Wolverhampton South East
2010 Results:
Conservative: 9912 (28.56%)
Labour: 16505 (47.56%)
Liberal Democrat: 5277 (15.2%)
UKIP: 2675 (7.71%)
Independent: 338 (0.97%)
Majority: 6593 (19%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 20017 (58.4%)
Conservative: 7756 (22.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4165 (12.2%)
Other: 2320 (6.8%)
Majority: 12260 (35.8%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 6295 (22.3%)
Labour: 16790 (59.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 3682 (13%)
UKIP: 1484 (5.3%)
Majority: 10495 (37.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 5945 (21.8%)
Labour: 18409 (67.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 2389 (8.8%)
Other: 554 (2%)
Majority: 12464 (45.7%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 7020 (20.2%)
Labour: 22202 (63.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 3292 (9.5%)
Referendum: 980 (2.8%)
Other: 1336 (3.8%)
Majority: 15182 (43.6%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Patrick McFadden(Labour) (more information at They work for you)
Ken Wood (Conservative) Patrick McFadden(Labour) (more information at They work for you)Richard Whitehouse (Liberal Democrat)Gordon Fanthom (UKIP) Sudhir Handa (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 83154
Male: 49.3%
Female: 50.7%
Under 18: 24.3%
Over 60: 21.7%
Born outside UK: 11%
White: 76%
Black: 4.1%
Asian: 17.1%
Mixed: 2.4%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 64.7%
Hindu: 5.4%
Muslim: 0.8%
Sikh: 9.3%
Full time students: 3.4%
Graduates 16-74: 9.2%
No Qualifications 16-74: 47.6%
Owner-Occupied: 56.2%
Social Housing: 34.3% (Council: 30.7%, Housing Ass.: 3.6%)
Privately Rented: 4.9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 15.9%
LAB HOLD
There was a by-election in a Tory seat in Bilston North last night which proved to be an overwhelming gain for Labour, although perhaps one might say it jolly well should have been. Labour polled 1292 to the Conservatives’ 460, BNP 131, UKIP 55 & LD 52 (not a very good result for them!). Still, it continues Labour’s good run of form in result council by-elections and makes 2 Labour gains from the Tories in quick succession in the western West Midlands conurbation. I can’t find the other results from last night yet; the only other principal ones appear to be in Haywards Heath & Bath/NE Somerset.
Also, as far as I can make out, it means that Labour now have parity on Wolverhampton Council; Lab 30 C 25 LD 5.
Bilston North was a ward the Conservatives gained in our vintage year of 2008.
No doubt Barnaby will be shouting from the rooftops whenever Labour makes its inevitable gains in local by-elections in the coming months and years, though I wouldn’t blame any Labour supporter for wanting to do so. We were the same when we were in opposition.
Congratulations to Labour for winning the seat.
If it had been a narrow Labour win, it would have been a very good result for the Conservatives. However, having polled roughly half as many votes again as the Tories in May, to poll this time well over 2 & a half times as many is clearly a heartening result. Yes this should be Labour territory but it was a good win.
@Barnaby
“I can’t find the other results from last night yet; the only other principal ones appear to be in Haywards Heath & Bath/NE Somerset.”
The Radstock ward in NE Somerset was a LD gain from independant. Can’t find the result for Sussex anywhere at the moment.
‘Bilston North was a ward the Conservatives gained in our vintage year of 2008.’
As anyone whose ever been to Bilston can testify – the Tories winning here is like the equivalent of Labour winning in the heart of the Cotswold or South Bucks
If the Tories can be competetive amongst the dis-used factories and scrapheaps that dominate this seat then Labour has every right to be worried
I’m surprised the BNP has never stood
Update: The Mid Sussex result was a Conservative hold with LDs a strong second.
The BNP did stand in the by-election Tim (see above) coming a distant 3rd.
Congratulations to Labour for winning this seat so successfully.
Unfortunately for the Tories, Wolverhampton is a council already sliding away from them now we’ve had a change of government.
I don’t think a certain Lib Dem poster will be on here spinning this one though.
Barnaby, you might find Labour could gain
between 1,300 and 1,800 seats next May.
After what happened in 2003 and 2007.
It’s all a bit up in the air, depending on how long the Tory honeymoon lasts, and whether the Lib Dems implode (I suspect they’ll still be striking 20%+ in council elections each year).
The Tories would still be doing pretty well for a government party even if a good several hundred seats were lost, and depending on how the LDs do, we might still do ok even if Labour does well at the same time.
By the way, does anyone know how many seats Labour gained in 1980?
They polled 42% to Con 40% according to T&R although the BBC had Labour higher,
Although the Tories gained 1,700 seats in 1976, most of those were up again in 1979, so I would guess in 1980 it would have been around 400 Lab gains.
There is an online chart showing the number of councillors per party from 1973 to 2004, but it doesn’t give precise figures.
It was an even more limited change Joe. It would appear the Tories lost about 200-300 councillors in 1980 at Labour’s expense, with a very slight increase in the Liberal share.
I’ll post a link for you Joe.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-049.pdf
Look at page 10 of 21 and you will see the chart.
I meant, Labour gained about 200-300 seats from the Conservatives in 1980.
Labour is almost bound to get a boost in the polls when their leader is elected in a media-driven blaze of glory at their party conference. It remains to be seen how long this will last.
Thanks, please do.
Next year may be a fairly respectable year for Cons,
but it’s a very big round – it doesn’t need to be bad for lots of seats.
When the 2008/2009 seats come up again the potential for losses is, unfortunately, pretty huge.
I think we could see Labour gaining much more seats off the LibDems rather than the Tories in the local elections. This could lead to Tories gaining both seats and councils from the LibDems so as Joe James said, the Tories may come out from the elections quite well with the LibDems suffering heavy losses. Of course this depends whether or not Labour’s new leader has settled in smoothly and Labour are ahead in the opinion polls.
Joseph – given the state of the opinion polls, that’s an entirely reasonable assumption.
It is still nearly a year away.
Certainly the Lib Dems are in trouble but I still think there’s a section of the electorate who will think they’re ok for local elections.
They were still striking 18-20% in council elections after the destruction of the Alliance after the 1987 election (a pity we didn’t finish that off), and polling 6 or 7 % in the polls,
but I’m sure Labour will make gains from them.
Wolverhampton has never been good territory for the LibDems. Even before Labour became a political force, Wolverhampton was very definitely working class Tory.
The Tories and the LibDems in Wolverhampton Council – who are currently in coalition – are now level in numbers with the opposition.
There may be more seats that usual where either coalition party gives the other a free run.
Can’t remember if I actually posted this Joe, anyway here it is;
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2006/rp06-026.pdf
Look at page 12 of 24 for the party affiliations of councillors from 1973-2006.
Joe,
The link I promised you has arrived. Actually there are two, the second being more up-to-date.
As you can see from the chart, Labour’s gains in 1980 were very limited for reasons you have already mentioned. Perhaps someone knows the precise figures.
Ah, they’re on page 23 of 24.
Labour gained 601 seats, Tories lost 484.
Thanks
Some of these projections are strange looking back.
As I mentioned elsewhere, odd that Labour got 36% in May 1983.
There was a recount at Bilston in 1970.
Did it cover part of this seat?
I guess it must have been outlying areas which went into Wolverhampton Met District in 1974.
1970
Bilston
[E] Labour hold
RJ Edwards Labour 27,240 50.93%
CG Irving Conservative 26,240 49.07%
Electorate: 77,060; Turnout: 69.40%;
Majority: 1,000 (1.87%)
It covered most of this seat (roughly two thirds which is the old Bilston MB the rest was in the old Wolverhampton CB). I’ve actually recently discovered that Bilston along with Tettenhall and Wednesfield were annexed to the Wolverhampton CB in the late 60s at the same time as other county boroughs (eg Warley) were created in the area. Wolverhampton thus took on it’s present boundaries then and the Met borough which was created in 1973 therefore involved no boundariy changes, This is why The Wolverhampton (and Warley) seats were already reflecting this new relaity in the 1974 parliamentary boundaries whereas the boundaries in other Met counties didn’t catch up until 1983
I see – that makes sense.
I didn’t realise that local government was reorganised in this area in the late 60s, assumed it would be 74
(which as you say would be too late for the – delayed – new constituencies to catch up if the local government had come in then).
Don’t you think the Tories have done relatively badly in this seat since though, if say over half is Bilston?
Just re-read your post Pete to make sure I understand.
Yes, I do.
I found this –
”
On 1st April 1966 the new County Borough of Wolverhampton came into existence. The new extended borough consisted of the original County Borough along with the Borough of Bilston, the urban districts of Tettenhall and Wednesfield, parts of the urban districts of Coseley, Sedgley, Darlaston and Willenhall and parts of the parishes of Lower Penn, Wombourne, Wrottesley, Brewood and Essington.
Bilston was at that time a borough in its own right and feelings ran high against the proposal with the belief that the town would lose its civic pride and identity. A campaign was launched under the slogan ‘Bilston for the Bilstonians’ which fought the amalgamation with great vigour. There was even a High Court action over the matter. And a local chippie wrapped its fish and chips in paper bearing the slogan: “If Bilston joins Wolverhampton, we’ve had out chips”. But the West Midlands Order 1965 was approved by Parliament on 16th December 1965 to come into effect on 1st April 1966. The Bilston Borough Council held its last meeting in March 1966 and there was a farewell dinner in the Town Hall. The “streets of evil intent” had swallowed up the old town.
Rumblings of discontent persisted for several years and even today many people can be found who still regret, even resent, what they see as a takeover – a takeover which they see as resulting in Bilston being largely ignored by a distant town council.
“
“Don’t you think the Tories have done relatively badly in this seat since though, if say over half is Bilston?”
More that the Tories overperformed in the Powell election of 1970. Also the boundaries then were better for the Tories. As well as Bilston borough the seat included Coseley which has quite a solif Tory minority and Sedgely which is strongly Tory. I assume the Tories would have been well ahead in these areas combined in 1970 and Labour well ahead in Bilston itself. Coseley and Sedgeley were removed in 1974 (to Dudley East and West respectively) and replaced with mostly very grotty parts of Wolverhampton proper (Ettingshall and Blakenhall are about the safest Labour wards in the borough these days and East Park also normally so)
I’ve just read that the Electoral Reform Soeciety have propsed that this seat is merged with Wolverhampton South West to form the new seat of ‘Wolverhamtpon’ containing the following wards:
Bushbury North, Bushbury South and Low Hill, Fallings Park, Graiseley, Merry Hill, Oxley Park, St Peter’s, Tettenhall Regis and Tettenhall Wightwick.
I suspect this means Paul Uppal – Tory will be up against Pat MacFadden – Labour but who would win here if this proposal goes ahead?
The list of wards there contains no wards from this seat. This sounds more like a merger of Wolverhampton NE and Wolverhampton SW. That would have been fairly comfortably Labour held in 2010 I guess.
Pat McFadden went to Edinburgh Uni in the 80s and adds to the number of Scottish MPs in English seats.
He went to Yoony did he.
It’s University.
I’m with Joe on this one. I remember going to University – I never went to Uni.
I don’t know why we spend any time discussing the Electoral Reform Society’s “proposals” – they have no more validity or legal strength than a proposal from, for example. Pete, Joe or me.
You are absolutely right Barnaby on that second point. I said the same in relation to these ‘proposals’ when they were brought up on the Wolverhampton NE thread
“Rumblings of discontent persisted for several years and even today many people can be found who still regret, even resent, what they see as a takeover – a takeover which they see as resulting in Bilston being largely ignored by a distant town council.”
Ironic really because some people have seen it as a Bilston takeover of Wolverhampton. Certainly prior to this in 1966 the Conservatives were competitive on the town council and now only get control once in a blue moon.
An interesting point. Kind of the reverse of what happened in places like Bradford (or Birmingham for that matter, where the Tories would often not have had control when they did were it not fir Sutton Coldfield). That said Tettenhall was added at the same time as Bilston which went some way towards offsetting the effects
That is a good point about Tettenhall. I think in fact that the inclusion of Tettenhall and Wednesfield outweighed the inclusion. I suppose that there may have been an Enoch Powell effect on some normally Labour voters that dissipated after 74?
Either way Bilston hardly did badly, Norman Davis was Leader of the Council for over 10 years and represented a Bilston ward, and it has had more money pumped into (failed) job creation schemes than any other part of the city.
Wufrunian is right about the borough boundary changes in 1966. Of the two Bilston wards only East is reliably Labour while North has often returned Conservative councillors. The two Tettenhall wards on the other hand are both solidly Conservative and would vote for the proverbial cocker spaniel with a blue rosette (In some cases a cocker spaniel would have done a better job than the candidate they did elect). The Wednesfield wards are all rather fickle and tend to go whichever way the political wind is blowing although pre-1966 it was thought to be a Conservative area as Labour had never controlled the old Wednesfield UDC and the Wolverhampton Labour Group had not been in favour of its inclusion in the Wolverhampton County Borough.
The following is what happened within the Wolverhampton South East Constituency at the local elections on Friday 4th May 2012:
Bilston East – Labour Hold
Bilston North – Labour Hold
Blakenhall – Labour Hold
East Park – Labour gain from Conservative
Ettingshall – Labour Hold
Spring Vale – Lib Dem Hold
Now that it’s almost certain the 2015 election will be contested under current boundaries, I’ve just been looking at what the possibilities would be for the next boundary review conducted under the old rules (assuming the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is repealed).
Since it’s my local area I’ve looked at the Black Country first, and the number of seats in the 4 boroughs will need to be reduced from 13 to 12. I believe the most practical way of doing this is as follows;
Leave Sandwell, Halesowen & Rowley Regis and Stourbridge unchanged.
Go back to the old Dudley East and Dudley West arrangement with the Spring Vale ward from Wolverhampton going into Dudley East.
Wolverhampton North East to gain the St Peter’s and Park wards from Wolverhampton South West and to be renamed Wolverhampton North.
Wolverhampton South East to be split 3 wars with Spring Vale going to Dudley East, the 2 Bilston wards going into a cross-borough Walsall South and Bilston seat, and the remainder of the seat merging with Wolverhampton South West (minus St Peters and Park) to form a Wolverhampton South seat.
Walsall South will gain the 2 Bilston wards and be renamed Walsall South and Bilston. It will also lose the Pheasey Park Farm ward to Aldridge-Brownhills.
Walsall North will remain unchanged.
My guiding principle was to cause as little disruption as possible, whilst repecting local loyalties and making sure all seats are with +/- 10% of the electoral quota. I did also consider other possibilities such as a cross borough Walsall-Sandwell seat and a greater number of Wolverhampton wards going into a Dudley seat, but this would have left fewer seats unchanged and is unnecessary as the plans I’ve outlined above fulfill the requirements.
I’ve posted on this thread because the most significant changes happen in the Bilston area, with the current Wolverhampton South East seat being split between 3 new seats.
That should have been within 10,000 of the electoral quota in my last post.
Sorry for the confusion.