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?
Interesting by-election here on Thursday in the Springfields and Trent Vale ward of Stoke town.
I’d imagine Labour should be favourites to hold the seat in the present political climate. The Lib Dems used to do well in the ward and they are putting out leaflets claiming that its between them and Labour.
And yet, the sitting Labour councillor’s resignation was embarrassing (although mostly for her to be honest). She was on the Labour cabinet and challenged the group leader for the party leadership. Then she was surprised when he subsequently sacked her, and she went off in a huff going on about how unfair it all was.
Labour have underperformed in other North Staffordshire by-elections since the general election. It wasn’t long ago that they managed to LOSE the Madeley seat in Newcastle to the Lib Dems, for example.
Also, Labour have a strong majority on the city council and there is some movement in the ward to say that a little more opposition presence might not be a bad thing.
On the other hand, the Labour candidate is regarded as a bit of a rising star and achieved wide priase when she stood in last year’s local elections in my neighbouring ward of Blurton East. There are 9 candidates standing in the by-election.
Who are the 9 parties/Inds please Shaun? At least in Stoke, voters don’t lack choice!
Mubsira AUMIR (Labour)
Jackie BARNES (City Independents)
Michael BEDNARSKI (UK Independence Party)
Michael COLEMAN (British National Party)
Gary ELSBY (Independent)
Harold GREGORY (Conservative Party)
Mark LEAT (Democratic Nationalists)
Les PORCH (Liberal Democrat)
Matt WRIGHT (Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts)
ht tp://bit.ly/LKGyhd
Thanks Andy, you got there before me.
Campaigning in the ward at the weekend, it was clear that several candidates are working hard and several residents complained that they’d already had enough literature through the door from the various parties.
For information, Gary Elsby is a former Labour activist who stood in Stoke Central at the general election in 2010.
Mark Leat was a BNP councillor in Longton, thrown out of the group allegedly for laziness. He was in talks to join the Conservative group before he lost his seat on the council and has since stood for England First and now the Democratic Nationalists.
Thanks Andy & Shaun. Will the Labour candidate being Asian harm their vote? Although I realise any anti-vote could be split many ways.
I was thinking about that myself, Lancs Observer. I’m not at all sure. It could be argued either way really.
This particular candidate stood in Blurton East last year which is almost all-white and as I say, got a good press. She came third in the end behind Independents and Conservatives. But her vote was not noticeably poor given Labour’s success in the city that year and the new boundaries introduced in 2011 makes it almost impossible to determine Labour’s natural historical strength in the wards.
I think it could be a factor. But I doubt it will be a major one to be honest. Voters who are put off by her candidature would probably either stay at home or vote BNP. And I wouldn’t expect to see the BNP poll strongly.
“Campaigning in the ward at the weekend..”
Which candidate were you campiagning for Shaun?
Jackie Barnes.
You may remember that I stood for the City Independent group at the city council elections in 2011.
I took the view that we desperately need more non-Labour councillors elected to the city council to help provide a bit of scrutiny and opposition. The City Independent Group is doing a fantastic job with the seats they have, but they really need to be bigger in order to make any impact on the arrogant Labour council.
I’m shunned by the local Tories even though I’m a member of the party, I could NEVER see the election of a Lib Dem as being better than a Labour win, and UKIP probably can’t win from where they’re starting from in the ward.
How do you rate her prospects? I did recall you had stood as an Independent which is why I wondered whether you would support some kind of Independent rather than a Tory. Doesn’t your campaighning for an Independent when there is a Conservative candidate mean you would be expelled from the party though?
I really don’t know Pete. I don’t have my fingers on the pulse of the ward really, and as I’ve said, the Lib Dems have been the anti-Labour opposition there in the recent past. Having said that, an Independent did win the area on the old (larger) ward boundaries a few years ago but that was when Labour were in opposition and she was already established in the area having been a former councillor herself.
My personal feeling is that Labour should in all honesty be regarded as the favourites, but if voters have an attack of common sense and realise that more opposition is needed on the council, then I’d expect her to have a better chance than the Lib Dems who really are poorly regarded in the city at the moment.
The feeling on the ground was relatively good and Jackie Barnes seems to have a lot of support as a local candidate, from what I’ve seen. But whether that can translate into real votes is something that won’t be clear until the result. Nobody can be complacent at the moment.
“Doesn’t your campaighning for an Independent when there is a Conservative candidate mean you would be expelled from the party though?”
Possibly. When I resigned from the party last year, my local party didn’t even update it with CCHQ and as far as they were concerned I was still a member. I continued to receive fundraising letters from the national party and as I didn’t cancel my direct debit with the national party, I just received a ‘thank you for renewing’ letter when they took the money out-hence my rejoining the party.
The fact is that whilst I am technically a member of the party nationally and will probably vote Conservative at the general election, I have had no contact with the local party and do not feel any obligation to support them locally. Furthermore, if a by-election came up in my own ward, I would probably stand as an Independent. But with our local elections now held very four years, I am able to keep my options open somewhat.
I very much doubt the local Conservatives could be bothered to try to get me kicked out to be honest. If I were to be though, well that wouldn’t really affect me or my political position at all. I’d just be back where I was when I chose to leave the party last year….and by the end of the year, the national party would probably continue to draw my direct debit and send me another ‘thank you for renewing’ letter.
Any news from Stoke?
Being reported
City Ind 370 34.9%
Lab 245 23.1%
LD 152 14.3%
Con 109 10.3%
UKIP 105 9.9%
Ind 36 3.4%
BNP 27 2.5%
TUSC 14 1.3%
DN 2 0.2%
The 2 votes for the Democratic Nationalist may be an error
Thanks Pete. Shaun will be pleased.
Not a good result for Labour of course – any by-election defeat in a Labour-held seat is pretty infrequent at the moment. I’d welcome Shaun’s comments about why he thinks this result occurred since I have no local knowledge.
Sorry, I was away over the weekend and so unable to reply promptly.
Needless to say, it was a lovely surprise to return home to. To defeat Labour in a Labout held ward during present political circumstances is no mean feat. To defeat Labour in said Labour held ward in THIS city is an astonishing achievement.
I think it is symptomatic of a feeling that whilst most voters really have little affection or liking for the present coalition, they still are not convinced by the Labour alternative. Its exactly the same situation that Conservatives faced during the Blair years, so I know how that feels and to some extent I sympathise. It is unfair but Labour should really be a little concerned that not all the signs are pointing in their direction come the next general election. In the present cirumstances, they really should be.
But whilst the final result was surprising in that Labour rarely loses in Stoke-on-Trent when Labour are in opposition, on the ground, there was a lot of support for Jackie as she was viewed as being the local candidate for the local community.
The BNP vote was derisory and probably confirms as I suspected, that the racial background of the Labour candidate was not an important factor.
The real point of interest for me is the collapse in the Lib Dem challenge in this ward. They were still putting out leaflets as recently as last week claiming that it was between them and Labour, and to all intents and purposes, this ward would usually be a Lib Dem ward (although it was only created in 2011 and so comparison with past results is difficult. The ward is wholely contained within the old pre 2011 Stoke and Trent Vale ward, which in turn was an expanded version of the pre 2002 Stoke West ward). Over the last decade it was one of the strongest Lib Dem areas in the city.
So the ward has a natural strong anti-Labour vote in any case which was not prepared to turn out for the Lib Dems, but was naturally likely to gravitate towards a local independent candidate. And despite Labour’s national lead in the polls, the Labour controlled City Council is not regarded with great affection locally.
In the end, I think the result was a mixture of people not being convinced by Labour; wanting to support a local candidate and wanting to get more opposition onto the local council. And to that extent, Labour nationally can take some comfort from the defeat.
Thanks Shaun. Of course the destiny of the parliamentary seat wouldn’t be affected by this result, but Labour will obviously be concerned at it. It’s never easy to take control of a council in present political circumstances, with government grants being continually cut, and councils can easily become unpopular, but wards in a constituency such as this shouldn’t be being lost as things are now.
Pete – very minor point – just to confirm that the Democratic Nationalist did indeed poll just two votes.
This is the same number of votes polled by the unofficial Very Silly candidate in Monty Python, in the slab of concrete.
Indeed I saw it confirmed on friday – a shockingly bad result even for a fringe candidate
To be fair, Pete, he appeared not to have any actual campaign in the ward.
Although, he did manage to get his 10 nominee’s, so you’d have thought they’d have voted.
I didn’t see anything from the TUSC either, but he managed to pull in 14.
Shaun
Thanks for your interesting analysis.
Do these “City Independents” have a common political philosophy?
Based on your views expressed here I couldn’t imagine you standing or campaigning for a group which didn’t consistently espouse your right of centre politics.
Why would the City Independents attract you more than – say – UKIP?
As far as I am aware, H.Hemmelig, no they don’t. They form a group of course, but the leader of the group was I think from the Labour Party for example, and they also include former right wing Conservatives as well. I don’t think they have a whipping system though, so its all decided collectively and individuals are free to disagree.
I’m not yet convinced that UKIP actually has much of future in terms of local and national elections. Whilst I sympathise strongly with UKIP’s core ambition, I entirely disagree with their absurd and self serving policy on electoral reform. I will vote UKIP at the EU elections, just as I did last time. But in local and national politics all they achieve is the splitting of the anti-EU vote to let pro-EU candidates in.
My belief remains that UKIP should act as a pressure group in national and local government, but should sek to infiltrate and influence the Conservative Party, assisting the majority of us who are within the party and who already agree with their main ambition. If all anti-EU activits came together and took over local Conservative associations, we would get a committment to EU withdrawel far far quicker than achieving the election of a UKIP government.
So when it comes to the Independents, I find myself in the happy position of being able to say that in local government, party politics is largely irrelevant anyway I find myself supporting their position 99% of the time when it comes to local matters but if I strongly disagree, I am still able to do so.
Fair enough.
I do think though that if the “Independents” became a large group on the council, perhaps being part of a ruling coalition, it would surely experience a lot of internal tensions if the members were from all kinds of different political persuasions…..high tax vs low tax, outsource vs in-house, prefer to work with Labour or Tories in hung council, etc etc.
Yes. But that was precisely what has already happened, H.Hemmelig.
For those interested, Stoke City Council control has been as follows:
Labour 1945-1969
Conservative/Independent Coalition 1969-70
Labour 1970-2002
Conservative/City Independent Coalition May-Oct 2002
Indepednent Mayor Mike Wolfe 2002-05
Labour Mayor Mark Meredith 2005-09 (Mark Meredith formed a coalition cabinet of Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem councillors from around 2007. City Indepednents refused to join in)
Conservative/City Independent Coalition 2009-10
Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem/City Independent Coalition 2010-11
Labour 2011-??
The City Independent Group agreed to join the Labour led coalition in 2010 when I was still in the local Conservatives. I could never understand it to be honest, and I said so at the time.
The Independent element of the coalition was the most troublesome in fact, with stories in the local press that they were going to leave at any time over one issue or another.
But in fact, the City Indepednents were remarkably united in power really. I think its because actual local government decisions are actually non-party political much of the time.