Warley
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 19224 (54%)
Conservative: 8204 (23.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 4868 (13.7%)
Other: 3288 (9.2%)
Majority: 11020 (31%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 7315 (22.8%)
Labour: 17462 (54.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 4277 (13.3%)
BNP: 1761 (5.5%)
UKIP: 635 (2%)
Other: 637 (2%)
Majority: 10147 (31.6%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 7157 (22.8%)
Labour: 19007 (60.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 3315 (10.6%)
Other: 1936 (6.2%)
Majority: 11850 (37.7%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 9362 (24.1%)
Labour: 24813 (63.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 3777 (9.7%)
Referendum: 941 (2.4%)
Majority: 15451 (39.7%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Outgoing MP: John Spellar(Labour) (more information at They work for you)
Candidates: Jas Parmar (Conservative) Bedford councillor.John Spellar(Labour) (more information at They work for you)
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 84088
Male: 47.9%
Female: 52.1%
Under 18: 25.2%
Over 60: 20.8%
Born outside UK: 14.5%
White: 70.2%
Black: 5.8%
Asian: 20.6%
Mixed: 2.9%
Other: 0.5%
Christian: 61.7%
Hindu: 1.5%
Muslim: 7.4%
Sikh: 11%
Full time students: 3.8%
Graduates 16-74: 12.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 43.5%
Owner-Occupied: 62.6%
Social Housing: 26.3% (Council: 21.9%, Housing Ass.: 4.5%)
Privately Rented: 6.6%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 18.6%
I know there’s one in Sheffield and one in Stoke (which Shaun Bennett is NOT happy about!), and I would expect one in Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester/Salford, Newcastle/Gateshead, Leeds and probably in North London where there are 14 adjoining seats that have yet to select.
The CSI thing was in place in Manchester for 2005, iirc there was a candidate with the same surname as a sitting Labour MP?
No I’m not happy about it!!!
As others have said, CSI does not have a good track record when you look at the election results for CSI seats. CSI applicants will all want to be selected for the best seat in the ’set’ and could spend too much time on that at the expense of the other seats involved. Furthermore, as they are not selected as such, they could all end up being selected elsewhere and leaving the associations with nobody at a late stage in the electoral cycle.
In Stoke, it was suggested a while back that the city could be part of a CSI set along with Newcastle-Under-Lyme. This would have meant that we’d not have seen any of the CSI team for dust, as they all scrambled to be selected for the most winnable Newcastle seat.
Furthermore, we have now been informed that our Chairman and the two deputy chairmen have decided between the three of them who our three CSI team members will be without any wider consultation with the membership. Now I don’t know who these people are, and they may well be fantastic candidates, but the point is, they now have an unfair advantage over other applicants when the selection process is opened up. And who chose them? Three people in secret from a secret list. Whilst it doesn’t actually force these three on us as candidates, it would be pretty likely that they will be selected at the end of the process. Isn’t there a HUGE potential for central office to manipulate these schemes to parachute their preferred candidates onto local associations by having a quiet word with the chairman?
I believe you have got three very good candidates in the Sandwell seats and i am told that the Walsall people are quite jealous as one of their candidates is and utter Imbecile and that was done through an open process. with all of this it is very much a leap of faith no matter what constituency you are from. I do not agree at all that they will be figting the most winnable seat as in sandwell they are al as bad as each other with very similar double figure majorities. I would agree if NCUL had been in the Stoke CSI it would have been unfair. I am told that bacuse the Tories have changes the way they select there is no such thing as local candidate approval anymore and even the most popular and experinced locall activist or councillor who wants no more that to have the hnour of represent the place where they live and have grown up has to go through a very rigours pre selection application to be allowed to apply for any seats.
Just as a quick addition to my earlier post on this subject, having now met the three Stoke CSI candidates, I think that they are all perfectly acceptable candidates-as i always thought that they would be.
Why concern was not on the qualities of those that became selected through the process, but rather the principle of unfairness in the system itself.
As I have said, in a small association such as my own, the three candidates appointed by the Chairman and two deputies will become the candidates for the three seats with 99.9% certainty even if they then have to go to an open selection process with other non-CSI members. It would take an unforseen event such as one of them dropping out or making a complete hash of the opportunity for any of them not to be selected.
As I expected, the three Stoke candidates are suitable, but then they were always going to be really. And so there is no reason why these three should not be selected. But the system has still given them an advantage over other candidates that were not lucky enough to be included in the CSI scheme. For example, they can prove their hardwork to the association and get to know local members in a way that non-CSI candidates cannot.
Any update on candidate selections here?
Totals from the 2008 Local Elections
Lab 51.7% (5 wards)
Con 34.1% (2 wards)
LD 10.4%
Oth 3.8%
Interesting when compared to the 2005 General Election, the Lab share only down by a couple of percent. If the Tories can more effectively rally the non-Labour vote then potential to increase a fair bit here next time.
Does anyone know whats happened with the CSI here?
The Conservatives have selected Bedford councillor Jas Parmar here
How can a councillor from Bedford be forced upon Warley, Birmigham. Surely a local person with local knowledge and local presence would be more suitable. Or are we trying to increase ore popularity amongst the ethnic communities by imposing an asian!!! Surely a local Asian would have been less patronising to the communit of Warley.