Stoke on Trent Central
2010 Results:
Conservative: 6833 (21.04%)
Labour: 12605 (38.82%)
Liberal Democrat: 7039 (21.68%)
BNP: 2502 (7.71%)
UKIP: 1402 (4.32%)
TUSC: 133 (0.41%)
Independent: 1653 (5.09%)
Others: 303 (0.93%)
Majority: 5566 (17.14%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 14003 (52.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 4872 (18.2%)
Conservative: 4695 (17.5%)
Other: 3189 (11.9%)
Majority: 9132 (34.1%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 4823 (17.3%)
Labour: 14760 (52.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 4986 (17.9%)
BNP: 2178 (7.8%)
UKIP: 914 (3.3%)
Other: 246 (0.9%)
Majority: 9774 (35%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 5325 (18.8%)
Labour: 17170 (60.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 4148 (14.7%)
Other: 1657 (5.9%)
Majority: 11845 (41.9%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 6738 (16.7%)
Labour: 26662 (66.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 4809 (11.9%)
Referendum: 1071 (2.7%)
Other: 965 (2.4%)
Majority: 19924 (49.5%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Tristram Hunt (Labour) Born 1974, son of Lord Hunt of Chesterton. Educated at University College School and Cambridge University. Historian, journalist and broadcaster.
Norsheen Bhatti (Conservative) Born 1976, Birmingham. Trainee solicitor and belly dancer. Contested Brent East 2001, Battersea 2005 for the Liberal Democrats. Originally selected to contest Chelsea and Fulham for the Liberal Democrats, she defected to the Conservatives in 2009.Tristram Hunt (Labour) Born 1974, son of Lord Hunt of Chesterton. Educated at University College School and Cambridge University. Historian, journalist and broadcaster.
John Redfern (Liberal Democrat) born 1959. Educated at Warwick University. Retail supervisor. Staffordshire moorlands councillor 1991-2007. Contested Stoke Central 2005. Carol Lovatt (UKIP)
Simon Darby (BNP) born 1965. Dudley councillor 2003-2004. Contested Dudley North in 1997 for the National Democrats, 2001 and 2005 for the BNP.Matthew Wright (TUSC) Youth officer of Stoke Unison.
Paul Breeze (Independent) Born 1952. Former Deputy Mayor of Stoke.
Brian Ward (City Independent) Stoke on Trent councillor
Alby Walker (Independent) Self employed joiner. Stoke on Trent councillor, originally elected for the BNP. Contested West Midlands 2009 European election for the BNP.Gary Elsby (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 80996
Male: 48.7%
Female: 51.3%
Under 18: 20.6%
Over 60: 20.9%
Born outside UK: 4.7%
White: 93.7%
Black: 0.6%
Asian: 4%
Mixed: 1.1%
Other: 0.6%
Christian: 72.2%
Muslim: 3.4%
Full time students: 10.1%
Graduates 16-74: 11.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 40.4%
Owner-Occupied: 59.7%
Social Housing: 26.9% (Council: 18.5%, Housing Ass.: 8.4%)
Privately Rented: 9.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 11.3%
There’s an interesting article by Tristram Hunt in today’s “Observer”, advocating that as local authorities, e.g. in Stoke, are having to introduce museum charges the national galleries in London should do the same.
Personally, I strongly disagree with Mr. Hunt. Thatcher’s museum galleries raised little money by charging in London after one considered the administrative and collection costs, and deterred tourists from coming to London. In addition, free admissions bring in visitors who spend heavily on special exhibitions and goods such as postcards and guidebooks. Stoke, which after all has excellent communications, should do the same by marketing goods for sale to museum visitors – not least locally produced quality pottery.
However, from a psephological point of view this seems to be a good example of what Mr. Hunt, a high-profile candidate but an outsider, is doing to promote his constituency now that he has been elected. Looking in from outside, this is a much needed breath of fresh air for Stoke, which has punched below its weight for a considerable time as a city and which very badly needed backing from a more able politician than some it has had in recent years (perhaps excepting Jack Ashley).
Tristram Hunt is likely to consolidate his position, even if a likely decline in the LibDem vote results in the Tories becoming the clear challenger. And in terms of his personal performance so far he deserves to do so.
Former Labour elected mayor Mark Meredith to be Labour’s candidate against the Lib Dem group leader in Birches Head and Central Forest Park ward.
New ward arrangements for Stoke Central:
ABBEY HULTON AND TOWNSEND (2 member)
BENTILEE AND UBBERLEY (2 member)
BIRCHES HEAD AND CENTRAL FOREST PARK (2 member)
BOOTHEN AND OAKHILL
EATON PARK
HANLEY AND ETRURIA
HANLEY PARK AND SHELTON
HARTSHILL AND BASFORD
JOINERS SQUARE
PENKHULL AND STOKE
SPRINGFIELDS AND TRENT VALE
Does anyone know if the new constituencies will be constructed using the old or new ward boundries in Stoke on Trent?
it will be the old wards
No, it will be the new wards.
Why would the next boundary review use wards that ceased to be several years before?
Old wards – as the new wards are coming into force for May 2011.
http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/faqs/
“Will recent ward changes be taken into account during this review?
The statutory rules state that the ‘Boundary Commission for England may take into account, if and to such extent as they fit…local government boundaries as they exist on the most recent ordinary council-elections before the review date.’ The review start date is 1 December 2010 which means we can only take into account the ward boundaries that were in place on 6 May 2010, and we will not take into account boundaries coming into effect in May 2011, or later.”
Thats stupid.
Once again the boundary commission must win the prize for incompetance.
So we have to pretend that the city council wards are different to the ones that actually exist do we?
Shhh. Better not tell anyone.
I’m not one to pull my punches with the boundary commission, when they come up with silly boundaries, but it would be more than a bit unfair to criticise them over this and call them incompetent. Perhaps Shaun you should read again the passage above which begins “The statutory rules state…”
I agree with Shaun on this, surely to get an accurate picture, the most recent wards should be used in this case the new 2011 wards. Otherwise the figures will be distorted if we used old 2010 results which will be completely different to the new ones.
Prediction for Stoke City Council election:
ABBEY HULTON AND TOWNSEND – 2 Lab Win
BADDELEY, MILTON AND NORTON – 2 Lab win, 1 Ind Win
BENTILEE AND UBBERLEY – 2 Lab win
BIRCHES HEAD AND CENTRAL FOREST PARK – 2 Lab win
BLURTON EAST – Ind win
BLURTON WEST AND NEWSTEAD – Ind win
BOOTHEN AND OAKHILL – Lab win
BRADELEY AND CHELL HEATH – Lab win
BURSLEM CENTRAL – Lab win
BURSLEM MOORCROFT – Lab win
BURSLEM PARK – Lab win
DRESDEN AND FLORENCE – Lab win
EATON PARK – Lab win
FENTON EAST – Ind win
FENTON WEST AND MOUNT PLEASANT – Lab win
FORD GREEN AND SMALLTHORNE – Lab win
GOLDENHILL AND SANDYFORD – Lab win
GREAT CHELL AND PACKMOOR – 2 Lab wins
HANLEY AND ETRURIA – Lab win
HANLEY PARK AND SHELTON – Lab win
HARTSHILL AND BASFORD – Ind win
JOINERS SQUARE – Lab win
LIGHTWOOD NORTH AND NORMACOT – Lab win
LITTLE CHELL AND STANFIELD – Lab win
LONGTON EAST AND BROADWAY – Lab win
LONGTON WEST AND HOLLYBUSH – forgive me if I don’t predict this one. I’m standing here. Could be won by either Ind or Lab.
MEIR HAY – Con win
MEIR NORTH – Lab win
MEIR PARK – Con win
MEIR SOUTH – Lab win
PENKHULL AND STOKE – Ind win
SANDFORD HILL – Lab win
SNEYD GREEN – Lab win
SPRINGFIELDS AND TRENT VALE – LD win
TUNSTALL – Lab win
TRENTHAM AND HANFORD – 1 Con win, 1 Ind win
WESTON COYNEY – Con win
New council = Lab Gain from NOC
Lab = 31-32 (+7-8)
Ind = 6-7 (-2)
Con = 4 (-4)
LD = 1 (-3)
Oth = 1 (-3)
BNP=0 (-5)
Community Voice= 0 (-5)
“I agree with Shaun on this, surely to get an accurate picture, the most recent wards should be used in this case the new 2011 wards. Otherwise the figures will be distorted if we used old 2010 results which will be completely different to the new ones.”
I don’t understand the second sentence. Which figures will be distorted and what ‘results’ are you referring to? If you’re talking about being able to work out notional results for the new seats, this kind of thing does make it a pain, but that’s hardly a concern for the boundary commission. When you say you agree with Shaun I presume you mean that you agree that new wards should be used rather than that they will be. It is a matter of fact that new wards will not be taken into account. The reasoning is actually sound, since the review start date was in December 2010 so it is the wards which existed then. Even if new ward boundaries which take effect this May were used in affected areas, what will happen in areas where there are ward boundary changes next year? (there’s always some).
I’m past caring to tell you the truth Pete. The new wards shouldbe used because they are the ones that are in place and being used at the time the boundary commission set about actually drawing the lines on the map in this part of the world.
Presumably in theory if the review technically started and the commission sat around doing nothing for 10 years, during which time the ward boundaries changed once or even twice, then by the time they actually began work, they would have to use ward boundaries that were well out of date.
It isn’t the ward boundaries that exist at the start date of the review that should be used, it is the ones in place when they actually do the work!
We have already had the ridiculous situation whereby the commission drew up constituency boundaries in counties such as Somerset and Northumberland something like a decade ago and then they had to go BACK to those counties and ajust their constituency boundaries again before they had even been used because ward boundaries had changed in the meantime!
Are we to have that happen here I wonder?
I’m not saying that you are factually incorrect Pete. Indeed, I’m sure you know far more about the legal situation in these things than I do. But I’m saying that the legal position is a farce and should be changed.
Lab Cllr Matt Wilcox is on Ch4 now. His success in May was attributed in part to Come Dine With Me!
Stoke-on-Trent City Council have objected to the altered Stoke-on-Trent Central and proposed Kidsgrove & Tunstall constituencies on the basis that they divide the historic town of Burslem.
There is further opposition from Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council who object to the proposed Newcastle-under-Lyme & Stone constituency and presumably also the Kidsgrove & Tunstall constituency.
The Boundary Commission may be persuaded to make changes to their initial proposals here.
Wouldn’t bet my house on that James.
Yes the council in which Labour control 34 of the 44 seats surprisingly voted to oppose the boundary commission’s proposals NOT becuase of the situation in Burslem; nobody give a damn about the situation in Burslem. It was opposed because of the negative effect the changes have on Labour’s chances of winning 4 seats in North Staffordshire.
It was telling that the only people to support the changes where both Tories and a handful of Independents.. Similarly in Newcastle where Labour were able to solicit the support of Lib Dems up in arms about the split of the ‘community’.
With any luck, the commission will reject entirely the Labour opposition because they have no alternative proposals that would work accross the whole of Staffordshire that are in any way better. If not Burslem, then which community should be split?