Wolverhampton North East
2010 Results:
Conservative: 11964 (34.29%)
Labour: 14448 (41.41%)
Liberal Democrat: 4711 (13.5%)
BNP: 2296 (6.58%)
UKIP: 1138 (3.26%)
Socialist Labour: 337 (0.97%)
Majority: 2484 (7.12%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 18562 (54.6%)
Conservative: 10048 (29.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 3965 (11.7%)
Other: 1443 (4.2%)
Majority: 8514 (25%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 9792 (29.7%)
Labour: 17948 (54.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 3845 (11.7%)
UKIP: 1371 (4.2%)
Majority: 8156 (24.7%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 9019 (28.6%)
Labour: 18984 (60.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 2494 (7.9%)
UKIP: 997 (3.2%)
Majority: 9965 (31.6%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 11547 (27.9%)
Labour: 24534 (59.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 2214 (5.3%)
Referendum: 1192 (2.9%)
Other: 1916 (4.6%)
Majority: 12987 (31.4%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Emma Reynolds (Labour) Former special advisor to Geoff Hoon.
Julie Rook (Conservative) Emma Reynolds (Labour) Former special advisor to Geoff Hoon.Colin Ross (Liberal Democrat)Paul Valdmanis (UKIP)Simon Patten (BNP)Shangara Singh (Socialist Labour) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 84063
Male: 48.7%
Female: 51.3%
Under 18: 25.5%
Over 60: 20.8%
Born outside UK: 7.6%
White: 85.1%
Black: 4.7%
Asian: 6.9%
Mixed: 3.1%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 72.6%
Hindu: 1.4%
Muslim: 0.6%
Sikh: 4.4%
Full time students: 3%
Graduates 16-74: 9.1%
No Qualifications 16-74: 45%
Owner-Occupied: 57.5%
Social Housing: 34.3% (Council: 31%, Housing Ass.: 3.3%)
Privately Rented: 4.5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 15.3%
Exactly the point I think. The Conservatives underperformed in SW (despite gaining the seat) relative to this one – clearly there was a bigger swing in Wolverhampton amongst WWC voters
Comparison with 1992:
SW is 7.7% more Labour
NE is 1.0% more Conservative
SE is 6.0% more Conservative
Swing since 1997:
SW 6.1%
NE 12.1%
SE 12.2%
The possibility of Birmingham Northfield becoming more Conservative than Birmingham Edgbaston has been discussed before.
I wonder is it possible that Wolverhampton NE might become more Conservative than Wolverhampton SW?
It’s seems almost inconceivable.
Warren Hawksley contested this seat in both 1974 elections.
February 1974
Wolverhampton North East
[E] new constituency boundaries
R Short Labour 28,935 59.65%
PW Hawksley Conservative 16,318 33.64%
A Webber National Front 2,548 5.25%
C Jordan British Movement 711 1.47%
Electorate: 68,860; Turnout: 70.45%;
Majority: 12,617 (26.01%)
Swing 10.6% from Con to Lab
(No Lib candidate)
October 1974
Wolverhampton North East
[E] Labour hold
R Short Labour 25,788 56.05%
PW Hawksley Conservative 11,135 24.20%
J Porter Liberal 7,156 15.55%
ADC Webber National Front 1,928 4.19%
Electorate: 69,513; Turnout: 66.18%;
Majority: 14,653 (31.85%)
1979
Wolverhampton North East
[E] Labour hold
R Short Labour 24,046 50.02%
J Evans Conservative 17,986 37.41%
L McLean Liberal 4,760 9.90%
G Cooper National Front 1,283 2.67%
Electorate: 67,994; Turnout: 70.70%;
Majority: 6,060 (12.61%)
A huge swing of nearly 10% then in 1979 and unlike in nearby Birmingham it swung heavily again in 1983. The boundary changes slightly reduced the Labour lead here (to a notional 10% in 1979) but there was still a swing of nearly 5% in 1983. Clearly on the 1974-83 boundaries this seat would not have gone Conservative in 1987.
Interesting that the National Front got a higher numerical vote in (Feb) 1974 than the BNP did in 2010, though the percentage was lower and that despite their vote being split by Colin Jordan. The far-right vote combined then was about 1,000 more than the BNP got in 2010 but in % terms was almost identical.
Yes, very big swing in 1979,
although interesting that the Liberal intervention in October 1974 is massively at Tory expense, even after a large swing in February.
I did read that February 1974 was the better NF share per candidate than October 1974 although that may be misleading as perhaps they only stood in a few places where they could do better.
Someone once told me a story about the NF nearly won a couple of council seats in Wolverhampton in the 70s and might have held the balance of power if they had, but it sounds like an exaggeration.
I’ve just read that the the Electroal Reform Soceity have proposed that this seat should be named Wednesfield & Willenhall which will contain the following wards:
Bilston East, Bilston North, Darlaston South East Park, Ettingshall, Heath Town, Wednesfield North, Wednesfield South, Willenhall South.
It is proposed that the other two Wolvehmapton seats will be merged into one and simply be called Wolverhampton.
Anyone think Emma Reynolds / Labour will hold on if this proposal gets the thumbs up!!?
That would be a safe Labour seat, but these ‘proposals’ are a rather unamusing joke and there is no point whatsoever in speculating about what would happen if they got the ‘thumbs up’. They won’t
I do think the Electoral Reform Society proposals were a joke.
I do see this seat turning more Conservative – 800 private houses are being built on the Goodyear site on the Stafford Road. Planning permission for more private housing on the old Springfield brewery site. I don’t particularly like seeing places where people used to work being turned into residential property unless there is somewhere else for them to work. Wolverhampton needs to pull its finger out and start creating jobs.
As for the boundary review I wouldn’t care to speculate – I could just as much understand Tettenhall, Bilston, Willenhall or Essington move into this seat as I could see the town centre move into it. There is no way of knowing.
Wolverhampton – May 2011
Lab gain from NOC
That has to be right, Labour needs I think only 1 or 2 gains & should manage those without any real difficulty.
This is an interesting ITN news report from November 1991 discussing the prospects for this seat. Maureen Hicks makes an appearance at the end of the video. I wouldn’t have thought this would have been the best seat to speculate, given that the Tories still won the general election in 1992 despite losing this seat.
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1991/11/15/BSP151191004/?s=maureen+hicks&st=0&pn=1
Interesting – good piece of research finding that – thanks.
It’s interesting how once a seat is gained by a government party, however, unexpected, the seat can be seen as in the mainstream of the political battle at the following election, when in reality this was a tough one to hold, although Maureen Hicks kept the share within 1% and added nearly 1,000 votes.
I do think the Tories would have won a bigger majority in 1991 because the economy deteriorated a lot in the West Midlands in 1991 and the full damage may not have been apparent a year earlier.
The 1992 declaration was shown on the ITN election programme.
“I wouldn’t have thought this would have been the best seat to speculate, given that the Tories still won the general election in 1992 despite losing this seat.”
Or for that matter that they won a landslide in 1983 without winning this seat. I think there must have been a reasonable assumption that this seat would be lost in 1992. I was active in the Wolverhampton Conservatives in 1992 and could have been deployed here I suppose, but I canvassed in SW (where I lived). I’m sure some effot was put in to holding the seat, but losing it was certainly no great surprise – unlike one or two other seats in the West Midlands which I did think we’d hold. Joe makes an interesting point about 1991. The local election results in 1991 were very good in the Wesrt Midlands in what was a fairly indifferent year in many parts of the country
Although, as we well know, the Tories do sometimes do unexpectedly well in local elections in the West Midlands, even when in office,
so I’m not sure about my point.
There was a partial Lib Dem revival in 1991 – partly caused by the mad decision to allow the Ribble Valley by-election to go ahead, when the national party assumed they would be no threat being around 10% in the opinion polls.
So there could have been a slightly better LD performance in 1991, but a weaker Labour one.
Interesting that man at the tool manufacturer was saying orders were starting to come back in.
Figures after the event showed that the economy stopped declining in the autumn of 1991, grew a smidgen in one quarter, but basically stayed stagnant until we were thrown out of the ERM.
Incredible, given how high interest rates were that Labour couldn’t win that election, despite a 7.6% rise here.
Good performance by Maureen Hicks but sadly personal votes probably don’t make a vast difference in seats like this one.
There were a load of Conservatives sent over from Tettenhall to help Maureen Hicks in 1992. I know some Conservatives from Ludlow were also involved in that campaign.
Some Tettenhall tories I have spoken to think that Hicks campaign in 1992 was the best and most organised they have been involved with.
Slim chance here that all wards will be taken by the Conservatives.
A very slim chance indeed I think. There’s a rather bigger one that no wards will be won by the Conservatives this time.
That occurence would be zero chance. You mean any wards rather than all?
I think thats true. I’m not sure if Wulfrunian meant to type something else other than how it came out, perhaps he meant to say Labour rather than the Conservatives (though i wouldn’t say the chances are all that slim of that occurring)
Conservatives are up for re-election in Oxley, Bushbury North and Wednesfield South. They have 2 out of 3 councillors in Wednesfield N and only lost there in 2010 because of the increased turnout. In Fallings Park, Labour are worried about losing.
In Heath Town the tories have 1 of 3 councillors, previously a pre merger Liberal stood in Heath Town, hoovering up to 500 votes at every election, these votes seem to have gone tory. Though a green is standing. I understand the tory candidate is a well known community activist.
In Low Hill only Labour and tories are standing. Two new private housing estates have been built here since 2008 which should favour the conservatives. The Labour candidate is well liked in Low Hill.
I would expect Labour to win in Low Hill, Fallings Park and Heath Town and possibly Oxley. The two Wednesfields and Bushbury should stay tory. Bushbury is arguably as good at local elections for the Conservatives as Merry Hill in South West.
Like I said a slim chance of the tories winning every ward.
I’ll always wish the Wolverhampton Conservatives well, but I still think there is a much better chance of Labour winning every ward. Local government by-elections in the West Midlands (including in Bilston) have shown some massive swings to Labour even since the general election. I agree that Bushbuey should stay Tory but i’m not confident that it will. I shan’t be surprised if the Conservatives are pushed back to Merry Hill, Penn and the Tettenhalls this year. I’ll be very happy to be proved wrong.
The W Midlands could see the largest swings
The swings could be big, but I dont think so. The 2005-10 swing to the Conservatives will unwind at some point but I don’t think it will be this year. Wolverhampton NE is a funny constituency.
Wednesfield and Bushbury were Conservative during some of the worst years for the Conservatives when they were running at less than 28% in the polls. I can’t see Labour picking them up this year.
Labour did indeed take all the council seats here yesterday, winning Bushbury North, Oxley and Wednesfield South from the Conservatives who were pushed back to their 4 traditional strongholds in Wolverhampton SW. Incidentally, the new Labour councillor in Oxley, Ian Claymore, is not that new. He was a councillor and mayor back in the 1970′s and has now returned (older and wiser perhaps) after a long gap.
Have to admit I was completely and utterly wrong. Labour demolished the Conservatives in Wolverhampton.
This has been comparable to the worst years under Major.
Wolverhampton Labour looking strong for the next local elections. Many of the Wards have already selected there candidates.
Having now done some research this is my prediction for what this constituency will look like in the consultation document (for what it is worth) :
Wednesfield North into a Bloxwich/Willenhall Walsall constituency.
East Park in from Wolverhampton SE and Tettenhall Regis and St. Peter’s in from Wolverhampton SW.
The other wards to stay the same.
Having said that, I am normally totally wrong about these things.
Wouldn’t that split up both Wednesfield AND Tettenhall? That doesn’t sound very desirable so I hope you are indeed wrong. Not long to wait now!
I hope I am wrong too.
It wouldn’t be unprecedented though. Look at how Coseley has been split between Wolverhampton & Dudley seats for example.
But Coesley’s tiny.
Indeed, splitting somewhere that’s tiny is even more awkward than somewhere of a bit more size. Kirkintilloch in Scotland is another example. It’s hardly a great metropolis yet the BC still split it between 2 seats.
Yes that’s very true, Barnaby. Indeed, splitting somewhere of a reasonable size is almost quite a good status symbol for the town, because it means it is probably big enough to be the centre of two seats-and may well be recognised in the names of both of them.
In this case though if Wulfrunian’s prediction came to pass, it would be splitting not one but two middle sized towns between constituencies-bcomming even more undesirable. It’ll start to look like a US district if we’re not careful!!!
Wolverhapton is a difficalt place to redraw boundaries.
Walsall North and Wednesfield (cross borough seat)
Wolverhampton North
Wolverhampton South,
That’s gotta be the best bet.
Could be split on a East/West basis if there is a cross borough seat with Dudley.
I’d prefer my first prediction to a possible;
Dudley North and Wolverhampton South
Wolverhampton East
Wolverhampton West.
If that was the case, Wolverhampton East might possibly be named Bilston and Wednesfield and Wolverhampton might possible by renamed City of Wolverhampton.
That’s exactly what I meant Shaun. A larger town is apt to be split simply on grounds of size. Sometimes weird splits can be brought to an end. The village of Colnbrook west of Heathrow was once split 3 ways into Surrey, Berks & Bucks! Nowadays however it’s all in Slough UA along with Poyle (which I think was previously in Surrey).
Boundary Commission is nothing if not unpredictable. It’s decided to split Bilston instead!