Walsall South
2010 Results:
Conservative: 14456 (35.36%)
Labour: 16211 (39.65%)
Liberal Democrat: 5880 (14.38%)
UKIP: 3449 (8.44%)
Christian: 482 (1.18%)
Others: 404 (0.99%)
Majority: 1755 (4.29%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 19190 (49.7%)
Conservative: 11068 (28.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 3531 (9.1%)
Other: 4838 (12.5%)
Majority: 8123 (21%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 9687 (27.4%)
Labour: 17633 (49.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 3240 (9.2%)
BNP: 1776 (5%)
UKIP: 1833 (5.2%)
Other: 1146 (3.2%)
Majority: 7946 (22.5%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 10643 (30.5%)
Labour: 20564 (58.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 2365 (6.8%)
UKIP: 974 (2.8%)
Other: 343 (1%)
Majority: 9921 (28.4%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 13712 (31.7%)
Labour: 25024 (57.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 2698 (6.2%)
Referendum: 1662 (3.8%)
Other: 144 (0.3%)
Majority: 11312 (26.2%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Valerie Vaz (Labour)
Richard Hunt (Conservative) Born 1958, Chesterfield. Educated at St Aidan`s CoE High School and Huddersfield University. Company secretary of a manufacturing company. Former Hart councillor. Contested Barrow and Furness in 1997.Valerie Vaz (Labour)Murli Sinha (Liberal Democrat)
Derek Bennett (UKIP) Sale manager. Contested Walsall 1997 for Referendum party, Walsall South 2001, 2005 for UKIP Gulzaman Khan (Christian Party) Mohammed Mulla (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89080
Male: 48.6%
Female: 51.4%
Under 18: 25.7%
Over 60: 21%
Born outside UK: 12.7%
White: 73.1%
Black: 2.3%
Asian: 22.2%
Mixed: 1.9%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 61.5%
Hindu: 3.6%
Muslim: 12.6%
Sikh: 5.1%
Full time students: 3.9%
Graduates 16-74: 13.5%
No Qualifications 16-74: 41.8%
Owner-Occupied: 62.5%
Social Housing: 27.1% (Council: 20.1%, Housing Ass.: 7.1%)
Privately Rented: 6.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 13.4%
Dr Sinha will take a lot of Labour votes and Vaz is not going down too well in certain areas of the Constituency. Bruce would have walked it! A local tory with a profile would have walked it for the Tories this time but it is not a for gone conclusion that Labour will hold it
I have taken part in a hustings in Palfrey on Friday night, Valerie Vaz had a bit of a rough time but she held her own. The majority of people there seemed to be supporting the Tories.
LAB HOLD
yep by 1800 votes
Swing to Con was 8.2%, compared to 9.0% in Walsall North.
Two d’Avigdor-Goldsmid’s were elected in the 1970 Parliament: Henry in Walsall South (1955-74) and his younger brother James in Lichfield & Tamworth (1970-74).
True Andy. As you know, Lichfield also has a Jewish MP now in Michael Fabricant/Micky Fabb, but it’s Walsall North which does now rather than South (David Winnick).
LD PPC Dr Sinha has defected to Labour.
What council wards to Labour need to gain in order for them to become the largest party on the council?
If the starting point is still Con 33 Lab 17
Winning the following wards
Blakenall
Bloxwich East
Bloxwich West
Darlaston South
Palfrey
Pleck
St Matthew’s
Paddock
Rushall-Shelfield
would bring the 2 parties level pegging at 26 (but it can depend on if Willenhall North stays LD)
It’s 32/18 now following the Labour gain of Bloxwich West ina by-election
Thanks. I recalled a by-election. I googled and found the Rushall Shelfield in November 2010 and I stopped there thinking I misremembered a Lab gain with just a Lab getting close. I should have gone on and searched better
I find it very doubtfull the tories will win St Mathew’s and Paddock. They may do next year if the coalition becomes even more unpopular.
I suprised Darlaston South and Bloxwich East don’t already have Labour councilors and I’m suprised Palsall and Brownhills aren’t on the target list.
Labour are defending in Brownhills this year. Labour get an almost derisory vote in Pelsall these days, although they should recover a bit. Darlaston South is held by an Independent. The most surprising one for me is Pleck. I also think Labour will not win Paddock.
I’m sure Paddock used to be a very strong Tory ward in the 80s and early 90s, about 70%
It was indeed ultra-safe. A combination of slightly unfavourable boundary changes in 2004, demographic change (Asianification) and a split vote caused by a former Conservative councillor standing as an Independent have all served to make it seem potentially vulnerable. I still can’t see Labour winning it
Paddock has always been a safe Tory ward, not one they generally have to worry about losing although Wally Burley took a good vote for Labour in May 2010. This year, 2011, is almost a repeat of last as Barry Sanders, another unhappy Tory and up until the election was a Tory Councillor, until they deselected him, is now standing as an independent.
I am getting some good feedback for UKIP this year and hope to improve my vote.
This is one part of the world where the democratic audit boundary model have got it totaly wrong.
I know the area well, and what on earth were they thingking to put Blowxih East and Wednesbury is the same seat.
Coming from someone who is oposed to the boundary changes althogether, I do think some of the other West Midlands boundaries don’t look too bad considering the very tight criteria the governent have set. All the need to do in Walsall is to add the Bloxwich East and Blakenhall wards to Willenhall and Wednesfield and rename that seat Walsall North and Wednesfield.
Also, the two Darlaston wards need to go the other way into Walsall and Wednesbury which needs to be renamed Walsall South and Wednesbury. And the Aldridge-Brownhills seat needs to be renamed Walsall East.
“This is one part of the world where the democratic audit boundary model have got it totaly wrong. ”
One of very very very many I’m afraid, Adam.
“I know the area well, and what on earth were they thingking to put Blowxih East and Wednesbury is the same seat.”
The price of fixing the review in Labour’s favour I’m afraid.
“Coming from someone who is oposed to the boundary changes althogether”
Boundary changes occur periodically anyway and there is nothing at all wrong with that. What I suspect you oppose is the rule changes brought in for this review. I have some sympathy, as I don’t like the idea of splitting wards or pairing counties either.
But this review is to remove the bias in the system whereby SOME seats are allowed to be excessively small compared to others. That principle is RIGHT and if the rule changes are the only way of achieving fairness, then its a price I for one am preapred to accept.
Except that the rules have been twisted to permit some seats to continue (or be brought into existence) with excessively small electorates, which makes the whole exercise appear less about principle. I see no justification for pairing Anglesey with the adjoining Welsh coast yet keeping the Isle of Wight separate from Hampshire and giving the latter two excessively small seats. No reason for Orkney & Shetland to avoid being paired with the nearest bit of Scottish mainland. No reason for the Western isles to avoid being joined with the west of Scotland. You might almost call these things the price of fixing the review in the Coaltion’s favour, or at least against Labour.
I am quite convinced that it is right to reduce the number of Welsh seats for example, and I support the concept that all electorates should be within a certain percentage of the national average. Beyond that, you can argue about how many MPs in total there should be, and whether seats should be organised across county lines or even on the basis of “burghs” being aggregated separately from “county” seats. But with the communications and travel possibilities of the modern age, there’s no justification for fiddling the rules to create a clutch of new, undersized seats. It’s bad.
The reason I’m opposed to the boundary changes is because reducing the number of MP’s will only increase MP’s workload which is never a good thing and although the old boundary review process was not perfect, it did work well. It took into account local government boundaries and local loyalties and created stable steats that existed for at least 3 parliaments. And I don’t accept that arugment about electoral equality. Yes there were big veritations in electorates under the old system, but the boundary commission at least aimed to remove the variations with the periodic reviews, so much as is practiclaly possible whilst maintaining local loyalties.
I do agree that the seperate electoral quota for Wales needs to go. But I form my opinion on that through the changes in the constitutional position of Wales, not the need for electoral equality. With the Welsh assmebly now having the same powers as the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly, it is impossible to justify continuing with over-representation.
If I had my way, there would be a single electoral quota of 533 for England, 59 for Scotland, 32 for Wales and 18 for Northern Ireland, with the next boundary review being caried out under the old rules using 2012 as its base year.
I think Iargely agree with Adam’s view at least with regards to English boundaries and that it is right that Welsh seats are drastically reduced and Scottish ones reduced a bit as well.
The main concern about ‘fixing’ is probably to do with electoral regisration I suppose.
I agree that the Isles seats in Scotland are a bit controversial although Labour might probably have a chance of getting back the Western Isles in 3 elections time or so so I suppose that cancels out the extra Isle of Wight seat.
Having said that I accept the boundary change process is well underway now and I just hope they are sensible in some area even if that means splitting wards.
“You might almost call these things the price of fixing the review in the Coaltion’s favour, or at least against Labour”
No thats nonsense, Lithotomist. It is advantageous to Labour to continue the Western Isles seat without being paired with the Highlands (as it should be), and it is advantageous to Labour to pair Anglesey with the mainland-most likely Bangor (and yes, it should be).
If Orkney and Shetlands were to be paired with the mainland it would not help Labour one jot, and if the Isle of Wight were paired with the mainland it would also not help Labour to any significant extent.
In fact, the Isle of Wight is being treated precisely the same as the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetlands. The only island being treated differently-and I agree, unfairly-is Anglesey…and that is to Labour’s advantage.
I think that ALL the islands should be treated the same. So if the Isle of Wight and Anglesey must be paired with the mainland then so must the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetlands. But what some apparantly wanted was for the Isle of Wight to be paired with the mainland and for the Scottish isles to remain reviewed seperately. That would have been intolerable!
So again, the only island being treated differently and unfairly is Anglesey. On that I agree with you that it is not right.
I do not agree with you however that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should maintain any form of advantage in the system in the way you suggest (with national quotas regardless of longterm population change). Indeed, it could equally be argued that as the only nation without a devolved assembly, England should have an inbuilt advantage with a smaller electoral quota than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland!
Ynys Mon isn’t the only island being treated differently though… what about Lundy, the Scilly Isles, Arran, Sheppy (and they’re just ones I can think of off the top of my head), they’re all combined with areas of the mainland too, which doesn’t seem to cause them a problem… perhaps we should have seperate constituencies for every island!!
“the Scottish isles to remain reviewed seperately”
No!
Skye is part of Skye & Lochaber.
Bute, Jura, Mull and Islay are part of Argyll & Bute.
Arran and Cumbrae are part of Ayrshire North & Arran
Cramond Island is in Edinburgh West
While O & S and the Outer Hebridies are separate the Inner Hebridies (Jura, Skye, Islay, Mull ect) are not and neither are The Firth of Clyde Islands (Bute, Arran and Cumbrae).
There could be an arguement for increasing the electorate of the island constituencies through adding in the Inner Hebridies and Firth of Clyde Isles.
How many electors are they in the Inner Hebridies and Firth of Clyde Isles?
““the Scottish isles to remain reviewed seperately”
No!”
Yes thankyou Pedantic Polly, I think we all know that I was talking about the two principle Scottish island constituencies.
What you do show however is that islands CAN in fact be represented by a mainland constituency, and there is no reason why these ones could not-particularly the Western Isles which, as I’ve said before, was actually represented in two Highland based constituencies right up until 1918.
It was possible for Victorian MPs to represent the Western Isles as part of the Highlands, but in this age of instant communications and fast travel it seems this is no longer possible. Perhaps the quality of representatives in the Highlands have deteriorated since the Victorian age?
Are UKIP particularly strong here, or was it the absence of a BNP PPC that led to such a high share of the vote here?
Lancs Observer asked about UKIP being strong in Walsall South. As both the Walsall UKIP branch chairman and UKIP candidate in the constituency during the 2001, 2005 and 2010 general elections, I like to think our UKIP vote has been steadily building, especially considering in 2001 I got just under 1000 votes and in 2010 over 3000.
The fact the BNP did not stand last time was obviously also a help, although apart from wanting Britain out of the EU there are no other similarities between UKIP and the racist BNP. In 2005 I managed to beat their vote, much to my relief, by around 80 or so votes and saved my deposit, as they did too – just.
Like all who are active in local politics I am unsure just how much difference the boundary changes will make, although as it stands if I were Valerie Vaz I would be worried.
The Walsall wards that will make up Walsall South are: St Matthews, Palfrey, Paddock, Pheasey Park Farm and Streetly. There are two wards from outside the Walsall MBC area which are also tagged on to Walsall South which are Great Barr with Yew Tree and Oscott. The Yew Tree area, although under the remit of Sandwell, always feel more like it should be in Walsall, however, Oscott which comes under the remit of Birmingham CC is detached, I would think the residents there will not be happy.
Walsall South has lost its Darlaston wards where Bruce George, the previous MP, used to pick up a lot of votes, the addition of Streetly will add a lot of Tory votes so this change is quite substantial – if it goes through as it is.
Anthony Wells notionals give the proposed new seat comfortably to the Conservatives. I was slightly surprised about this (although Streetly is as conservative as anywhere in England). Since Great Barr is LD at local elections, expressing its independence from Sandwell, it’s hard to know how it votes nationally.
Incidentally I was toying with recommending a Great Barr seat which included Newton, Grove Vale, and the northern part of Perry Barr, as well as Oscott, Pheasey, Streetley and Bescot. However the Commission’s determination to not cross ward boundaries puts an end to that idea.
Existing wards in all 3 boroughs do not respect community boundaries, so any proposals will by definition be unsatisfactory.
I think Great Barr must have voted Conservative in at least the 1980s general elections, but probably 1979 as well, but I suspect hasn’t done so since 1992. Hard to say about 1992. It’s the most middle-class part of the West Bromwich E constituency & for the Tories to come close to winning as they did in the 80s they must have carried that part of the seat with some comfort.
Yes you’re right Barnaby about the 1980s. However this is exactly the sort of middle class suburb which has swung away from the Conservatives over the last 20 years.
Does anyone know if there will be an independent contesting Paddock ward again this year?
If so, could this split the tory vote and allow Labour to take the ward and the council?
Adam, there are just four candidates standing in the Paddock Ward this year, the Tories have managed not to upset one of their own for a change so there is no disgruntled ex-Conservative standing.
In 2010 the Conservative member who was promised the ward would be his with the deselction of the sitting Councillor that was due for re-election, then dumped when they decided to retain the Councillor, stood and did his best to slag off the local Conservative Party.
The same thing happened again in 2011 when Councillor Barry Saunders was deselected. He stood in the ward as an independent and again attacked his old party for the way they had dumped him.
From what I have been told, Rose Martin who is standing again for the Tories, had a close shave with deslection.
The four candidates are: Nasar Ali for Labour, Abdul Malik for the Liberal Democrats, Rose Martin for the Conservative Party and myself for UKIP.
My prediction is that Labour will gain at least 5 seats in Walsall tomorrow and take overall control of the council for the first time in 12 years.
In my opinion, the tories have done a good job in Walsall with the redevelopment of the town centre and the recent attempts to clear the backlog of road repairs. But there are problems with redundant land (especially in Bloxwich and next to the M6 in Darlaston), and the slow progress in redeveloping the Blakenall estate.
Although I’ll be voting Conservative, I think the most important reason as to why the council will change control is because of the national unpopularity of David Cameron.
I agree, Adam.
But its worth just remembering that the Conservatives have done really very well in Walsall over the last decade or so to hold control for as long as they have. Under Labour, this council was so bad it was put into administration. I think many might have expected minority or coalition control as has happened in Birmingham and Bradford. But few would have thought back in 1997 that the Tories could win a majority in this borough, never mind hold it for 7 years. The Tories didn’t achieve that in the late 70s either.
Clearly the Tory led administration in Walsall has been a success. We no longer hear of Walsall council in negative terms and although Labour will probably return to office today, it is in no way fair or reflective of the job that local Tories here have done. Alas, it is always the way in local elections…
Even if Labour do return to power, they won’t do to the council what they did in the 1990′s because most of the militants were chucked out of the local party years ago.
It’s a strange old thing local politics. I still can’t believe that the tories never won Walsall in the late 70′s, when they did have overall control in Sandwell for a year!
It’s taken me by surprise that Labour have failed to take overall control of this council. Don’t know if the Conservatives will be able to continue with a minority administration though.
In the context of their gain in Dudley, Cannock Nuneaton etc…. this is one of Labours few disappointments in the West Midlands.
Has the area covered by St Matthew’s ward always been in this constituency? (It may of course have earlier been in different wards with different boundaries)