High Peak
2010 Results:
Conservative: 20587 (40.9%)
Labour: 15910 (31.61%)
Liberal Democrat: 10993 (21.84%)
UKIP: 1690 (3.36%)
Green: 922 (1.83%)
Independent: 161 (0.32%)
Others: 74 (0.15%)
Majority: 4677 (9.29%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 19104 (41.4%)
Conservative: 16772 (36.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 9288 (20.1%)
Other: 1029 (2.2%)
Majority: 2332 (5%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 19074 (38.2%)
Labour: 19809 (39.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 10000 (20%)
UKIP: 1106 (2.2%)
Majority: 735 (1.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 17941 (37.3%)
Labour: 22430 (46.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 7743 (16.1%)
Majority: 4489 (9.3%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 20261 (35.5%)
Labour: 29052 (50.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 6420 (11.2%)
Referendum: 1420 (2.5%)
Majority: 8791 (15.4%)
Boundary changes: becomes co-terminous with High Peak district council, losing the wards in the old seat that fell under Derbyshire Dales Council to the new Derbyshire Dales seat – Bradwell, Hathersage & Eyam, Litton & Longstone and Tideswell. These wards are all made up of rural villages and their loss is likely to benefit Labour.
Profile: As the name might suggest High Peak largely consists of the Peak District at the northern end of Derbyshire. By area is mostly consists of the higher, wilder parts of the Peak District, mostly uninhabited moorland. Hills and moors have no votes though, and the majority of the electorate live in the towns to the west of the seat that look towards Greater Manchester, places like Glossop, Hadfield, Tintwistle and New Mills.
To the south is the spa town of Buxton and to the east of the constituency there are still a few villages of the Hope valley that haven`t been removed by the boundary changes, including Hope itself, Castleton and Bamford. Despite being a large rural seat, the Tory voting villages are balanced out by Labour support in the towns, particularly the council estate of Gamesley in Glossop.
Tourism is of major importance to the area but there is also industry in the towns to the west. Notably the sweet manufacturer Swizzels Matlow are based in New Mills and Chapel-en-le-Frith, the administrative HQ of High Peak District Council, is also the site of a brake lining manufacturing factory owned by Ferodo, a subsidiary of Turner and Newall, now owned by Federal Mogul. The collapse of the T&N pension fund is a major local concern.
Between 1992 and 1997 the seat was represented by Charles Hendry, now Conservative MP for Wealden.
Current MP: Andrew Bingham (Conservative) born 1962, Buxton. High Peak councillor since 1999. Contested High Peak in 2005.
Andrew Bingham (Conservative) born 1962, Buxton. High Peak councillor since 1999. Contested High Peak in 2005.
Caitlin Bisknell (Labour) High Peak councillor since 1999.
Alistair Stevens (Liberal Democrat) Cricket coach and former professional cricketer.
Peter Allen (Green) Advice worker.
Sylvia Hall (UKIP) Tony Alves (Independent)Lance Dowson (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89433
Male: 49.4%
Female: 50.6%
Under 18: 23.2%
Over 60: 20.5%
Born outside UK: 2.9%
White: 98.7%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 0.2%
Mixed: 0.6%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 76.5%
Full time students: 2.2%
Graduates 16-74: 21.9%
No Qualifications 16-74: 27.1%
Owner-Occupied: 77.1%
Social Housing: 13.4% (Council: 11%, Housing Ass.: 2.4%)
Privately Rented: 6.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 6.6%
Parts of it yes. Glossop aswell.
Western Buxton is solidly Tory but the East of the town is quite strongly Labour and has more electors too. Glossop & New Mills (at least in general elections) are also Labour-inclined towns.
I will predict the following percentages for High Peak
Cons 45%
Lab 34%
LD 19%
That’s a pretty fair summary Barnaby. If we assume Labour’s core is the areas where they still have councillors elected then of the nine 2 are elected in two member Stone Bench (east Buxton), 1 in the single member Hadfield North (Hadfield is just NW of Glossop bordering Greater Manchester), 1 along with a Tory in the two member Hadfield South (incidentally Hadfield appeared as the village of Royston Vasey in the comedy series the League of Gentlemen), 2 in the two member Howard Town (central Glossop), 1 in single member Whitfield (SE Glossop), 1 along with a Lib Dem in two member New Mills East and 1in single member Gamesley (west of Glossop bordering Greater Manchester).
The only county division won by Labour in this seat last year was Etherow which includes Gamesley and both Howard Town wards.
Glossop and the surrounding area would appear to be the most reliable source of Labour support in this seat. I’ve always thought of Buxton as a whole being basically Lab/Con marginal, while New Mills is Labour/Lib Dem marginal with minimal Tory support (although Labour didn’t put up a candidate in New Mills East at the last round of district elections).
Last line should say Labour didn’t put up a candidate in New Mills West, not east.
Lib Dem PPC chosen on 11 Feb. Cllr Alistair Stevens. From Buxton Advertiser:-
” New Mills Town Councillor Alistair Stevens beat High Peak Borough Cllr David Lomax at a packed meeting last Friday.
A former professional and semi-professional with Lancashire County Cricket Club, 51-year-old Cllr Stevens has worked in junior cricket since the early 1990s “
Has Tunstead, birthplace of the ‘father of the waterways’ James Brindley, always been in High Peak constituency?
At the time of Mr Brindley’s birth (1716) it was in the two-seat Derbyshire constituency, the MPs then were Godfrey Clarke and Sir John Curzon.
Has Tunstead, birthplace of the ‘father of the waterways’ James Brindley, always been in this constituency?
At the time of Mr Brindley’s birth (1716) it was in the two-seat Derbyshire constituency, the MPs at the time being Godfrey Clarke and Sir John Curzon.
I think James Brindley built the Bridgewater Canal. In 1966, I worked in Worsley Old Hall, next to the canal.
CON GAIN – IMO.
‘I think James Brindley built the Bridgewater Canal’
Although that does not answer my query, I am happy to confirm that David!
What is the Ind PPC’s platform?
See http://www.old-glossop.com/pages/Cllr%20Ivan/index.html
Cons Gain= 3,500 maj
Here’s an opportunity to “declare” this seat, and contribute to the overall prediction for 2010
http://hungparliament2010.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-undermentioned-hereby-give-notice.html
CON 5000
Con Gain
Maj 2600
Con maj 3,750
Much as people might be tempted to vote Liberal, it is a wasted vote in the High Peak if you prefer not to have a Tory MP. Vote Labour. The likelihood is that we have a hung Parliament, important electoral reforms will be negotiated between Labour and the Lib Democrats.
Vote Labour. Vote tactically.,
As always – vote for what you believe is right.
CON GAIN
The 7.15% swing is the highester swing to the Tories, ever right? In 1950 there was a swing to Labour, and in 1979 there was a paltry swing of just 2.7% to the Conservatives.
I’ve been having a look at what could possibly happen to Derbyshire in the forthcoming boundary review to create large seats. In his most recent article on the subject Anthony stated that Derbyshire would probably suffer a one seat reduction to ten seats. That may well be the case, but Derbyshire is only just large enough (by about 10,000 voters) to merit ten seats with electorates of 76,000; just above the absolute minimum under the new rules. Assuming no crossing of the county boundary any ten seat solution would have to involve a lot of splitting of local government wards to create the level of flexibility necessary to work within such a tight margin. A nine seat solution creating constituencies just over the 80,000 quota is far more doable under current ward boundaries.
This seat is pretty straightforward. Under a ten seat plan for the county its southern boundary could simply be moved south to take in Bradwell and Hathersage & Eyam wards from the current Derbyshire Dales. A nine seat plan would probably mean the boundary moving further south to include Bakewell and surrounding wards to create a High Peak and North West Derbyshire seat. Under either scenario the Tory position in this seat would be strengthened. A High Peak and NW Derbys would probably be safe Tory.
“Under a ten seat plan for the county its southern boundary could simply be moved south to take in Bradwell and Hathersage & Eyam wards from the current Derbyshire Dales”
This would be a restoration of the status quo ante in this seat, which might add a couple of thousand to the Conservative majority. Presumably across Derbyshire the recent boundary changes would be more or less reversed with Derbyshire Mid disappearing and the constituency parts being sent back whence they came which loses the Conservatives a safe seat but makes them safer in Amber Valley and Erewash and puts Derby North in the Tory column.
That would be bad news for Pauline Latham.
Presumably her only option would be to stand in Derby North.
Who is deciding these new boundaries?
Nick Clegg.
Anyway, the dilution of LD seats will probably lead to even more clean sweeps of red and blue.
A useful counter-weights against AV.
If we don’t have AV, and their support drops sharply – even better.
Certainly Joe I can’t see the boundary review in Derbyshire being anything other the damaging to the Lib Dems chances of winning a seat. Going into the last election they will have had high hopes of holding Chesterfield and gaining Derby North. Both those seats will have to expand to include territory not favourable to the Lib Dems in order that they meet the 76,000 minimum quota.
That’s not necessarily true of Chesterfield – it could potentially expand to include Dronfield, which is generally good for the Lib Dems and Tories, and poor for Labour.
Why do the boundary commissioners seem to deem it essential that all constituencies must be contained within the post-1974 counties?
And if AV went ahead, I would have thought that Chesterfield would be one of the places that it might benefit theb LDs. Big If there, of course.
One would presume that a Derby North redrawn as described would still be winnable for Labour in the event of a modest swing?
The low swing in 1979 could have been because the Tories held the seat in 1974, and swings across that period look quite low.
An earlier post –
JOE JAMES B
High Peak was unchanged in February 1974,
so comparisons across it are possible.
It was retained by the Conservatives in both 1974 elections with a slightly larger majority than in 1970. It’s actually had fairly low swings across the four elections below.
1979
C 22,532 46.5%
Lab 17,777 36.7%
Lib 8,200 16.9%
October 1974
C 19,043 41.4%
Lab 17,041 37.1
Lib 9,875 21.5
February 1974
C 19,231 39.8%
Lab 16,956 35.1%
Lib 12,117 25.1%
1970
C 19,558 43.7%
Lab 18,054 40.4%
Lib 7,119 15.9%
“Who is deciding these new boundaries?
Nick Clegg”
HAHAHAHAH
How many people have never heard of the Boundary Commission for England? Honestly?
The amount of ignorance and stupidty spouted over the reduction in MPs – almost entirely from Labour supporters – is hilarious. My Twitter feed is stuffed full of Labour supporters calling it “gerrymandering” without understanding what that term means.
It’s brilliant and hilarious to hear so much stupidity from Labour on this issue. As with so much else, they haven’t got a clue.
Warofdreams: I don’t think there is any prospect, assuming the boundary commission go for Derbyshire having ten seat with 76-77,000 electorates, of Chesterfield being extended to include Dronfield. Assuming Dronfield was not split in any way (which would be stupid) such a move would shift too many voters from NE Derbys to Chesterfield, making Chesterfield over sized and NE Derbys undersized in the context of a target electorate of 76-77,000.
However, having looked at the situation in more detail I find that I was incorrect in saying that boundary changes for Chesterfield would inevitably hurt the Lib Dems, just not for the reason cited by Warofdreams. Probably the simplest (not necessarily the best way though) of increasing Chesterfield’s electorate to reach a 76,000 quota would be to shift Barrow Hill & New Whittington ward from NE Derbys to Chesterfield. As this is currently a Lib Dem held ward such a move would probably prove to be marginally of benefit to them.
Barnaby, I certainly don’t see any changes effecting Derby North being of any benefit to Labour there. As Pete has said above any plan for Derbyshire will probably centre around the abolition of Mid Derbyshire. Assuming that would involve the Derby City wards currently in Mid Derbyshire of Allestree and/or Oakwood being transfered to Derby N this would be be to the benefit of the Conservatives. Had either of those wards been included in Derby N at the last election the seat would have elected a Tory MP. Allestree in particular is a large ward that as far as I know has always elected Tory councillors.
On a general point, I wonder if it will be the case that the target of 80,000 voters per constituency will become in practice pretty meaningless as all areas of the country strive to ensure the creation of constituencies that just reach the bare minimum of 76,000 in an attempt to ensure the maximum level of representation in parliament for their locality. If this is the case then there is surely a chance that in the end the total number of MPs might not be reduced as to as few as 600.
To be fair to Barnaby, what he said that sucha Derby North (effectively returned to the 1983-2010) boundaries, though it would surely have been Conservative at this election, would still be a winnable Labour seat, which of course it would be since they did win it easily from 1997 to 2005. I don’t know how it will have voted in detail but at a rough guess the Conservatives would have had a majority of 2-3,000 in the old Derby North in 2010 which probably does equate to a swing of around 3% being needed for Labour to regain it
Yes Pete I’ve just re-read Barnaby’s comment and now realise what he meant, and that there is some truth in what he says. Derby North would probably still be winnable for Labour, but how difficult a task that would be would depend on whether all of both Allestree and Oakwood (and even possibly Spondon) were moved into the seat, and which territory Derby North had to lose to the south in order to compensate for taking in so much of the former Mid Derbys and for the purposes of bringing Derby South up to size.
My preference would be to bring South Derbyshire up to size by adding in most of Chellaston ward from Derby South. The knock on effect of that would be a need to expand Derby South into the area now covered by Derby North, probably taking in the likes of Abbey, Littleover, Mickleover and Makworth; parts of the current Derby North less favourable to the Tories.
In short, it would be possible to construct a Derby North that took in territory to the north and east and shed territory to the south and south west that was pretty difficult (but certainly not impossible) for Labour to win. I am sure that is a prospect that has not gone unnoticed among Derby City Conservatives.
My grandmother lives in this seat.
This is the kind of seat Ed Miliband needs to win if he wants power.
This seat would also be interesting under AV.
This is also the sort of seat which could benefit if the boundary commission ignores county boundaries. The northernmost part of the seat was formerly in Cheshire, so it’s hardly as if the boundaries are inviolable. I doubt this will happen, though, as the surrounding boundaries are also those of regions.
The area around Glossop and New Mills has all its links with Manchester (and is politically more similar to neighbouring Greater Manchester), the Hope Valley and Upper Derwent Valley are closely linked with Sheffield (although they are politically quite different), while the remainder of the seat could then better be linked with Derbyshire Dales.
Maybe but what about Whaley Bridge? Still seems a bit strange even if people in new Mills etc get Northwest tonight.
I though this was an underwhelming result for the tories at the GE compared with other Derbs seats.
Maybe a big swing to the tories in Buxton but not much of a rise in the rest of the seat.
Unlike the rest of Derbyshire there aren’t huge numbers of swing voters here. Instead there’s a sizeable core vote for both major parties – for Labour in Glossop and the towns towards Manchester, and for the Tories in the substantial rural area. Buxton as you mention is competitive between Tories and Labour.
The Lib Dems do well here. I wonder if their strength comes from the Manchester end of the seat which might be influenced by Lib Dem strength in Hazel Grove, Cheadle etc? Or do Lib Dem votes here mostly come from the Tory rural areas?
Swing was a shade over 7%, so about in line with the national swing. I’d have to check to see how it compares to the rest of the county
I was under the impression the lib dems were strong in Whaley bridge and chapel en le frith but I don’t know.
Would make sense. Those areas are more influenced by Stockport, where the Lib Dems are very strong, than Derbyshire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Peak_Council_election,_2007#cite_note-0
Looking at these figures, it looks like labour could gain 6/7 seats or so but that the tories will narrowly remain the largest party
Good result for Labour here, falling 1 seat short of control. They might have actually won control if they had put a 2nd candidate up in new Mills West.
3 seats for the LDs was expected.
Lab 21 (+12)
Con 15 (-9)
LD 3 (-3)
Ind 4 (nc)
I recently read Matthew Parris’s “Chance Witness” in which he mentions he only discovered former Whip & MP for this seat Spencer Le Marchent’s gay life after his death (from alcoholism). The Daily Mail ran a piece speculating on Charles Hendry MP being gay, after an incident in a bar with a young male researcher. He was also MP for this seat. Both married posh, wealthy ladies. I realise ‘arranged’ marriages of conveniences occurred a century ago, but hadn’t realised politicos still did.