Stockton South
2010 Results:
Conservative: 19577 (38.93%)
Labour: 19245 (38.27%)
Liberal Democrat: 7600 (15.11%)
BNP: 1553 (3.09%)
UKIP: 1471 (2.93%)
Christian: 302 (0.6%)
Independent: 536 (1.07%)
Majority: 332 (0.66%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 20503 (47.5%)
Conservative: 14807 (34.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 6974 (16.2%)
Other: 897 (2.1%)
Majority: 5696 (13.2%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 15341 (34.1%)
Labour: 21480 (47.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 7171 (16%)
UKIP: 931 (2.1%)
Majority: 6139 (13.7%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 14328 (32.4%)
Labour: 23414 (53%)
Liberal Democrat: 6012 (13.6%)
Other: 455 (1%)
Majority: 9086 (20.6%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 17205 (33%)
Labour: 28790 (55.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 4721 (9.1%)
Referendum: 1400 (2.7%)
Majority: 11585 (22.2%)
Boundary changes: Minor. Loses part of the Western Parishes ward, part of Newtown and the town centre to Stockon North. It gains a small part of Bishopsgarth, containing less than a hundred voters.
Profile: Straddling the traditional boundary between Yorkshire and County Durham, Stockton South is a relatively affluent and middle class seat compared to most seats in the North-East. Contains the southern part of Stockton itself and the towns of Thornaby, Yarm, Ingleby Barwick and Eaglescliffe.
Regarded as a marginal seat, although now quite a remote target for the Conservatives, Stockton South was one of only 6 to return SDP MPs in the 1983 election, with Ian Wrigglesworth one of only four of the sitting MPs who crossed the floor to retain his seat, largely because his Conservative opponent was revealed to have past links with the National Front and many Conservative ministers refused to campaign for him. The seat fell to the Conservatives in 1987, and to Labour in 1997. In 2005 the Conservative candidate was the former Bad Girls actor James Gaddas.
Current MP: James Wharton (Conservative) Educated at Durham University. Currently works for a North-East law firm.
James Wharton (Conservative) Educated at Durham University. Currently works for a North-East law firm. Dari Taylor(Labour) born 1944, Rhondda, daughter of former Labour MP Dan Jones. Educated at Ynyshire Girls School, Burnley Municipal College and the University of Nottingham. Former regional education officer for the GMB. Sunderland Councillor from 1986-1997. First elected as MP for Stockton South in 1997. PPS to Hazel Blears from 2003-2005 (more information at They work for you)Jacquie Bell (Liberal Democrat) Peter Braney (UKIP)Neil Sinclair (BNP) Ted Strike (Christian Party) 
Yvonne Hossack (Independent) Solicitor.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89924
Male: 48.9%
Female: 51.1%
Under 18: 23.7%
Over 60: 18.7%
Born outside UK: 3.4%
White: 96.4%
Asian: 2.4%
Mixed: 0.6%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 81.5%
Muslim: 1.9%
Full time students: 3.4%
Graduates 16-74: 18.5%
No Qualifications 16-74: 26.6%
Owner-Occupied: 78.1%
Social Housing: 15.2% (Council: 11%, Housing Ass.: 4.2%)
Privately Rented: 5.2%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 3.6%
Labour hold but close. I live locally and our muppet of an MP has done herself no favours over the local school issue and the sprog (Tory) has done his best to cash in. I’m more a Lib Dem but hold my nose and vote Lab in this constituency under this electoral system. Did think of standing as a marginal right wing candidate to split the vote but thankfully we’ve got 4 here already: BNP, UKIP, Christian and Tory. Please, please, please let us get a hung parliament and electoral reform
LAB HOLD
Con gain, maj – 500
I can personally see a bigger anti Labour swing happening in the North East than in most areas and it would not surprise me at all if the Tories won this seat.
I think this will be the only Tory gain in the North-East tomorrow. The candidate has got stuck in to some local issues. People prefer this to mud-slinging.
Pingback: Tweets that mention ukpollingreport.co.uk ยป Stockton South -- Topsy.com
Some quite good predictions here.
Very close but a Tory gain. In the end, the only one in the NE.
I see that the slight boundary changes made the difference.
It may or may not have done. As there was a large swing here from Labour to Conservative it would be unclear if the areas added or removed replicated that to the extent that a differential of 443 in the Labour majority would have remained greater than the 332 that the Conservatives won this seat by.
As it happens I have done some calculations of how the House of Commons might have looked if the election had been fought on the old boundaries (and if voters behaved the same within those boundaries as they did in the new ones).
The result would have been (give or take a couple like this seat which are two close to call):
Con 293
Lab 268
LD 56
Oth 29
I suggest the following differences.
Con on new boundaries Labour on old boundaries:
Bristol NW
Carlisle
Dewsbury
Enfield N
Kingswood
Warwickshire N
Weaver Vale
Con on new boundaries Labour on old boundaries:
Harrogate & Knaresborough
Oxford W & Abingdon
Labour on new boundaries Conservative on old boundaries:
Bolton W
Derby N
Hampstead & Highgate
Harrow W
Wakefield
Labour on new boundaries LD on old boundaries:
Oldham E & Saddleworth
LD on new boundaries Lab on old boundaries:
Norwich S
There are in addition 10 Conservative seats which would not have existed on the old boundaries (1 each in Avon, Cornwall, Devon, Derbyshire, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk, Northants, Lancashire and Warwickshire.)
(There is also an additional Conservative seat in Ealing but that is balanced by the loss of a seat in Havering)
There is one additional LD seat which would not have existed (Chippenham).
And there were an extra 7 Labour seats on the old boundaries which have been abolished – one in each of the Metropolitan counties plus one in London (Brent South). It seems probable however that one of these, namely Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath would have been won by Respect had the election actually been fought on those boundaries, although a notional result would not necessarily suggest a Respect lead because they had no candidates in the parts of the old seat which now reside in Hodge Hill and Yardley constituencies.
Overall the result would significantly shift the balance from the Conservatives to Labour such that a LD/Labour coalition may well have been the more likely outcome (the two parties would have been able to muster a majority given the absence of Sinn Fein members)
Thanks for that Pete, a typically scholarly piece of work. Labour have been very unlucky to suffer the boundary change they have in Enfield N which was generally forecast to be a Conservative gain in 2005 and which could have been another remarkable Labour survival if Ponders End hadn’t been excised from it. The growing non-white vote could well be a factor there, although the seat does have a few of the “Essex Man” type of voters sometimes stereotyped as well. Ponders End is a Labour stronghold although it’s the birthplace of Norman Tebbit.
Thanks Barnaby.
Yes I believe the result in the old Enfield North would have been very similar to what it was in both 2001 and 2005 suggesting a substantial net improvement in Labour’s position there. I seem to be discussing Enfield North on every thread bar the Enfield North thread itself, but the result was quite striking (though unlike Eltham etc the effect was concealed by the boundary changes which prevented Labour from actually holding on.)
Enfield North did indeed always have a large number of “Essex man” type voters which accounts for the almost Havering style pro-Tory swing in 2001. The old Enfield East seat was of course safely Labour throughout its existence (1950-74) but the wards which were contained in that seat showed a strong trend towards the Tories from 1979 onwards and that evidently continued up to and including 2001. Since then that trend has gone into reverse and the growing non-white population and possibly some ‘white flight’ must be the major factor there and this is worrying from the Conservative point of view not only in Enfield but in other parts of London (eg Ilford North and Eltham where we have also discussed this)
All of the above doesn’t mention the overall huge benefit to Labour in our voting system.
I think my prediction here was a bit of a fluke because I thought Tynemouth would be also be a Tory gain with a majority of 500 and that was obviously completely wrong.
Interesting how the two seats behaved so differently this time.
The boundary changes this time were minor. (2010)
The notional 1992 result (on 1997-2005 boundaries)
was
Con 23,331 45.0%
Lab 18,435 35.6%
LD 10,080 19.4%
Tweaking those figures a bit (estimate) for the current boundaries,
this current seat might have voted like this
in 1992 –
Con 45.2%
Lab 35.3%
LD 19.6%
But the Tory vote did rise 10.2% in 1992.
I wonder if the new Tory MP with his 300 vote majority secured election by advising the populace that a Tory govt would rapidly move to axe the new Hartlepool & Tees hospital which would have served his constituents ? Or if he didn’t mention it at all ? Anyone know ?
Does anyone know all the wards which make up this seat? I can guess, but not sure.
I want to add up the local elections, May 2011.
Bishopsgarth & Elm Tree
Eaglescliffe
Fairfield
Grangefield
Hartburn
Ingleby Barwick East
Ingleby Barwick West
Mandale & Victoria
Parkfield & Oxbridge
Stainsby Hill
Village
Yarm
Thanks Joseph.
May 2011 Stockton South
Con 9,475 31.2%
Lab 9,080 29.9%
LD 3,627 11.9%
Ind 8,186 27.0%
Average vote per candidate method.
There are four Independent Groupings, in different parts of the seat
+ one other lone Independent I’ve accounted for
separately.
I’m not sure what the net effect of these Indepdents is
but I would guess they take more Tory votes
in Ingleby Barwick,
and more from Labour in Thornaby.
Yarm could be a more neutral effect.
As far as I know all constituencies have a Wikipedia entry, and these usually list the constituent wards. This wasn’t a good Labour result at all.
There is to be a unified Stockton and Billingham seat,
with Thornaby moving to Middlesbrough,
and worst of all, Yarm and Eaglescliffe merged with Sedgefield.
But I haven’t worked out the figures.
I doubt Yarm is big enough to challenge Labour in Sedgefield.
It’s inevitable that this seat disappears however the boundaries are drawn and it’s hard to draw this area but they’ve made a right mess of it.
Democratic Audit’s proposals weren’t quite so bad as Yarm made more sense with Stockton.
Difficult to say but the Conservatives would had led in the Stockton section and the small Darlington section.
Labour would have been ahead in the Sedgefield wards – though more in Aycliffe and Shildon rather than Sedgefield itself.
Again its difficult to know what the actual effect would be in areas in which there has never been proper campaigning before.
Sedgefield and Yarm only has a Labour majority of about 600 on the UKPR notionals.
The Tories should be able to find extra votes from areas where there has been little campaigning before, but then so could Labour who lost heavily on vote share in 2010.
Probably demographically trending Conservative as well.
In fact it could be notionally Conservative by 2015 because of this.
The Conservatives would be well advised to take notice of demographic trends this time which they didn’t seem to between 2005 and 2010.
Stockton South 1983
htt p://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1983/06/06/AS060683028/?s=uk+Election+1983+&st=0&pn=14
My understanding is that under the BC proposals. Labour would have won the new seat, perhaps relatively comfortably, held Sedfield and Yarm but more tightly helped by 2 heavy Tory wards going to Darlington which in turn becomes more marginal – 1000ish notionally.
.
Roll on the Ashcroft millions and Union money
Of course tactical voting and campaigniong will be different now.
I suppose Phil Wilson will still stand in whatever seat contains Sedgefield in the title even if it still radically altered.
I suppose there could be knock on effects to the final boundaries from a more sensible drawing of county Durham in the final review as that Consett and Barnard Castle seat looks hugely controversial and certain to be changed.
Sad but the suits Consett and B.C suits most Labour MP’s whose main concern is securing a seat (except the Bishop Auckland MP) so we may not see any concerted effort to change but imo it is a daft seat.
The Police and Crime Commissioner results for Stockton are interesting. Stockton Borough (Stockton North and Stockton South) came out first prefs:
8186 Lab
7807 Con
and with second preferences:
9775 Lab
9068 Con
Given this includes the safe Labour seat of Stockton North it would appear the Conservatives are likely to have out polled Labour in Stockton South, possibly by a reasonable margin. Low turnout etc, but with the local election results in 2011 also showing the Conservatives ahead of Labour this seat might be an interesting one to watch?
It would interesting to see the turnout of the southern half of Stockton itself as compared to the rural areas.
We should be having a real go here as there are no other marginals for us in the NE except Berwick and obviously thats in the opposite end of the region, while Labour also have Redcar to concentrate on.
The low LD vote means that the swing should be low here so it should be holdable if the national situation is good.
Having said that the previous Labour MP was (once again) a total crook and so Labour might well have held this seat otherwise.
(She said that she was “very dissapointed” not to have claimed the most expenses in the North-East, published false details about her expenses and claimed excessive, dubious amounts_
”Having said that the previous Labour MP was (once again) a total crook and so Labour might well have held this seat otherwise.”
Don’t want to rain on your parade Joe but that’s quite a partisan and potentially libelous comment there.
Ok, I withdraw the “crook” comment as clearly she has done nothing criminal and replace it with “very generous to herself”
Fair enough Joe.
Im not being overly partisan in saying this Mps behaviour may have affected the result where the gap was only 0.7%. Thats just a fact
Labour’s selection here will be AWS.