Broxtowe
2010 Results:
Conservative: 20585 (39.04%)
Labour: 20196 (38.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 8907 (16.89%)
BNP: 1422 (2.7%)
UKIP: 1194 (2.26%)
Green: 423 (0.8%)
Majority: 389 (0.74%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 20234 (41.9%)
Conservative: 17967 (37.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 7763 (16.1%)
Other: 2313 (4.8%)
Majority: 2267 (4.7%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 18161 (37.2%)
Labour: 20457 (41.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 7837 (16.1%)
Green: 896 (1.8%)
UKIP: 695 (1.4%)
Other: 760 (1.6%)
Majority: 2296 (4.7%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 17963 (36.7%)
Labour: 23836 (48.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 7205 (14.7%)
Majority: 5873 (12%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 21768 (37.4%)
Labour: 27343 (47%)
Liberal Democrat: 6934 (11.9%)
Referendum: 2092 (3.6%)
Majority: 5575 (9.6%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Anna Soubry (Conservative) born 1956, Worksop. Educated at Birmingham University. Barrister specialising in criminal law. Former journalist and television presenter. Contested Gelding in 2005.
Anna Soubry (Conservative) born 1956, Worksop. Educated at Birmingham University. Barrister specialising in criminal law. Former journalist and television presenter. Contested Gelding in 2005.
Nick Palmer(Labour) born 1950, London. Educated at MIT, Copenhagen and has a doctorate in mathematics from Birkbeck College, London. Former computer manager and head of internet services for Novartis. Contested Chelsea, 1983. First elected as MP for Broxtowe in 1997. PPS to Malcolm Wicks. Has been a supporter of ID cards and animal rights (more information at They work for you)
David Watts (Liberal Democrat) born 1966. Educated at Leicester University. Lecturer and qualified solicitor. Broxtowe councillor. Contested Broxtowe 2005.
David Mitchell (Green) Chris Cobb (UKIP)Mike Shore (BNP) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 92562
Male: 49.2%
Female: 50.8%
Under 18: 20.9%
Over 60: 21.6%
Born outside UK: 6.1%
White: 94.9%
Black: 0.6%
Asian: 2.3%
Mixed: 0.9%
Other: 1.3%
Christian: 70.3%
Hindu: 0.6%
Muslim: 1%
Sikh: 0.7%
Full time students: 5.3%
Graduates 16-74: 22.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 27.5%
Owner-Occupied: 76.8%
Social Housing: 11.7% (Council: 9.8%, Housing Ass.: 1.9%)
Privately Rented: 8.7%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 5.4%
The Labour hold in Gedling did it for me Joe.
And like HH I thought there was a good chance of the Conservatives doing better in Sherwood.
Can someone please explain why Labour did so badly in Midlands suburban seats like this one? (with the exception of Birmingham Edgebaston).
They actually did pretty well in this seat (and othere like Gedling) Christian. Defending only a 4.7% majority and only suffering a 2.7% swing. Arguably it’s down in part to personal votes for the candidate, but probably the swing was lowest in seats where there is a sizeable public sector middle class. Seats like NW Leics and Sherwood saw far larger swings
Thanks Paul D.
In urban seats with large numbers of guardianistas and/or ethnics the swing was lower than in those which are predominantly WWC.
So there was small swings in Broxtowe and Wolverhampton SW even though Labour lost both but big swings in the Wolverhampton NE and Nottingham N even though Labour won both.
The biggest swings were in the industrial/mining constituencies such as Leics NW, Erewash and Cannock.
I think Christian is being ironic, or didn’t look at the swing.
They did relatively well in this seat.
Isn’t Beeston included within this seat? I thought the tory majority would have been around the 5,000 mark.
Beeston is in this seat.
The Tories narrowly held on to Kimberley & Cossall ward 2 days ago. There was a very small swing to Labour but both parties’ votes went up by several per cent. 26 votes in it.
I have just seen remarks made by Mark Senior on the ConservativeHome website. In them, he seeks to defend numerous Lib Dem leaflets which were distributed as part of the above-mentioned election campaign, in which it was said that the Conservative councillor had been “booted off for non-attendance”. In fact the councillor had/has Alzheimers. Other mendacious statements were also made about the Labour candidate. I think such campaigning is utterly indefensible and I wish to condemn it in the strongest possible terms; I am appalled.
Barnaby what was the legal reason for the by-election?
That is NOT the point. To speak in such terms about someone who is suffering from Alzheimers is a disgrace, and I think you know it is.
Really, what was the reason for the by-election? I wish tol understand why Galloglass regards it as relevant. I completely agree with BM though as regards mendacious Lib Dem leaflets – though they certainly aren’t the only party responsible, they are definitely the worst offenders.
Erstwhile MP Nick Palmer made mention of the Lib Dem campaign in the recent by-election in post over on Pb.com just before polling day.
“The Tory and Labour leaflets have been positive – vote for us because we do good stuff and our candidate is strong. The LibDem campaign has been utterly vile – nasty (attacking the outgoing councillor as “booted out for non-attendance” – he’s a popular local man who has developed Alzheimers) and duplicitous (dodgy bar-charts, leaflets designed to look like Tory leaflets, attacks on Labour for things done by other parties)”.
The reason for the by-election was non-attendance as I understand it; but a civilised bunch of people would have sympathized with a person who had developed such a serious illness rather than attack him for non-attendance.
I think a gross personal attack on a councillor’s retirement due to a very sad medical condition says a lot more about the LibDems than any condemnation on them from another source could.
Mark Senior has, in my experience, always been a very bitter commenter but I didn’t know he’d stoop to having a laugh at a mental illness.
On a side note I’ve always thought that Alzeheimer’s had left the suffer perhaps “blissfully unaware” of their surroundings. It’s the immediate family and friends who suffer most. I can only hope that they never saw this sordid little leaflet and sympathise greatly with them if they did.
The quantity as well as the contents of the Lib Dem literature delivered in the course of that by election was remarked upon by Nick Palmer over on another site. “We ended up with more than 20 LibDem leaflets, including one delivered every day for the last fortnight”. It will be interesting to see how they kept that lot within the spending limits.
In the end the Lib Dems (deservedly) performed poorly. Calculating a result compared with the last time the seat was contested in 2007 is complicated by the fact that it is a three member ward where in ’07 all three of the parties saw one of their three candidates perform markedly better than the other two. Broadly though the Lib Dems saw their vote decline, with both Labour and the Tories enjoying an increase, the latter by more than the former.
The Tory councillor should have resigned when he became ill rather than wait to be disqualified.
Nevertheless the Lib Dem leaflets sound most distasteful.
The Lib Dems look ridiculous employing these kind of tactics on their own coalition partners. Maybe they will start to have a negative impact on the public.
By-elections are avoided like the plague in this day and age, so I can see why a politician would try to stay in office as long as necessary without triggering such a contest.
But you’re entirely right, H. Hemmelig.
“The Tory councillor should have resigned when he became ill rather than wait to be disqualified”.
I notice having now read the relevant thread over on Conhome that that was the point Senior was making in partial justification for the LIb Dem tactics. Really though nobody who is without knowledge of the exact nature of the circumstances surrounding the relevant former councillor is any position to make any statement as to whether it might have been possible for him to stand down earlier.
But even if we accept that he could have stood down before actually being disqualified, that does not change the fact that the vacancy arose due to a tragic deterioration in the health and well being of the incumbent councillor. In those kind of circumstances it is far better that all parties contesting any resulting by-election observe a respectful silence with regard to the circumstances that led to the seat becoming vacant.
“The Tory councillor should have resigned when he became ill rather than wait to be disqualified.”
Perhaps having Alzeheimer’s clouded his ability to think about it as logically as you are able to do so H Hemmelig. Forgive me if I’m not as quick to judge what he should or should not have done.
” that does not change the fact that the vacancy arose due to a tragic deterioration in the health and well being of the incumbent councillor.”
You put it much better than ever I could hope Kieran
Thanks for the answer Barnaby.
I think there will be a high number of ‘guilt’ votes in this constituency- disaffected labour voters who switched to the lib dems. Nick Palmer is probably going to stand again, and unless there is a ‘we’ve kicked him out once before, and we’ll kick him out again’ mentally (which I don’t think there is particularly) I can see Mr Palmer, along with possibly Judy Mallaber in Amber Valley becoming a retred with a reversed majority of about 500.
It’s the other way round – there are lots of Lib Dems in Broxtowe who voted Labour in recent General Elections. What happens in the GE therefore depends whether Lib Dems continue to lend their vote to Labour, and it is far too far out to be able to guess how that will pan out. Also it can’t be likely that Nick Palmer is going to want to stand again at the age of 65.
From where we are today I can’t see Labour regaining Amber Valley. If the economy improves in the 2-3 year runup to the election then certainly not. It is the kind of seat which will take the Tory side on the cuts argument, being mostly based on private sector employment rather than public sector.
I hope your right re Amber Valley, Hemmelig. I reckon that if the Tories are to retain that seat next time the task will not be made any easier by the boundary changes. My view is that Amber Valley will retain its current eastern boundary, but lose territory to the north and gain it to the south. This is likely to make it a bit more Labour than at present to the extent that Labour would probably have won by a few hundred votes on those boundaries last time.
IMHO Amber Valley will be the main down side for the Tories re the boundary changes in Derbyshire, but there will be changes elsewhere that will more than compensate for that.
I don’t know anything about what is likely to happen to the Notts boundaries, but right now I would say that Palmer and Mallaber would both stand a great chance of getting back in should they decide to have another crack. Have either of them given any indication as to whether they are minded to stand again?
That leaflet sounds idiotic and vile.
I don’t understand these LD activists and what motivates them.
Can Kieran explain what boundary change he has in mind for Amber Valley which is likely to make it better for Labour?
I would have thought losing territory to the north would involve areas like Alfreton and Somercotes which tend to Labour and gaining territory to the south would most likely be rural parts of Amber Valley or Erewash districts which are now in Mid Derbyshire constituency. Unless he has in mind that it will gain Ilkeston, more or less recreating the constituency of that name on pre1983 boundaries. I should have thought more likely that some variation of the 1983-97 boundaries would be more plausible.
Yes Pete, I would have Amber Valley losing Alfreton to Bolsover in the north to be replaced by the addition of Ilkeston in the south. It seems the most pratical solution to me. I don’t think Amber Valley can realistically expand westwards as Derbyshire Dales is undersized by quite some margin on the new quota. The area covered by the three seats in the north east of Derbys (Chesterfield, Bolsover & NE Derbys) needs to find some extra voters from somewhere to bring those seats up to size, and to me the best way of doing that is for them to take in territory to the south.
I’ve outlined what my plan for Derbys would be on some of the other Derbyshire constituency threads.
I notice when people are talking of changes to seats they discuss boundaries moving in this direction and the next but surely some seats are going to have to disappear all together if we are to go from 650 to 600. Where are the big hits going to be ? I have head people mention Wales but there must be others.
Seats most likely to disappear are obviously those situated in the middle of a county with smaller than average electorates. A lot of those counties which have just received an extra seat will probably revert back to something close to the previous boundaries.
Does anyone know if Broxtowe is likely to be effected by boundary changes?
I see this MP spoke at PMQs today. ConHome says she was in the SDP?
Broxtowe – stays NOC I think, in May.
Jacky B: the electorate is slightly below the lower limit so it will have to be subject to boundary changes of some kind.
I think the LD vote will fall several points, squeezed.
Anna Soubry will hope this seat continues it’s tradition of being quite kind to incumbents.
Of course a boundary change could easily put it more decisively in the Con or Lab column.