Blackpool North and Cleveleys
2010 Results:
Conservative: 16964 (41.79%)
Labour: 14814 (36.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 5400 (13.3%)
BNP: 1556 (3.83%)
UKIP: 1659 (4.09%)
Monster Raving Loony: 198 (0.49%)
Majority: 2150 (5.29%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 17886 (46.9%)
Conservative: 14346 (37.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4455 (11.7%)
Other: 1446 (3.8%)
Majority: 3540 (9.3%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 15558 (35.9%)
Labour: 20620 (47.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 5533 (12.8%)
UKIP: 1579 (3.6%)
Majority: 5062 (11.7%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 15889 (37.3%)
Labour: 21610 (50.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 4132 (9.7%)
UKIP: 950 (2.2%)
Majority: 5721 (13.4%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 19105 (35.5%)
Labour: 28051 (52.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 4600 (8.6%)
Referendum: 1704 (3.2%)
Other: 288 (0.5%)
Majority: 8946 (16.6%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Paul Maynard (Conservative) Educated at St Ambrose College, Trafford and Oxford University. Former CCO researcher and special advisor to Liam Fox MP. Contested Twickenham in 2005.
Paul Maynard (Conservative) Educated at St Ambrose College, Trafford and Oxford University. Former CCO researcher and special advisor to Liam Fox MP. Contested Twickenham in 2005. 
Penny Martin (Labour) Former Wyre councillor. Former Lancashire councillor.
Bill Greene (Liberal Democrat)Roy Hopwood (UKIP) Contested Blackpool North and Fleetwood 2005. Contested North West Region in 2004 European elections.James Clayton (BNP)Tony Davies (Official Monster Raving Loony) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 82314
Male: 47.7%
Female: 52.3%
Under 18: 20.5%
Over 60: 28.3%
Born outside UK: 3.3%
White: 98.5%
Asian: 0.5%
Mixed: 0.5%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 79.7%
Full time students: 2.3%
Graduates 16-74: 12%
No Qualifications 16-74: 35.1%
Owner-Occupied: 76.2%
Social Housing: 9.6% (Council: 7.1%, Housing Ass.: 2.4%)
Privately Rented: 11.5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 14.6%
I would imagine that if we stick to ‘first past the post’ after the referendum, then the Tories are bound to lose out everywhere oustside the SE of England in Boundary modifications if we switch to 600 MP’s ? I would be interested to hear from the ‘experts’ !
Not necessarily. It depends entirely on how the boundaries are drawn. It seems almost self-evident that with the size of the commons falling from 650 to 600 then all parties will have fewer seats than now, but I would expect the Conservatives to be proportinally hit far less. The southern regions on the whole are losing few seats whereas Wales, Scotland and the north of England will lose several. This will have implications for marginal Tory held seats in some of these regions, but even so more Labour seats are likely to disappear. Converesely while the loss of a seat each in Essex and Kent, for example, makes it inevitable that the Tories are down a seat in those counties (assuming we don’t return to the old 1983-97 division of Colchester), the marginal position of remaining southern Labour seats mean they could just as well lose out. It loks likely for example that hertfordshire and Bedfordshire will be ‘paired’ and together go down from 17 to 16 seats. Since the Conservatives hold 15 of the 17 you might think that it was statistically most likely that the Conservatives would lose a seat. It seems far more likley though that Labour will be the losers as Luton South is redrawn as Luton South & Harpenden or some such. In addition to that the Tories will be assisted by the addition of extra rural and/or suburban wards to seats like Bedford and Stevenage
Many thanks Pete….I guess that in a way you are agreeing with my hypothesis, in that the tories could gain a couple of seats in the SE of England, but then lose most of their gains in Wales and other areas. however, I agree that there are some constituencies in England, whereby if an urban seat with some affluence was extended more into the countryside, then the conservatives could pick up a few more seats?
Well no I don’t think I am agreeing with your hypothesis because I think relatively speaking they won’t lose out unless the boundary changes fall badly for them just about everywhere. I assume you meant in raltaive ratehr than absolute terms. In absolute terms it is almost a given that they will have fewer seats (though I have come up with a plan in London which would have given them 32 of 68 seats in 2010 where they actually had 28 of 73). The point is that if all parties lost seats in the same proportion then obviously the Conservatives would lose the most – they would lose 24 seats, Labour would lose 20, LDs would lose 4 etc. I think it extremely unlikely that given where the losses in seats is mostly occurring that the result will be anything like that. If the Conservatives end up fewer than 24 seats down then they have not in my view ‘lost out’. Lets say they lose 12 seats net. Well 295 out of 600 is a much better position than 307 out of 650. I’m sure that (as my London plan illustrates) a partisan boundary review could easily create a situation in which the Conservatives have notionally more than 300 of the new seats. Of course the boundary commission is not and will not be partisan, but the realities of where seats will be lost means there’s a decent chance of it not being far off that.
The creation of extra seats in the SE has helped Labour in 1997 and 2010.
The 1983 – 1997 Portsmouth North would have been regained by the Tories in 2005 (due the inclusion of Porchester), and both the Southampton seats would have been won by the Conservatives in 2010.
The creation of Romsey and North East Hants in 1997 and Meon Valley in 2010 have had the effect of making the Portsmouth and Southampton seats better for Labour.
Bassett was moved from Southampton Test to Romsey in 1997 followed by Shirley in 2010.
In turn a strong Labour Southampton ward that was in Eastleigh was transferred to Southampton Itchen in 1997.
The boundary changes were generally acknowledged to make Portsmouth N more Conservative in 2010 by at least 800, more than 1,000 according to some psephologists. What you say about Southampton however is broadly true.
The 1997 boundary changes were better for Labour though that the 2010 changes were for the Tories.
All in all, the Post 2010 Portmouth North is still more Labour than the 1983 – 1997 Portsmouth North.
‘assuming we don’t return to the old 1983-97 division of Colchester’
Pete, don’t you mean Colchester North? The old Colchester was abolished in 1983!
I think thats what he said though Harry.
“the old 1983-97 division of Colchester”
the division of Colchester into north and south.
I think you are taking the word ‘division’ to mean a unit as in the county council division of Merry Upton on the Wold.
Yes Shaun thats exactly what I meant
Who won in ‘Blackpool North and Cleveleys’ at the local elections three weeks ago?
The council’s election results website map seems to still have quite a lot of blue in the northern end of the borough of Blackpool.
I would guess a narrow Tory win with Labour ahead in South?
They are neck and neck in the Blackpool part of the constituency but the Wyre part gives the Tories a lead of around 3%
In Blackpool South Labour is leading by around 15%
Such figure would mean that Labour would have just have won on the Blackpool North & Fleetwood boundaries and more convincingly on the pre-1997 Blackpool North boundaries.
Did Blackpool vote Labour in 2010?
If the Conservatives were as little as 400 votes ahead in Cleveleys surely Labour have just have won in Blackpool?
The Blackpool Labour website claimed to have ended 115 of Tory rule in 1991.
“Blackpool under the leadership of your Labour Council came on leaps and bounds when Labour took over the reins of office in 1991 after 115 years of Tory Rule going back to 1876.”
Did the Conservatives actually control the council without a break for this period of time?
Have all the wards in the borough swing to Labour on the same scale or have some of the wards more more to Labour than others?
There may be some evidence that boarding houses (particuarly in Blackpool South) became long term B & B accommodation and an increased dependency on public sector jobs as tourist jobs decline (in working class and middle class parts of the town).
But is into not also true to say that Blackpool’s economic decline may not actually be that great, and that traditionally the town was much more Tory than its social and economic composition would suggest (something perhaps typical about seaside towns).
In many respects, Blackpool is still much more Conservative than its social economic composition would suggest, as even some of the Conservative wards rank within the 20% most deprived wards in the country.
It is certainly true that Labour had never taken control of Blackpool before 1991. It did have a long history as a Tory bastion, though Labour did achieve a narrow plurality of the votes in the town in the 1981 county council election (and a clear majority of the wards). It’s possible that the Liberals may have won in their halcyon years in the earlier 1900s but it wouldn’t surprise me if what it said on the Blackpool Labour website were correct.
I don’t know Blackpool as well as I used to (I was a very frequent visitory as a child and into my later teens, since I had grandparents there), but I think it’s fair to say that demographic change has been greater in certain wards (Layton comes to mind as an example) than others (the Tory vote still seems pretty obstinate in Bispham & Norbreck for example).
“Visitor” not “visitory”
I recall Labour won by over 40% in the wards which formed Blackpool North in 1995, taking every seat practically on the council.
I recall Labour won both seats in Bispham and one of the seats in Norbreck. They also won Ancorshome out right.
I think the Conservatives held only 4 even as little as 2 seats that year (a seat in Norbreck and a seat in Waterloo). I think Labour won Warbrek and Stanley out right that year?
Does anybody know what has become of Blackpool?
I assume that South may have regained Latham and Park (which it had between 1997 and 2010), and Blackpool North & Cleveleys regains Fleetwood?
Dalek, you aren’t far off and I would have expected the same.
Instead South gains Claremont rather than Layton I believe.
Blackpool did have sweeping Labour victories in the 90s but then over the years their numbers of seats were chipped away until 2007 they lost on a large swing to the Tories after the Tories spent a lot of national money and resources there. This left Labour with a mere 13 seats (out of 42) and then they lost another in a poorly fought by-election.
This year with the absence of the Tory national office help, Labour generally polling better and a very good grassroots campaign. Labour went from 12 to 27 seats and retook the council – one of the best results against the Tories in country. The Lib Dems were reduced to 1 seat (the Tories the remainder).
In Blackpool South Labour control most wards, with 3 previously Tory wards now split Lab/Tory and the 2 remaining wards (Stanley and Squires Gate) they are only a small margin away. In short, Gordon Marsden will be laughing at the next general.
In the Blackpool wards of Blackpool North & Cleveleys, there remains 4 Tory held wards against 5 Labour held wards. Of the 4 Tory wards, 2 could be reasonably winnable for Labour next time round, whilst the other 2 would take mid/late 1990s-level Labour popularity to even stand a chance
Gordon Marsden will not be laughing at the next election Carl. You are confusing local and national politics. Most Blackpool seats are solid Tory areas. Stanley, Squires Gate, Highfield and Waterloo are all strong Tory areas they, two of them only went Labour because of a campaign by a taxi driver against two controversial councillors. In general elections these parts of Blackpool South are no-go for Labour. It is areas like Central Blackpool, Grange Park and Mereside which gets Labour in, because these areas are part of Bpool S. Blackpool South is now a key marginal and will be high on the Tory hit list next time around, so don’t bank on the Brighton MP being so safe.
I tend to agree with Blackpool Lad. According to Anthony, Gordon Marsden’s notional majority would be just 2026. Therefore it will be a legitimate target for the Conservatives in 2015. I think there are five key wards to look out for: Waterloo, Highfield, Talbot, Layton, and Tyldesley. The former two currently have both Labour and Tory councillors; the latter three switched from Conservative to Labour this year, suggesting marginality.
I agree with Tory, Marsden’s majority is less than 2,000 which usually makes a seat a key marginal so I think it will be high on the Tory hitlist as it was a solid Tory seat pre-1997. I live in Highfield Ward so I can explain Highfield and Waterloo. These two wards are normally Labour no-go areas (especially Highfield) but there were two controverisal Conservative councillors and a campaign against them by a local taxi driver urging people to vote them out, so Labour simply got lucky in these wards.
Paul Maynard spoke in the Commons yesterday about his constituency being the 4th most deprived Conservative seat in the country. I wonder what the top 3 are? I reckon Thanet South must be one of them.
Clacton must be a good bet. Maybe somewhere else on the east coast (Yarmouth or Waveney) or one of the Cornish seats like Camborne & Redruth
Most of those seats have high levels of unemployment. Great Yarmouth has the worst at 9.2% so that must be one of the most deprived Tory seats. Blackpool North has 7.1% unemployed: quite a high amount but noticeably better than Blackpool South which has 10.3% of its electorate out of work.
Camborne and Redruth sounds like a good bet to me. Thurrock maybe up there?
How about the most affluent Labour seats? Birmingham Edgbaston? East Renfewhsire? Hammersmith
I read somewhere that Banff and Buchann is the poorest seat in GB btw
I doubt if Thurrock is in the top 20.
On purely income it certainly wouldn’t be granted. I think its more grotty and generally awful than the figures would suggest. Maybe Hastings would be a better SE option
“How about the most affluent Labour seats? Birmingham Edgbaston? East Renfewhsire? Hammersmith”
I think Hampstead & Kilburn and Westminster North would be better choices than Hammersmith. Those two have some extremely expensive properties within their boundaries which Hammersmith doesn’t really have.
Forgot to mention that all three of those seats are in three of the top four most expensive London boroughs for property.
Yes the figures can’t measure aesthetic qualities and its true Thurrock must be one of the ugliest Conservative held seats, but it certainly wouldn’t be near the bottom on the sort of measures of deprivation. Hastings is a possible I’d agree
I liked Joe’s question about the wealthiest Labour constituencies. Off the top of my head, Wirral South comes to mind. There are a couple of council estates but it is overwhelmingly middle-class on the whole- something like 82% owner occupied.
For wealthiest Labour seats there are probably a few around where people have got into the habit of voting Labour and have always done so, such as former mining towns, many of which have now become quite affluent.
I remember reading years ago that Sedgefield was very pleasant. Might not be now as this was a while back.
For Tory seats there are many around where parts of them are extremely run down, often the town centres, and they contain some big Labour-voting estates, but the strength is in the outer areas.
Can someone please remind me what the constituency is where the by-election was where Lib Dem had a rare win ( I think from Labour) – reported earlier today.
What an awful sounding sentence.
I don’t mean because LD won, but because of my English!
Stone, in the West Midlands region.
“I remember reading years ago that Sedgefield was very pleasant. Might not be now as this was a while back.”
Sedgefield town is pleasant and would vote Conservative.
I suspect the Durham pit villages which make up the majority of Sedgefield constituency aren’t and don’t.