Birmingham Edgbaston
2010 Results:
Conservative: 15620 (37.57%)
Labour: 16894 (40.64%)
Liberal Democrat: 6387 (15.36%)
BNP: 1196 (2.88%)
UKIP: 732 (1.76%)
Green: 469 (1.13%)
Christian: 127 (0.31%)
Others: 146 (0.35%)
Majority: 1274 (3.07%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 17385 (43.4%)
Conservative: 15197 (38%)
Liberal Democrat: 5444 (13.6%)
Other: 2011 (5%)
Majority: 2187 (5.5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 14116 (37.5%)
Labour: 16465 (43.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 5185 (13.8%)
Green: 1116 (3%)
UKIP: 749 (2%)
Majority: 2349 (6.2%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 13819 (36.6%)
Labour: 18517 (49.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 4528 (12%)
Other: 885 (2.3%)
Majority: 4698 (12.4%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 18712 (38.6%)
Labour: 23554 (48.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4691 (9.7%)
Referendum: 1065 (2.2%)
Other: 443 (0.9%)
Majority: 4842 (10%)
Boundary changes: minor changes to bring the seat into line with the large number of adjustments to ward boundaries in Birmingham. Loses part of Sparkbrook to Hall Green, part of Ladywood ward to Ladywood and part of Selly Oak ward to Selly Oak. Gains part of Harborne from Ladywood and part of Bartley Green from Northfield.
Profile: Traditionally Edgbaston was a Conservative seat – it is a largely middle-class seat of leafy suburbs in the South-West of Birmingham and was held by the Conservatives for most of the twentieth century until falling to Labour in the 1997 landslide. It covers four council wards, Bartley Green, Edgbaston, Harbone and Quinton – the first three are safely Tory with Quinton more marginal, as it includes council estates like Woodgate Valley and Welsh House Farm. Parts of Edgbaston itself are also becoming more inner city in character, with more houses of multiple occupany and a higher proportion of ethnic minorites. The seat includes Bartley reservoir, Edgbaston Cricket Ground and the main campus of the University of Birmingham (although the bulk of the students don`t live in the ward – they are more likely to be found in Selly Oak).
The seat has been represented by a female MP since 1953: Edith Pitt was followed by Dame Jill Knight and now Gisela Stuart. Since the Conservative candidate is Deirdre Alden the tradition is likely to continue whoever wins the next election,
Current MP: Gisela Stuart(Labour) born 1955, Bavaria. Educated at Staat Realschule and Manchester Polytechnic. Moved to Britain in 1974. Lecturer. First elected as MP for Birmingham Edgbaston in 1997. PPS to Paul Boateng from 1998-1999, Junior heath minister 1999-2001. Along with David Heathcote-Amtony was on the steeting group of the European Convention that drew up the European Constitution, but was strongly critical of the constitution that finally emerged (more information at They work for you)
Deirdre Alden (Conservative) born Buckinghamshire. Educated at Wycombe High School and the Birmingham School of Speech Training and Dramatic Art. Freelance writer. Birmingham councillor since 1999 (as part of a family group – her husband John is a long serving Birmingham councillor and her son Robert was elected in 2006). Contested Birmingham Edgbaston in 2005.Gisela Stuart(Labour) born 1955, Bavaria. Educated at Staat Realschule and Manchester Polytechnic. Moved to Britain in 1974. Lecturer. First elected as MP for Birmingham Edgbaston in 1997. PPS to Paul Boateng from 1998-1999, Junior heath minister 1999-2001. Along with David Heathcote-Amtony was on the steeting group of the European Convention that drew up the European Constitution, but was strongly critical of the constitution that finally emerged (more information at They work for you)
Roger Harmer (Liberal Democrat) Birmingham councillor since 1995. Contested Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath 1997. 
Phil Simpson (Green) 
Greville Warwick (UKIP)
Trevor Lloyd (BNP)Charith Femando (Christian Party) Harry Takhar (Impact)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 90376
Male: 48.1%
Female: 51.9%
Under 18: 20.6%
Over 60: 19.8%
Born outside UK: 14%
White: 81.1%
Black: 4.7%
Asian: 9.2%
Mixed: 3%
Other: 2%
Christian: 65.6%
Hindu: 1.8%
Jewish: 0.8%
Muslim: 3.7%
Sikh: 3.7%
Full time students: 12.4%
Graduates 16-74: 26.1%
No Qualifications 16-74: 28.6%
Owner-Occupied: 55.9%
Social Housing: 29% (Council: 21.4%, Housing Ass.: 7.6%)
Privately Rented: 10.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 15.7%
There was a poll reported in the Manchester Evening News earlier this month that had found there to be greater support for a Mayor of Greater Manchester than for one just for the City of Manchester itself.
I’ve long thought that a mayor covering the whole of a metropolitan county is a more sensible idea than one bolted on to a single metropolitan borough. The former fill a gap in democratic accountability that exists in the current set up. What the latter achieve is less clear.
I do however I take the point alluded to above that many of the metropolitan counties cover places that feel no affinity with their respective metropolitan county and would therefore be likely to oppose such a move. I think there would be support for the idea of a Mayor of Greater Manchester and one for West and South Yorkshire, but not for any of the other metropolitan counties.
“And yet Bromley, Barnet, Havering etc are relatively happy to come under the mayor of London’s jurusdiction”
Bully for them. That’s no reason to presume consent for the rest of the country however.
Reading Adam’s comment above, it strikes me that he seems to want much of the West MIdlands includinmg within the Birmingham boundaries. I’m tempte to wonder when the boundary will reach us up here in Stoke!
I’ve said it before,and I will say it again, the only reform to local government that I would welcome would be a REDUCTION in the size of boroughs. Birmingham should be losing Sutton Coldfield, not expanding to take in all and sundry villages and towns in neighbouring authorities. Why now bung West Bromwich in there whilst you’re at it?
The poll is here: http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1490248_manchester-split-over-boris-johnson-style-elected-mayor-men-poll-finds
It’s quite badly reported and it’s not clear what the methodology used was.
I totally agree, Shaun.
“Bully for them. That’s no reason to presume consent for the rest of the country however.”
I’m not presuming any such thing. It seems that you and Richard are presuming that there would be uniform hostility when the evidence – see the poll Kieran links to – is more mixed.
My own view is that the abolition of metropolitan county councils has created a problem in terms of high level strategic planning in these areas. It was recognised early in London with the creation of the mayor and GLA, and this model might be a good one for the other large metropolitan areas too.
“My own view is that the abolition of metropolitan county councils has created a problem in terms of high level strategic planning in these areas”.
Yes, and I don’t really understand why all of the major parties seem reluctant to propose the idea of mayors for the former met counties. The model has clearly worked in London.
“Reading Adam’s comment above, it strikes me that he seems to want much of the West MIdlands includinmg within the Birmingham boundaries. I’m tempte to wonder when the boundary will reach us up here in Stoke!
I’ve said it before,and I will say it again, the only reform to local government that I would welcome would be a REDUCTION in the size of boroughs. Birmingham should be losing Sutton Coldfield, not expanding to take in all and sundry villages and towns in neighbouring authorities. Why now bung West Bromwich in there whilst you’re at it?”
I know the Sutton Coldfield area very well and whilst it’s easy to see that Sutton has a different local identity from Birmingham, it is part of the physical West Midlands conurbation, so it would be unwise to transfer it back to Warwickshire, and it is too small to have its own unitary authority. And can it be proven that the union between Sutton and Brum has failed? I don’t think it has.
As a matter of interest, are you in favour of splitting Sandwell back in to Warley and West Bromwich unitaries? If you applied the same logic regarding Brum and Sutton, that’s what would happen. And would Halesowen and Stourbridge become independent from Dudley and Aldridge and Brownhills independent from Walsall?
Adding West Bromwich to Birmingham is just silly because you’re crossing the psychological barrier between Birmingham and the Black Country. I’ve only added to Birmingham a few small villages that are geographically part of it’s urban area but not currently within it’s boundaries. I’ve already ruled out adding Cannock to the metro area, so there’s no need to worry about Stoke.
“it is part of the physical West Midlands conurbation, so it would be unwise to transfer it back to Warwickshire”
I’m suggesting no such thing. Sutton Coldfield would I think not be connected to Warwickshire on any part of its boundaries, so such an idea is clearly absurd. It would have to be a unitary authority unless other smaller authorities between in and Warwickshire were also created.
“and it is too small to have its own unitary authority”
Well I honestly don’tr know off the top of my head, but I guess each of the 4 Sutton wards include around a 25,000 electorate. A total electorate of around 100,000 voters is not in my view too small for its own local authority. Indeed, its exactly what I would propose all over the country!
“As a matter of interest, are you in favour of splitting Sandwell back in to Warley and West Bromwich unitaries?”
Yes, sounds good to me.
“If you applied the same logic regarding Brum and Sutton, that’s what would happen. And would Halesowen and Stourbridge become independent from Dudley and Aldridge and Brownhills independent from Walsall?”
Now you’re getting the idea!
“I’ve already ruled out adding Cannock to the metro area, so there’s no need to worry about Stoke”
I was of course joking there. Don’t worry, I didn’t seriously think you’d propose that.
Adam
I seem to have started something here but I agree with almost all that you say.
Coventry however is not part of Greater Birmingham but is a separate city. Don’t get hung up on the boundaries of the 1970s “metropolitan counties” either here or in Manchester, Merseyside, or Yorkshire.
There is absolutely no reason why the London model could not be replicated in our other big cities.
‘There is absolutely no reason why the London model could not be replicated in our other big cities.’
Really? Try telling that to the people of Southport, St Helens and Wirral.
Ps John: you certainly have started something here! And I’m grateful to you because it’s an interesting and important debate.
“I think there would be support for the idea of a Mayor of Greater Manchester and one for West and South Yorkshire”
I’ve read some imbecility in my time at this site but rarely have I seen it reach the level of proposing a ‘Mayor of South Yorkshire’, or perhaps Kieran wants to go further and create a mayor for south and west Yorkshire combined?
What that would effectively mean would be to recreate the old deeply disliked and deeply useless South Yorkshire metropolitan county.
Now perhaps the people in the west midlands and greater Manchester and Merseyside think of the whole as greater than the parts but the 9 met boroughs in south western Yorkshire are all natural and discreet entities with individual traditions and local prides.
What this whole thing has an aura of is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titianic.
The UK has many fundamental and critical problems. It would be rather better to concentrate on solving them than to engage in yet another local government reorganisation.
Though I imagine that yet another reorganisation of local government will be another money making scheme for ‘consultants’.
You’ve undermined your own argument there, haven’t you, Richard. If you had argued that the very idea of a mayor for a former metropolitan county is absurd then just maybe you would have a case. But instead you chose to make out that somehow a mayoralty of South Yorkshire is ridiculous compared with the idea of one for Merseyside or the West Midlands.
The latter two erstwhile entities cover places that used to be part of several different historic counties. South and West Yorkshire both overwhelmingly encompass territory of one historic county. My contention is that the Yorkshire identity would trump any allegiance towards a local town or city to a sufficient extent that people would be willing to entertain the idea of a mayor of a former metropolitan county.
The fact is that there is a democratic deficit in the local governance of the former met counties. A structure has been established in Greater London that seems to work well. I think replicating that structure in other former met counties is at least worth considering.
Kieran, can I explain.
Yorkshire people usually do have allegiance to Yorkshire but they don’t to South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire.
They also have great loyalties to their own towns and tend to be more than a little hostile to being ordered about by some ‘other lot’.
Why do you think plans for a Yorkshire regional government were dropped?
Because there wasn’t any support for it.
And there’s even less support for an extra layer of government when its based upon artifical constructs like South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire.
The reason I didn’t say the same for West Midlands, greater Manchester and Merseyside is because I don’t come from those areas.
For all I know people in Wolverhampton, Oldham and St Helens just long to be dominated by their respective ‘big brother’ city.
Though I have my doubts.
And there isn’t a democratic deficit within the former met counties. Each borough does what it wants and doesn’t get pushed about by other bigger ones.
Why do you have this obsession that big is beautiful and more is merrier when it comes to layers of government?
There is a democratic deficit in the former metropolitan counties. There are functions carried out by countywide bodies (principally transport and the emergency services) which are currently not directly democratically accountable. In South Yorkshire this body is the South Yorkshire Joint Secretariat.
Elected mayors of metropolitan counties would therefore not represent the introduction of an extra layer of government, it would simply be a case of making bodies that already exist directly democratically accountable.
You appear to have no actual evidence of public opposition to such a plan. You merely assert with misplaced confidence that somehow the residents of Sheffield, Barnsley and Rotherham would be less willing to share an elected mayor than those of Hackney and Hillingdon, Bromley and Islington. Or, indeed if you believe the poll I linked to above, the people of Manchester and Oldham, Salford and Stockport.
I would be very interested to see the results of a poll similar to the one reported in the MEN conducted in South or West Yorkshire.
My evidence Kieran is that I live there and also that I remember how disliked South Yorkshire metropolitan council was and also that I’m aware of the strength of the allegiances are to people’s local towns.
Anyone who thinks that having county sized mayors wouldn’t lead to more government and more bureaucrats, political ‘advisors’ and the like is being incredibly naive.
I can remember being told by advocates of extra government like yourself how desperate the people of the North-East were to have regional government.
Well we saw how that turned out didn’t we.
But keep getting excited about a deckchair reshuffle, its not as if the ship is sinking is it.
We can all trade anecdotal evidence. I mean it’s not as if I am observing the met counties from an utterly detached position. I live ten minutes away from Sheffield in Chesterfield, my mother is a Sheffielder and I work in Greater Manchester. But in the end we know what anecdotal evidence is worth.
I don’t think it is legitimate for you to pigeon hole anyone who supports elected mayors for met counties as “advocates of extra government”. Generally I am in favour if single tier local government, indeed I am also in favour of the abolition of national park authorities as in places like the Peak District that I know well they seem to me to do nothing that could not be done by the local authority.
However I recognise that in large urban areas such as the further met counties there is, as Hemmelig has mentioned above, a need for high level strategic planning by a countywide body. I also recognise that the model of an elected mayor for a met county has demonstrably worked well in London. It would be very sad if, as you seem to believe, petty local sectarianism will always scupper any effort to replicate that success in other large urban conurbations.
Richard, you put forward some interesting points, but I think referendums in each of the affected areas would be needed before metro mayors are introduced.
I agree that people in the north of England have a sense of loyalty to their locality, but if people are forward thinking enough to think beyond that, they will see the benefits that the mayoralty has brought in London and will want the same for their own area. If people in London were prepared to pay a small increase in council tax for the extra staff and running costs of the metro authorities, there’s not reason why the same can’t apply to other areas.
Metro authorities would not be the same as the regional assemblies that were proposed 10 years ago. These would be well and truly part of LOCAL government and not part of a possible answer to the West Lothian question, which regional assemblies were supposed to be.
Thinking about it, I’d also have referendums in two other areas; Greater Bristol (former Avon area) and Tesside (former Cleveland area plus Darlington).
These are urban areas that were overlooked for metro status in the 1974 reforms, but they should be given the opportunity to vote on metro status now. The new authorities in these areas would have to become ceremonial counties, 3 of the councils in Greater Bristol would have to change their names so that they don’t include the words Somerset or Gloucestershire and police force areas in the North East would have to be re-organised with Tyne and Wear and Teesside having their own forces (with the mayor acting as commissioner) and Durham (minus Darlington) and Northumberland would have to have their own oddly shaped North East police force area (although it would only be as oddly shaped as the current Humberside area). And Greater Bristol and Somerset will need to have their own police forces.
I did think about a metro area for South Hampshire, but that would involve major changes to local government arrangements and the abolition of at least 5 second tier districts.
A timetable for introduction could be.
2013: Local Government Bill introduced in Queen’s speech.
Spring 2014: Local Government Act becomes law. Process of re-warding begins.
November 2014: Referendums in the 8 proposed metro areas.
May 2015: All local authorities in England (outside Greater London) are elected on a whole council basis. Met borough’s, unitary and and county councils are elected for 3 year terms with 4 year terms being introduced for the 2018 elections. This is to bring the electoral cycle into line with that used in Greater London, so that everyone in England votes for principle councils on the same day. Elections to second tier district councils are delayed until 2016.
1st April 2016 – Expansion of metro area boundaries takes effect. The new ceremonial counties of Teesside and Greater Bristol come into existence.
May 2016 – Elections for mayor of London, police commissioners, the new metro mayors and second tier district councils.
1st July 2016 – The new metro authorities formally come into existence and assume their powers. Changes to police force boundaries come into effect.
As the re-warding process only started in 2014, most parts of England will continue to use multi-member wards for the 2015 and 2016 local elections, but eventually, all councils in England will use single member wards once the re-warding process has been completed.
That is the most absurd wish list I have ever seen on the site, Adam.
Apart from saying that it won’t happen, I’ll go further and suggest that there more than likely won’t be second term elections for police commissioners because they will be abolished by then-particularly when turnout in the first elections this November is seen to be so low.
And I suspect the government will be less keen to pursue the elected mayors turkey if most cities reject the idea in May. Remember that the vast majority of people who have had a say on elected mayors have so far rejected them. Mayoralties were introduced early in Leicester and Liverpool specifically to avoid allowing people to vote on the matter, and whilst silly people in Birmingham are likely to back an elected mayor, many other referendum’s on the issue is on a knife edge and may still be defeated.
Lets wait and see how few mayors we have in may before we start imposing widespread local government reorganisation onto people that don’t have any desire for it.
There is merit in Adam’s suggestions but sadly I agree with Shaun that there isn’t much appetite for further local government reorganisations.
This is in some ways unfortunate because the piecemeal reforms enacted since the 1990s have ended up leaving behind a big mess. The Major government intended to remove county councils altogether but had to row back in the shires because of the unpopularity of their proposals, leaving a mess consisting of some unitary councils and a rump of areas governed by the previous 2-tier system. It is a complete mess but there’s no appetite for radical proposals to sort it out.
Adam and Kieran are right that London has benefitted hugely relative to the rest of the UK because the mayor/GLA has managed to sort this problem out. Huge projects like Crossrail and Thameslink 2000 would be very unlikely to be going ahead in the current climate without a strong mayor arguing for them.
I agree with you H,Hemmlig regarding the unsatisfactory piecemeal reforms in local government.
Certainly, government needs to decide upon a vision for local government and then put it into place one way or the other…I just completely disagree with the vision being put forward here-and most likely by the government if they adopted that option.
But of course, government does not have the will to put into place a widespread reorganisation either in the form that many on here wish to see (and that government probably wants to see as well) or in the form that I want to see.
I favour all out elections in all local authorities.
I think it’s much clearer, and it does focus the electorate that there is some importance to it,
because this is the next four years.
It gives the political parties a chance to put their program into effect without constant electioneering,
and it also gives the electorate a chance to sweep a failed council away in one go without old results that are no longer relevant contributing.
I think we have moved somewhat towards that because many of the unitaries are like that, but it’s time to do the rest.
All out elections with single member seats of course?
As a local political activist I quite like elections by thirds because of course you get more bites at the cherry. But I think if elections by thirds were put in balancee with single member seats so that I had to choose either one or the other, I think I ould go with single member seats.
I really do dislike elections in thirds though.
Some of these small authorities constantly go in and out of NOC. We shouldn’t have all these elections to please party activists,
but have one important election every 4 years – turnouts have been recovering from about 2002 but
are still not where they should be,
and we need people to realise that when we do ask them to come and vote it’s important.
I haven’t really come to a view about single member wards.
I think we are at about the limit of unitaries. More of them risk taking away some small town districts etc that people are attached to,
and conversely it’s not a good idea to have Counties or unitaries on a kind of everything that’s left over basis,
as you don’t draw in the expertise or get clear understanding of the what they serve
Maybe all out elections every 3 years would be the best solution for large authorities like Birmingham. I prefer all out elections but only having them every 4 years for important councils seems like too much of a gap.
I agree Andy. Maybe we should have had been asked another question in these city referendums, whether we would prefer all out elections to what we have at the moment.
I have a kindred spirit in Adam, but I agree that the practical possibilty of elected mayors covering the whole of our cities oustside London is close to zero.
This doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good idea!. I am in favour of more traditonal smaller councils with real powers to effect local government plus an elected mayor covering the whole city, who will act as a cheerleader for the many advantages of the city, and will co-ordinate regional planning., and work for regional economic advantage.
I was impressed by the way Ken Livingstone invented the role in London between 2000 and 2004 and took the argument onto a national stage. You don’t have to agree with Livingstone, who is a partisan figure, to recognise his wider significance here. As an expat Londoner living in Birmingham I can reasonably relate London and provincial experience. Greater Birmingham has loads of advantages (yes I’m biased), and I’d like to see them promoted on a national stage, without messing with the fiercely parochial local loyalties expressed through the individual councils
If Labour can’t hold onto a heartland such as Bradford West they have no chance in this highly marginal seat whenever there is a by-election here. Does anyone agree?
No I don’t agree at all. There are few similarites between Bradford West and this seat. If the result of Bradford West had any implications beyond that area then it might be in Hodge Hill but even that is debatable. Given that the Conservatives are the chellengers here and they have clearly fallen behind Labour nationally in the polls and that teh Conservative vote fell more in Bradford than did Labour’s it doesn’t really bode well for a Tory gain. I presume you don’t think Respect are going to win here?
Bradford West and Birmingham Edgbaston are entirely different. There isn’t a significant Muslim population here and Respect have never stood a candidate in either local or national elections.
Salma Yaqoob was a councillor in a ward neighbouring Edgbaston but one with an entirely different demographic.
Edgbaston would be a straight con lab fight. Gisela held on with a large personal vote, despite a national swing to e Tories. Now the swing is back to Labour, a by election could go either way.
I prefer elections by thirds to all out elections, having experienced both. However that may be a wrong end of the telescope analysis, based on what is easiest for local activists.
From the point of view of the general public there would be something to be said for tying local elections to general elections (to maximise turnout and minimise using local elections between UK general elections to attack the incumbent government).
In the absence of proportional representation, which unfortunately seems not to be a realistic possibility in England, I would prefer single member wards to multi member ones. First past the post elections for a single place are easier for smaller groups to compete in, than multi member block voting elections are.
I don’t think the Tories would have a cat in hell’s chance of gaining this seat in a by-election at the present time.
We would need the sort of recovery we had in the spring of 1982, ie. double digit leads nationally, when we gained Mitcham and Morden (although Birmingham Northfield was lost on a tiny swing that year).
It doesn’t look likely but who’s to say what’s around the corner? (Argentina have been eyeing the Falklands again recently, its leader determined that the islands should be theirs).
I have to agree.
I think that in present circumstances Labour would win a by-election here easily, most likely with a majority of 3-4000 votes.
To say “it could go either way” is ridiculous.
Labour most probably would win here in a by-election.
But to suggest its all in the bag for them without any form of opportunity for the Tories whatsoever is even more ridiculous!
Without Gisela Stuart’s personal vote-a factor that appears to have been decisive last time-its entirely possible that there could be a swing to the Tories here compared to last time. Don’t forget this was a seat that pretty much ALL of us expected the Tories to not only gain but to gain fairly well in 2010.
It seems to me that without the recent surge in Labour support in the opinion polls, some people on this site would be sounding a lot more generous with regards the prospects of a by-election here.
Its as I’ve said all too often on the site-a lot of us seem completely unable to see beyond the circumstances of today. Thats why so many of us got it wrong ahead of the last election when a Tory overall majority was widely predicted, even though a hung parliament was always really the most likely outcome.
Lets have a bit more thought, and bit more thinking ahead. I can see the circumstances of a tory win in Edgbaston, and I suspect Labour high command can too. This would not be a by-election that would just be taken for granted by either side.
“a lot of us seem completely unable to see beyond the circumstances of today.”
But we are talking about a by-election that would be held in the circumstances of today.
“Without Gisela Stuart’s personal vote-a factor that appears to have been decisive last time”
In the local elections of May 2011, Labour narrowly outpolled the Tories here, despite the Tories doing consistently better here in local elections than parliamentary ones. The Tories are 4-5% lower in the polls now than in May 2011.
Plus this seat is crammed full with middle class public sector professionals, one of the groups who are most eager to give the coalition a kicking.
“But we are talking about a by-election that would be held in the circumstances of today.”
I can’t tell you what the circumstances will look like if and when any by-election is held AFTER OCTOBER.
Hollande may have destroyed the French economy by then and things might be looking up significantly
“In the local elections of May 2011, Labour narrowly outpolled the Tories here”
Yes thats much more relevant in my view, because a by-election is more likely to follow the local election trend within a constituency. But even those results show that its pretty much neck and neck with Labour ahead. I’m not sure I’d be willing to write off a good Tory candidate if they put in a really strong campaign in those circumstances-especially before we even know who the candidates are.
Six months or so ago, I thought that the Conservatives would have a chance in a prospective by-election here. I have changed my mind- mainly because of the polls but also because of the long-term trends in this seat. The Conservatives now seem incapable of breaking 40% here.
After all the Murdoch stuff, I would think a comfortable Labour majority was the only likely result in a by-election, with all the opposition parties well behind.
Going on to the mayoral question, why do posters think that the likes of Barnsley would be happy to be combined together into some sort of Greater Sheffield. Most people in places like Barnet, Croydon, etc, now see themselves as Londoners (though I think people in Havering see themselves as part of Essex, and I suspect that were there a vote to leave London and return to Essex, it would be carried by a large majority). Local ties are far stronger outside London. You only have to look at football allegiances to see this. Yorkshire is a bit like Scotland. There you are either Celtic/Rangers or your local club. In Yorkshire, you are either Leeds or your local club, in which case your feelings towards Leeds are highly unlikely to be positive. If any combining were to take place in Yorkshire, it would have to be back to the old Ridings. Sheffield, Doncaster, etc, would be in the West Riding, and any centre of government/mayoral headquarters would have to be somewhere other than Leeds, probably Wakefield, the traditional county town of the West Riding (a bit like California; the state capital was quite deliberately not placed in one of the big cities). I suspect the idea of a Greater Bristol or Birmingham would be very unpopular; remember how hated Avon and Humberside were. The only one of those “new” counties to be fairly popular was Cleveland, but then Middlesbrough and Stockton had more in common with each other than with the other parts of their former counties.
Although I am a Conservative, I have to say that the Conservatives have done more damage to local government than any other party. The old system of County Boroughs which we had before 1974 was recognised as extremely efficient. Why Heath, etc, decided to rip it up I can’t think. And I do not agree with the idea of extending city boundaries. The only possible area where a combined authority is needed in my view is transport, and some areas already have them – the PTEs. Saying that, Paris has extremely efficient transport, and yet its boundaries don’t go very far from the centre; possibly RATP’s remit extends further, I’m not sure.
3 May 2012
Aggregate votes for Birmingham Edgbaston constituency;
Lab 10,264 46.6%
C 9,623 43.7%
Green 1,083 4.9%
LD 602 2.7%
BNP 435 2.0%
That is actually extrordinarily close considering how really really awfully the Tories did in Birmingham. I still think that without Gisela Stuart and with a strong campaign, this seat could be gained by the Tories in a by-election, never mind a general election.
Of course, the really really good news from Birmingham today is that the elected mayor option looks as though it has been rejected….so we won’t get the by-election.
They did manage to increase their majority from last year in Edgbaston though, but they did badly again in Harborne.
Defeated Council leader Mike Whitby is now the only Conservative left in Harborne. I wonder if he will bother to stand in 2014. Extraordinary for anyone who knows Birmingham that Labour’s majority over the Conservatives is higher in Harborne than in Kingstanding. However the Conservatives did well in the circumstances to hold Edgbaston ward.
I’ve been saying for a while that I think Northfield is now a better bet for the Conservatives at a General election than Edgbaston, and this trend has continued at these local elections, although the turnout was way down on 2011 let alone 2010.