Salford and Eccles
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 18119 (56%)
Liberal Democrat: 7111 (22%)
Conservative: 5492 (17%)
Other: 1617 (5%)
Majority: 11009 (34%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 3440 (15.2%)
Labour: 13007 (57.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 5062 (22.4%)
UKIP: 1091 (4.8%)
Majority: 7945 (35.2%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 3446 (15.3%)
Labour: 14649 (65.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 3637 (16.2%)
Other: 782 (3.5%)
Majority: 11012 (48.9%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 5779 (17.4%)
Labour: 22848 (69%)
Liberal Democrat: 3407 (10.3%)
Referendum: 926 (2.8%)
Other: 162 (0.5%)
Majority: 17069 (51.5%)
Boundary changes
Current MP: Hazel Blears (Labour) born 1956, Salford. Educated at Wardley Grammar School and Trent Polytechnic. Solicitor. Salford councillor from 1984-1992. Contested Tatton 1987, Bury South 1992. First elected as MP for Salford in 1997. Diminutive, motorcycling and preternaturally chirpy loyalist. Served as PPS to Alan Milburn and then Andrew Smith in the 1997-2001 Parliament. Junior minister in the Department of Health 2001-2003, Minister of State at the Home Office 2003-2006, Labour Party Chairman 2006-2007, Secretary of State for Communities 2007-2009, resigning immediately before the European and local elections in a move widely seen as a attempt to destabilise Gordon Brown, having been criticised by him in the expenses row. Contested Labour deputy leadership in 2007 (more information at They work for you)
Candidates: 
Robert Wakefield (UKIP)
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 95839
Male: 49.6%
Female: 50.4%
Under 18: 20.2%
Over 60: 21.6%
Born outside UK: 5.8%
White: 95.4%
Black: 0.7%
Asian: 1.6%
Mixed: 1.1%
Other: 1.2%
Christian: 77.8%
Muslim: 1.5%
Full time students: 8.1%
Graduates 16-74: 14.8%
No Qualifications 16-74: 35.9%
Owner-Occupied: 52.9%
Social Housing: 32.9% (Council: 26%, Housing Ass.: 6.8%)
Privately Rented: 10.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 8.3%
I fully expect that genuine left-wing socialists will now stand an Independent ‘Labour’ candidate against Blears (and Alec McFadden probably is the man for that particular job), however I think the bitter irony [for the left] of this will be a reduction of the official Labour vote which will only serve to pave the way for a ‘non left-wing’ candidate to sneak in.
Salford and Eccles is shaping up to be a very unusual contest. It could be that the strongest Pro Life candidate will win. Salford and Eccles could see an unprecedented pro life onslaught which takes out the media’s perceived front-runners. The word is that pro lifers will heavily target this seat with previously unused tactics. (Blears’ record is antithetical to the pro life cause).
I don’t believe Labour will lose this seat - it is too substantial a structure for any of the other parties, or a fringe candidate.
Frederic Stansfield has made another excellent post.
I can understand Baz’s anger, although I rather doubt she made things significantly worse for Labour in the elections by the way she resigned, and timing of it.
(Although I stand to be corrected).
The expenses scandal has been very unpleasant for the main parties, and the Euro election came at the ideal time for a protest or a statement, because it is seen as more remote than local council elections.
Thanks, Joe James B.
The expenses scandal was exploited by powerful and skilled interests at a time when it caused huge effect. One wonders what similar interests may do shortly before the General Election, particularly bearing in mind that both Labour and the LibDems are likely to have their campaigns hobbled by lack of finance.
The likelihood of negative influences, from a left-wing point of view, before the General Election is one reason why in making my comments generally I am not expecting the swing back to the Government that many people regard as traditional. Although of course I try to qualify predictions with qualifications to cater for the unexpected.
Remember what happened to Oonah King at the last GE…..and as far as I am aware she did nothing wrong and was not disliked as much as the current MP in Salford
2005 was an odd election though wasn’t it?
It was almost as if people had (collectively) decided to re-elect Labour - but only in the seats where it was necessary, and to send a warning shot otherwise.
I’d have thought Bethnal Green & Bow was clearly a seat where the Iraq war was exploited by Galloway, whereas this is a 95% white seat (in 2001 - perhaps changed?) and probably not the kind of C2 voters who would swing heavily against Labour. But I may be wrong of course, as local knowledge would be needed to guage how all this was received. Still a Labour loss looks unlikely.
I actually thought the BBC seemed to be biased against Labour in the 2005 election studio. They spent the whole night saying how awful the results were for the government and I think someone who didn’t know what was going on might have assumed Labour were at risk of losing office when in fact they won a very comfortable majority by most standards. When Solihull came in no-one made any comment whatsoever because it didn’t fit in with the narrow narrative they’d decided on beforehand. Tony King was bewitched by the Putney result for about 3 hours despite the fact that it wasn’t being replicated in most regions of the country.
I think the BBC were a bit sore about the Iraq war, and the way the run ins they’d had with the government.
Actually I defend the BBC more than many Tories. Some said their 1979 coverage was biased, but I think it did fairly report the large East End Tory swing that became apparent very early. The difficulty of the projection is two extremes of the swing came first - London and Scotland, with everywhere else delayed by local election vote separation. Also, Labour did generally do better in marginal seats (but not all).
I also thought that it looked like some very large seats were delayed.
On Andy’s point, I think Solihull (2005) has been quite a sick joke among Tories.
I remember asking a Tory candidate from Birmingham how we managed to lose Solihull, and she replied “don’t ask.”
On General Election night there are some seats, which are usually called early…..
Wrexham
Cardiff North
Darlington
Basildon
A couple of London seats
A few safe Labour seats such as Manchester central
This time around we should be able to pick out a general trend before midnight. At the last GE it took a bit longer to get the full picture of the extent of Labour’s win.
My recollection is that in recent elections Sunderland South has declared a long time before anywhere else. Similarly, in Wales Wrexham has easly been the first.
I have no recollection that Cardiff North declares early. In fact I have asked, some months ago, about when Cardiff Central declares. When I lived there, the Cardiff seats were slow declaring given their comparatively compact size, in factg I thonk quite remarklably so. I don’t think things have changed, but it may simply be that I haven’t noticed after moving away.
The speed of the counts may depend on whether Brown calls the election on the same day as local elections. Incidentally, I am opposed on principle to two elections being held on the same day because it detracts from proper debate of matters concerning the less important election.
Verring off-topic, so apologies, but I suspect Sunderland Central will aim to be the first to declare
It will be fascinating to see how accurate the notional is - I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there was a recount in SC and similarly wouldn’t be surprised if its notional swing significantly exceeded the national average
Hi Frederick
Cardiff North called early at the last election
According to a site I have seen listing The Guardian list of 2005 declaration times - Cardiff N declared at 3:02 - not really that early - with Cardiff W declaring at 1:38; Cardiff S & Penarth at 2:00 and Cardiff C at 2:16.
It does say however that these times are ‘approximate’.