. By labouring the point the Tories look increasingly isolated, especially as the Lib Dems have decided to back the government.
If it’s a Constitutional measure which gives away significant powers from the existing democratic framework in Parliament, then the electorate should in principle have a say, Keith, whether it’s boring or not.
People might care about it when they find afterwards that it affects other policies.
Your argument is very arrogant, but understandable if the government wishes to rush this through. As for the Lib Dems, they are unprincipled and will say anything to cause difficulties for the other parties, but if they have any views on this, I think we know they’d like to sign up to it and more.
It’s very doubtful whether the Lisbon Treaty can be said to transfer “significant powers” away from the UK to the European institutions. Its main effect is to change around the way the EU decides things.
Given that you capitalise “Constitutional” this would seem to imply that any agreement in whatever form which had the effect claimed, would be a Constitution. In that case every European treaty would be a Constitutional Treaty.
I thank David Boothroyd for setting out a proper argument, unlike the overly partisan one from Keith.
I very much doubt I’d agree that these are insignificant, however.
Re Frank Field – I’d be surprised if he actually changed parties actually.
Yes, its ironic that Keith has decided to make his point about the Tories being ‘isolated’ on this issue on the constituency thread of one of the few Labour MPs that are supporting their calls for a referendum.
It does go to show what a state the government is in, that its supporters are so vile towards Field and Hoey-whose only crime has been to take the committment made in the last Labour manifesto seriously. It seems that sticking to their promises is not compatible with membership of the Labour government under Brown.
The promise was to have a referendum before the Constitutional Treaty was ratified. The Constitutional Treaty having been abandoned, it is not capable of ratification, so the manifesto promise has been discharged.
The manifesto did not promise a referendum on any future amending treaty. Saying that there is any binding manifesto commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is not taking the manifesto seriously.
This difference between the constitution and the treaty is completely artificial though and 99.9% of the public outside of the Labour party seem not to beleive that particular bit of spin.
As I understand it, the new treaty with the British red lines is almost exactly the same as the old constitution document with the red lines that we had put down for that.
Are Labour members really so gullible that you only have to change the name of something for them to beleive a radical change to have taken place?…on second thoughts, that was the basis of much of the Blair government’s record over the last decade. They removed a lot of what the Tories had done in their first couple of years and then spent the rest of their time putting everyting back under a new name. I suppose most Labour supporters bought that without a fuss, so why should the constitution be any different?
The Lisbon Treaty is fundamentally different from the Constitutional Treaty because it is an amending treaty that merely changes existing treaties, whereas the Constitutional Treaty was a document which started from scratch. The reason a referendum was to be held on the Constitutional Treaty was its status and not its provisions.
Can you quote to me the percentage of the Constitutional Treaty which is contained in the Lisbon Treaty?
No of course I can’t off the top of my head. I’m sure I can find a few quotes for you with the percentage in when I get home. I seem to remember Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics having a lot to say about it though and I would be surprised if it were not something like 90% the same document.
Unfortunately, with the government seeking to deny people a referendum, the facts of the treaty have not become wideley known unless you actually go through and read it (which I certainly have no intention of doing). Having restricted the debate to parliament, they are now trying to limit it there as well.
Personally, I don’t care what content of the treaty/constitution is. We should get a referendum on ALL important EU treaties as a principle of our constitution, that way, the Lib-Lab snakes would not be able to slip out of their bond with the people.
No, the percentage figures being quoted are an entirely different calculation – they purport to be the percentage of the Lisbon Treaty that was in the Constitutional Treaty. I am asking for the other way round: the percentage of the Constitutional Treaty that is in the Lisbon Treaty.
The really good thing about the UK constitution is that it is not written down, so it can be varied depending on the circumstances, although there are some established ways of behaving. It is for instance only a convention that EU treaties have to be submitted to Parliament for ratification at all. It is technically possible for the government simply to ratify using prerogative powers.
I doubt that it is ever possible for the details of a rather dull amending treaty such as Lisbon to be sufficiently known and understood by the electorate such that it takes an informed decision. Referendums are really for matters of high principle where the effect is obvious. If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected, then we would still be bound by the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Nice Treaty – a fact which those opposed to Lisbon do not wish to give publicity to.
I hope you won’t find this too rude, but you do sound like someone telling me why my insurance policy turns out not to cover the claim that I’m making.
I do find it rude that you don’t contest the point I’m making, instead attempting to make a meta-point about it in order to attempt to damage its credibility. I take it the reason you don’t contest the point is that you can’t contest it.
There isn’t going to be a referendum, and there should be no future referenda about anything.
We have a representative democracy. Not plebiscite populism.
I’m not a member of any party, but IWAR have pledged themselves to campaign against Labour MP’s
And the misguided promise was a referendum on the constitution, not this treaty. But it should have never been promised in the first place.
Hoey and Field are anti-EU. That is their agenda.
I agree with Sean, rather unsurprisingly perhaps – but I do find that David Boothroyd is the lady that proetests too mcuh on this issue. I am, like many on this site and those of it’s type, highly repsectful of David Boothroyd ordinarliy because he is a sound authority on electoral history and has an excellent website which is a resource we all beneift from. But I find on this occasion he is wearing the hat of the Labour party whips office rather too tightly round his head.
Frank Field seems to be doing his best to get rid of Gordon Brown, especially after today’s comments where he said he’d be surprised if Brown is still in Downing Street at the start of the next general election campaign.
I think this seat could be a Con gain next time, with the momentum working through from Wallasey.
Frank and Gordon have not been best pals ever since a row they had when FF was a minister at the treasury in the early days of the Blair governemnt. I think Frank lost his ministerial job after this.
As for Gordon’s future I think the result at Crewe will be decisive. If Labour lose then I doubt there will be many in the party who fancy being slowly destroyed until the next election as it would be doubtful that we could ever break the Tory momentum. No matter how much Gordon is respected in the party his unpopularity could seriously damage both the party and the country. A challenge I think would be unlikely so a change in leadership would only come if Gordon stood down.
If however Labour win in Crewe then attention will turn to the Tories. They would have to justify why they did so well in the locals but could make no real gains in a by-election. The clear point to make here would be that although people want to chastise labour in the locals the Tory’s have not won confidence enough to be trusted in government. Remember that Gordon’s ‘bounce’ really only started after Cameron did so badly in the Ealing and Southall. If the same happens in Crewe it could be de-stabalising for them.
The Tories must be confident though, the last poll here had them 4% ahead.
Joe-I am wondering why you think Birkenhead could fall to the Tories?
Not really…!
For the record, this is a very safe Labour seat.
Fair enough!
I’m not sure the Tories can be all that confident in Crewe&Nantwich on the basis of that poll. 4% ahead is not a huge lead to have in a by-election poll. If that was the actual result it would only be a majority of about 1,000 votes on a 40% turnout.
but a win is a win!!!
Andy that may be but it would be a Tory win nevertheless and a substantial one which would have clear benefits to their party psychologically.
I think the Dunwoody effect probably is present in Crewe and Nantwich. It looks like the LDs are being held in check.
Tories should take it by about 1-2,000, but it will probably revert to Labour.
For Frank Field, it is more a very strong disagreement with Brown’s means-test based strategy in terms of social security benefits.
My point was that if the margin in C+N predicted now is only 1,000 votes or 4% then that can easily be overturned between now and polling day, which would give Labour a bit of encouragement. If the poll had shown them 10% behind they probably would have given up any hope of victory. I wasn’t contesting the fact that a win is a win, which it certainly would be for the Tories.
I not inclined to take that ICM poll as gospel.
I’m still predicting a 16% swing to the Conservatives there at the moment. The changes in share of the vote in Crewe and Nantwich in 2005 were remarkably in line with the national trend, and I see no compelling reason why that should change – especially as it is now has the makings of a classical Tory/Labour marginal. YouGov are currently showing the second largest Tory lead in polling history (26%). After their prediction of the London mayoral election, I trust them.
Henley is more difficult to predict though. I’m sure it will a Conservative hold, but unlike C & N the LibDems are in second place there and the result will be more dependant on the strength of the campaigning there.
The adjustment because of the boundary change here is very kind to the Lib Dems in that it boosts their result by assuming that in Prenton Ward voting is consistent in different elections. The evidence of Prenton when it was in Wirral West was that the St.Stephens box was one of the Tories best while Prenton Dell would vote Liberal locally and Labour nationally and at the same time in national elections the Tories would be 2nd.Indeed on the old Prenton Ward while it was in Wirral West from 1974 through to 2003, Labour only won it twice (1981 & 1988). At Wirral Councillevel from 1974 through to 1984 it was Tory and then in 1986 and 1990 it went Lib Dem, Tory in 1991 and 1992 and Lib Dem since. It is somewhat complicated by the fact that one Lib Dem Member crossed over to Labour in the early 1990s
The fight here is to be 2nd.
The Lib Dems have selected Wirral councillor Stuart Kelly here.
I am a Birkenhead lad originally
Question here – just an academic exercise – is what would happen here if Frank was not carrying on. Birkenhead is a mix of areas of need and some really nice parts such as Oxton and Claughton.
Labour to hold on – possibly not I think.
Any thoughts here?
Richard, I really cannot see anything other than a safe Labour seat here. The only time it may not be so would be if Frank Field stood as a non-Labour candidate against a new Labour candidate. Then it would be very interesting….