Derbyshire Mid
2010 Results:
Conservative: 22877 (48.32%)
Labour: 11585 (24.47%)
Liberal Democrat: 9711 (20.51%)
BNP: 1698 (3.59%)
UKIP: 1252 (2.64%)
Monster Raving Loony: 219 (0.46%)
Majority: 11292 (23.85%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 19209 (44.3%)
Labour: 16238 (37.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 5866 (13.5%)
Other: 2092 (4.8%)
Majority: 2971 (6.8%)
New seat: an additional seat in Derbyshire, taking in the northern fringes of the old Derby North seat, Belper from Derbyshire West and smaller areas from Amber Valley and Erewash. The original proposals were very different, and included a Belper & Ripley and Derby North and Heanor seats. These were overturned in favour of the Labour party`s counter-propsals at the revised stage on the grounds of links between Ripley and Heanor, which both stay in the Amber Valley seat.
Profile: An unusually shaped seat, snaking around the North-East of Derby taking in the suburbs of the dormitory village of Spondon, the huge new development of Oakwood and Allestree, which includes the University of Derby. The seat then moves Northwards, via the village of Stanley, to include the town of Belper.
Current MP: Pauline Latham (Conservative) OBE. Educated at Bramcote Hill Technical Grammar. Derbyshire county councillor 1987-1993. Derby City councillor from 1992-1996 and since 1998. Contested East Midlands Region 1999 European Elections. Contested Broxtowe 2001.
Pauline Latham (Conservative) OBE. Educated at Bramcote Hill Technical Grammar. Derbyshire county councillor 1987-1993. Derby City councillor from 1992-1996 and since 1998. Contested East Midlands Region 1999 European Elections. Contested Broxtowe 2001.
Hardyal Dhindsa (Labour) Derby councillor 1996-2002 and since 2004.
Sally McIntosh (Liberal Democrat) born Derby. Educated at Woodlands Community School and Hull University. Learning Resources Manager.
Anthony Kay (UKIP)
Lewis Allsebrook (BNP) Amber Valley councillor. Contested East Midlands 2009 European election.
R.U.Serious (Official Monster Raving Loony) Original name Jon Brewer. Banjo player and bus driver. Shadow Minister for uncommitted manifesto commitments. Contested Erewash 2001, Leicester South by-election 2004, Erewash 2005.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 81794
Male: 49%
Female: 51%
Under 18: 22%
Over 60: 22.6%
Born outside UK: 3.3%
White: 98%
Black: 0.3%
Asian: 0.6%
Mixed: 0.7%
Other: 0.5%
Christian: 78.2%
Full time students: 2.2%
Graduates 16-74: 22.2%
No Qualifications 16-74: 25.2%
Owner-Occupied: 85.5%
Social Housing: 7.9% (Council: 6.4%, Housing Ass.: 1.5%)
Privately Rented: 4.5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.1%
Interesting analysis Pete – I took a look.
Rushcliffe obviously somewhat controversial.
That’s a very interesting thread you link to Pete. I had looked at similar proposals for the north of Derbyshire to those outlined in your map. Ihe reason I decided to look for an alternative was because I dislike the effect they have on NE Derbys in turning it almost into a doughnut surrounding Chesterfield.
I’ve always been of the opinion that NE Derbys (both the constituency and the district) is something of an absurd creation; the disparate communities of Dronfield and Clay Cross on opposite sides of Chesterfield joined together by a stretch of rural Derbyshire to the west of that town.
Back when there was the local government review in Derbyshire that led to Derby going unitary there was talk of merging Chesterfield and NE Derbys districts. To me that would have been a sensible reform. The council offices for NE Derbys are in Chesterfield across the road from Chesterfield town hall, while to travel from the north to the south of NE Derbys would almost certainly involve passing through Chesterfield. Sadly nothing came of that idea, but I would like to think that the forthcoming review of constituency boundaries (unbound as it is on this occasion by the requirement for minimum disruption) would take the opportunity to start from scratch and create constituencies with more sensible boundaries in the NE part of Derbyshire.
My ideas create a Chesterfield, Dronfield & Wingerworth seat roughly between the current NE Derbys/Derbyshire Dales district boundary and the A61, a NE Derbys seat between the A61 and the M1 and a Bolsover/Alfreton seat mostly between the M1 and the Derbys/Notts border. To me that makes more sense than any proposal involving a NE Derbys near doughnut.
Incidentally the creation of such a Chesterfield, Dronfield & Wingerworth seat would be one of the few ways in which the forthcoming review could create a seat that would be a viable Lib Dem target in Derbyshire.
It had never really occurred to me that NE Derbyshire was a rather illogical creation, if only because it has existed in pretty much that form since 1950. Someone else on that thread was also making the same point though (as you will probably have seen) and I can see what you’re saying.
Is another possibility to take Dronfield and the western rural wards into Derbyshire Dales?
“Rushcliffe obviously somewhat controversial.”
The problem here Joe is that while Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire could all be considered on their own, Northamtonshire has too few voters for 7 seats and is therefore forced to take some territory from Leicestershire. This in turn forces a cross border Leices-Notts seat.
The entitlement by county is as follows
Derbyshire: 10.12 (currently 11)
Leicestershire and Rutland: 9.85 (currently 10)
Lincolnshire: 6.98 (currently 7)
Northamptonshire: 6.61 (currently 7)
Nottinghamshire: 10.30 (currently 11)
Now there is some choice as to which bit of Leicestershire crosses with Nottinghamshire (it could be Melton, Loughborough or NW Leices) but there isn’t really any choice ont he Nottinghamshire side.
And with the Nottingham seats being undersized and needing to expand, which quite likely involves West Bridgford coming into a Nottingham seat again, then the dismemberment of Rushcliffe does seem all but inevitable
Yes, there is a problem.
If the Tories can win Nottingham South, it would be tolerable – although I had hoped they’d win Nottingham South, aswell as Broxtowe and Rushcliffe.
I think Gedling would be on a knife edge on your proposals but strongly suspect Labour would quickly regain it.
(This is self interest of course – not necessarily what should be done).
To clarify – referring to my self interest .
“Is another possibility to take Dronfield and the western rural wards into Derbyshire Dales?”
I don’t think that is doable at all. The boundary between Derbyshire Dales and NE Derbys in that area is very much a natural geographical divide running north to south down the middle of the large, deserted East Moor. Only when the boundary gets just past Harewood Moor to the SW of Holymoorside does it begin to pass through populated areas making a shift either way practical.
I have now registered with the site you referred to and will post my full plan there when I can so that anyone who views that site can take a look.
Chesterfield is a problem. It’s a good size for its own seat, but it leaves oddly shaped areas around it. NE Derbyshire has never made much sense as a seat, and Bolsover is also oddly shaped. You can see the same problems in the boundaries of the local government districts.
One solution would be to ignore the county boundaries – the Bolsover area has much in common with the neighbouring areas of Nottinghamshire, Eckington and Killamarsh would fit well into the neighbouring South Yorkshire constituencies, and Dronfield could turn Sheffield Heeley into a Lib Dem marginal. But, with the boundary commission now having to take the regions of England into account, any cross-over into Sheffield remains very unlikely.
The only other way to link Dronfield with somewhere with which it has something in common would be to place it in the same constituency as western Chesterfield. Then, either use Kieran’s plan, or put Whittington, Brimington, Staveley, Killamarsh and Eckington into Bolsover, which could lose its poorly-linked southern part to a cross-border seat.
It’s not impossible that the Boundary Commission might be persuaded to link Northants with a county outside the East Midlands region when they consider all the knock-on changes that will have to be made to other counties in the East Midlands if they insist on not crossing the regional boundary.
Any plan that involved Dronfield being part of a Sheffield constituency would have no chance. Moving the town into S Yorks was mooted I believe at the time Mosborough and Beighton were annexed by S Yorks. The people of Dronfield objected vociferously and the plans were dropped.
In fact so ludicrous is such an idea believed to be now that the Derbyshire Times published an article highlighting proposals for an expansion of S Yorks southwards into Derbyshire as an April Fool joke this year.
very good pete! i hope you intend to send your maps to the boundary commison,
Kieran -
The idea may be unpopular in Dronfield, but it’s not ludicrous. The built-up area of Dronfield starts only a couple of hundred metres from the Sheffield boundary, and it’s politically quite similar to the neighbouring wards of Sheffield (Beauchief & Greenhill, and Graves Park). Dronfield is essentially a suburb of Sheffield, anyway, even if some of its residents don’t like to think so.
To be fair I didn’t say it was ludicrous (although I think it unecessary and extremely unlikely). It was the good people at the DT who thought it so risible that the idea should form the basis of an “hilarious” spoof.
Published on Friday 1 April 2011 10:02
A PROPOSED boundary shift could see some north Derbyshire suburbs become part of South Yorkshire, under new plans announced today.
The report, published by the developmental body, Pilar Lofo, said that towns such as Dronfield, Eckington, Killamarsh and parts of Chesterfield could be merged with Sheffield suburbs, in what boundary chiefs have called “the best way to create a more inclusive, holistic community surrounding the region’s most dominant city.”
If the plans go ahead, thousands of households could see their postal address changed, as well as becoming part of a new council, MP, and electoral body.
A spokesperson for the development agency who commissioned the report, said: “People in these areas already use a Sheffield postcode, which is the prefix S. I think the people of the towns concerned will be pleased to be associated with a city such as Sheffield and we will strive to achieve this.”
I agree with Warofdreams.
It would not be unreasonable to put Dronfield together with neighbouring bits of Hallam or Heeley. They are neighbouring areas and quite similar in many ways.
Under the terms of the new act, if such pairings are necessary to equalise constituency electorates then if the public don’t like it it’s tough titty.
I certainly don’t see what special case Dronfield has not to be paired with Sheffield, compared with the potentially hundreds of other such potential situations that are likely to occur up and down the country.
It is unlikely for the one and only reason that the commission will probably not be able to cross the East Mids – Yorkshire boundary.
PS it is very silly that people often take the possibility of pairing areas for parliamentary seats to mean that such areas may be moved into the neighbouring council for local government purposes. Numerous stupid scare stories circulated here in Bromley, with many Penge and Crystal Palace residents being made to believe they were being “moved into Lewisham” when the Lewissham West and Penge seat was created.
It’s unfortunate in my view that on the one hand the boundary commission need to work within a narrow range of electorates but at the same time they’ve said they don’t want to cross regional boundaries. Crossing regional boundaries would often be the best thing to do when working within this strict electorate range.
They’ve pretty much gone for Pete Whitehead’s proposals for Derbyshire with the exception of a Derby East/ West split which is controversial when the old North/South split seems more sensible even if it means a split ward.
Amber Valley and Derbyshire South seem identical to those suggestions except they are named Mid Derbs and Derby S and Swandlincote respectively.
It’s interesting IMO that the Labour majority in Belper was reduced to 4,274 in 1966 compared to 6,312 in 1964. The Liberals stood in 1964 (polling 15%) but not 1966 so their vote must have been slightly Tory-leaning.
George Brown in fact complained when he lost Belper (in a moment of comparative sobriety) that the seat wasn’t the one that he had represented in 1945, i.e. that he had been beaten by demographic change. If he was right, it would have been commensurate with his lowered majority in 1966 which as Andy says was striking and completely against the national trend; swings were more nationally uniform in those days than they are now.