Wolverhampton South West
2010 Results:
Conservative: 16344 (40.7%)
Labour: 15653 (38.98%)
Liberal Democrat: 6430 (16.01%)
UKIP: 1487 (3.7%)
Others: 246 (0.61%)
Majority: 691 (1.72%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 17542 (43.7%)
Conservative: 15289 (38.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 5388 (13.4%)
Other: 1911 (4.8%)
Majority: 2252 (5.6%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 15610 (37.5%)
Labour: 18489 (44.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 5568 (13.4%)
BNP: 983 (2.4%)
UKIP: 1029 (2.5%)
Majority: 2879 (6.9%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 16248 (39.7%)
Labour: 19735 (48.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 3425 (8.4%)
UKIP: 684 (1.7%)
Green: 805 (2%)
Majority: 3487 (8.5%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 19539 (39.9%)
Labour: 24657 (50.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 4012 (8.2%)
Other: 713 (1.5%)
Majority: 5118 (10.5%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Paul Uppal (Conservative) born Birmingham. Contested Birmingham Yardley 2005.
Paul Uppal (Conservative) born Birmingham. Contested Birmingham Yardley 2005.
Rob Marris(Labour) (more information at They work for you)
Robin Lawrence (Liberal Democrat) Wolverhampton councillor since 2007.
Amanda Mobberley (UKIP)
Ray Barry (Equal Parenting Alliance) Retired civil servant.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 81714
Male: 48.9%
Female: 51.1%
Under 18: 20.7%
Over 60: 23.2%
Born outside UK: 13.8%
White: 74.8%
Black: 4.4%
Asian: 17.4%
Mixed: 2.4%
Other: 0.9%
Christian: 64.3%
Hindu: 4.4%
Muslim: 3.6%
Sikh: 8.2%
Full time students: 7.3%
Graduates 16-74: 21.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 29.9%
Owner-Occupied: 68.1%
Social Housing: 18.9% (Council: 13.4%, Housing Ass.: 5.5%)
Privately Rented: 9.9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 10.9%
Why the big swing in Cannock?
Was All Saints the non Ladywood parts of Ladywood?
Cannock then included the northern part of what became Staffordshire SW (now Staffordshire South) and had experienced a lot of housing development of a middle class nature in the late 60s also this was very much in the orbit of Wolverhampton. In addition it included Wednesfield, now part of Wolverhampton (NE) – a ‘white working class’ area which would have been susceptible to the appeal of ‘Powellism’.
Ironic that the benificiary was the dripping-wet Patrick Cormack.
“Was All Saints the non Ladywood parts of Ladywood?”
Yes – essentially it was the current Soho ward plus the Rotten Park area of the current Ladywood ward. Amazing to think that area elected a Tory MP in 1959.
Cannock in fact provided the highest swing to the Tories anywhere at that election. Brierley Hill was a similar type of seat, being named for an old industrial district but having become heavily influenced by middle class dormitories (in this case the southern part of what was to become Staffs SW – plus Tettenhall). That was one of very few seats which eleceted a Labour MP in 1955 and a Conservative in 1966
Yes Pete, it’s strange that a seat called Brierley Hill ended up quite Conservative, whereas a seat named after Kingswinford (nowadays a clearly middle-class area) was able to elect a Labour MP even before WWII.
Presumably much of this middle class migration came from the likes of Handsworth and Selly Oak or even closer to the centre.
Wasn’t Belper the most famous of the middle class exodus constituencies?
Interestingly in Feb 74 when the seat did include Tettenhall there was a big swing to Labour because of the Powell effect. There were some seats in 1997 where the addition of wards was expected to favour the Tories but it turned out not to be so – although more to do with the national swing than a personal factor.
well the political parties are setting out their stalls in this seat like no man’s business!
have seen leaflets from the tories, libs and labour.
I still say Marris will win this seat. Not sure by how much though but from what I know of the area many voters in Wolverhampton SW and NE do not like the tories’ recent habit of picking Central office placepeople!
Here’s an opportunity to “declare” this seat, and contribute to the overall prediction for 2010
http://hungparliament2010.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-undermentioned-hereby-give-notice.html
CON 1500
Cons Gain= 2,000 maj
This doesn’t have the feeling of a Tory sweep, therefore I would say Marris by 1,000-2,000!
Con Gain
Maj 1200
Con maj 2,000
Wolves View – what makes you say that? A few months ago I thought Marris would retain his seat but not anymore.
I would go so far as to say there is a very good chance Labour will not retain a single council seat in Wolverhampton SW – losing St. Peters to the Lib Dems and Graiseley to the tories.
That has to be a long shot. Labour held Graiseley fairly easily in 2008 and the polls are clearly better for the party now than then. Also there will be a general election turnout as well.
But will the turnout be lower in moderately strong Labour wards?
Maybe slightly, it often is – but less likely in a marginal.
The reason I say it is because the tories have picked a very very popular candidate in Graiseley – that candidate will win rather the Conservative party winning if you follow me, but the votes that go directly from Labour to Conservative at a local level will probably do the same at a national level.
The UKIP candidate here is now Amanda Mobberley, Ray Barry is standing for the Equal Parenting Alliance and (reportedly) Brenda Watts for the Christian Party.
I simply see no evidence the Tories or the Liberals are having any great impact in this seat. I have had several pieces of literature from Mr Marris’ Labour camp since the election was called on 6 April and I can categorically say NOT ONE thing from the Tories or Liberals, and nothing either from the other candidates.
I have also attended 3 public Q&A sessions since 6 April and it’s interesting to note Mr Uppal from the Tories hasn’t been at one of them. The only thing I’ve seen him and his city council team do is stand in Queen’s Square several weekends on the trot and hand out blue balloons to kids in prams. Hardly a barometer is it?
I still say in all likelihood Mr Marris will hold on here by between 1,000 – 2,000
Blinkered yet again eh Wolvesview. Interested to read your posts post May 6th
“I still say in all likelihood Mr Marris will hold on here by between 1,000 – 2,000″
What sort of drugs have you been taking?
A lot of Marris posters have gone up in windows/gardens in the last couple of days here.
Maybe there a few more posters. I am told that in Graiseley most of them have been replaced by tory ones!
I am also told that a tory victory in Wolves SW looks highly likely because Labour are sending their activists into North East rather than SW. It looks like Rob Marris has been written off by his local activists.
The Conservatives have a better chance in Wolverhampton SE than Labour holding on here.
Sorry ment Wolverhampton NE not SE
CON GAIN
Pingback: Tweets that mention Wolverhampton South West Local Labour MP Rob Marris should be re-elected at this marginal seat #seatstowatch #ge2010 -- Topsy.com
The non-white vote nearly saved Labour, but not quite. Demographic change hasn’t really helped Labour here either in the way it seems to have done in Brum and the formidable Tory vote in Tettenhall (and to a slightly lesser degree in Penn) has clearly come out.
Congratulations to Paul Uppal great guy but Barnaby quite right – they saved Labour in Walsall South.
The amount of activity and money that the tories seemed to have spent on this seat not an overwhelming success but that should be more a reflection on the tories fighting it as if Cameron the candidate not Paul Uppal. Uppal will make a great MP and will be re-elected with a much bigger majority either in 6 months, 12 months or 4 years.
“THE GOVERNOR
But will the turnout be lower in moderately strong Labour wards?
April 18th, 2010 at 8:40 am
BARNABY JL MARDER
Maybe slightly, it often is – but less likely in a marginal.
April 18th, 2010 at 9:38 am”
In the local elections where the overall turnout was almost identical (as one would expect) turnout was over 70% in the Tettenhalls and in Penn and only 55% in St Peters and 63% in Graiseley. If turnout had been uniform and assuming the extra votes in the inner city wards had voted in the same proportions as those who did vote, Labour would have held on here. Another problem for Labour is that the electorate in those wards has fallen – the electorate in the four subrurban wards were all over 9,000 but less than 7000 now in St Peters. Finally Labour’s support in St peter’s is far less monolithic than in the past.
While they have made Park safe (in general eelctions) and made some inroads into the Tory middle class wards, they seem to have lost some support in St Peters compared with 20 years ago. This loss of support has been to the benefit of the Liberal Democrats and it would be reasonable to assume that student votes are responsible for this. the LD share is now double what it was in 1997 and 2001 while the Tory share is about the same. Ironically, though the suburbs did obviously come out for the Tories, Labour continued to poll respectably in Penn and Merry Hill. They lost the seat because of the loss of votes to the LDs and to abstentionism in their inner city heartlands.
In the local elections the Conservatives were about 3,000 ahead of Labour on aggregate but with an almost identical number of votes. Labour polled 2,000 more in the general election than in the locals almost entirely at the expense of the LDs so a fair amount of split-voting, but not as much as in previous elections and not enough to safe Labour here.
The reason that Graisely and St. Peters are much smaller wards is because under the last boundary review – undertaken in 2002 the then Labour run council told the boundary commission that the population in those wards would grow (in contrast to the previous 40 year trend of depopulation). This enabled the Labour party to keep councillors in small wards that would previously have been merged. The same is true of other wards in the city which the Conservatives now gain from.
Really the whole boundary review of 2002 should be undertaken again, as it is a farce that 800 votes will elected a councillor in one part of the city while 1600 votes will come second in others. Equally wards with 11,000 voters have the same status as wards with 7,000 voters.
On the February 1974 program, they said there was a 16.7% swing to Labour in Wolverhampton South West, even though the Tories still won a 6,901 majority.
There was a boundary change in February 1974, and obviously there were special factors, but could that figure of 16.7% really be right?
It suggests that the 1974 version of the seat would have been almost a derisory vote for Labour in 1970.
Interesting that Helene Middleweek stood here (later MP for Welwyn & Hatfield).
1970
Wolverhampton South West
[E] Conservative hold
JE Powell Conservative 26,220 64.34%
JAN Bamfield Labour 11,753 28.84%
E Robinson Liberal 2,459 6.03%
P Carter Communist 189 0.46%
RGD Menzies Ind 77 0.19%
DP Dass Ind 52 0.13%
Electorate: 53,592; Turnout: 76.04%;
Majority: 14,467 (35.50%)
February 1974
Wolverhampton South West
[E] new constituency boundaries
N Budgen Conservative 23,123 45.73%
HV Middleweek Labour 16,222 32.09%
J Wernick Liberal 9,691 19.17%
G Cooper National Front 1,523 3.01%
Electorate: 63,555; Turnout: 79.55%;
Majority: 6,901 (13.65%)
It implies a Conservative lead in 1970 on the new boundaries of 47% which probably equates to something like 71% Conservative 24% Labour with 55 for Liberals and others. This seems extreme but the boundary changes in 1974 were extensive and very pro-Tory. I only discovered recently (there was some discussion upthread) that Tettenhall was not in this seat before 1974 (it was in Brierly Hill) and that as you will know is very heavily Tory, probably monolitically so in 1970. Furthermore the seat before 1974 included much poorer areas which are now in Wolverhampton SE. I can well believe that the notional result in 1970 was as reported and really it is a derisory Liberal vote in 1970 rather than a derisory Labour vote
5% for Liberals etc
Yes when you have a seat where the Liberals didn’t stand you can have quite a significant Labour vote but still an enormous Tory majority which is difficult to comprehend at first sight these days when you almost always have at least 3 candidates.
Thanks for these explanations.
It does look rather odd on the surface,
the boundary changes must have been more substantial than I realised as you say.
I was very surprised indeed when I saw that 16%+ swing reported on Andy’s YouTube channel – the like of which I thought only occured in some of Labour’s very best results in 1997.
“Interesting that Helene Middleweek stood here (later MP for Welwyn & Hatfield).”
Did you spot Margaret Jackson trying to unseat Dick Taverne? God, she looked young!
Helene Middleweek is the daughter of a Wolverhampton dentist and went to Wolverhampton Girls High School. So not such a surprise that she stood in Wolverhampton.
If anyone knows the gigantic houses on Penn Road near the Royal School, her parents used to live in one of those. I doubt if there any that haven’t been turned into flats or bedsits now.
Graisely ward by-election here in September after the death of Dr. Passi.
Normally a very high number of postal votes in this ward so the turnout should be high.
Easy win for Labour in the Graiseley by-election. In spite of the fact that the tories picked a popular local candidate who has won here previously.
Proposed new boundaries as expected make life very difficult for Paul Uppal, and there don’t seem to be any realistic alternatives. I suppose you could swap Oxley for Ettingshall although I doubt this helps much (I haven’t checked).
Uppal very quiet on these boundary changes. I have heard it said before that he doesn’t want to be an MP anymore.