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%
Yes indeed I misread that one. Perhaps Asian communal politics have played a part in those 2 particular results, but I’m only guessing.
Why are you guys commenting on Walsall results on the Wolverhampton South West page?
As interesting as Walsall is, it is not Wolverhampton South West.
A brief perusal of the above conversation will show why that happened, but it does happen like that on this site sometimes.
It was pleasant to be proved wrong about Merry Hill. The Wolverhampton results were certainly fantastic for Labour and the old perception that SW has 2-3 safe Labour wards but 3-4 safe Tory ones no longer pertains.
Absolutely, Barnaby. What happened in Wolverhampton yesterday was astonishing and potentially a game changer.
What I now suspect is that the WSW Tories and Uppal’s team will do one of two things:
A) either give up and leave Labour to demolish the Tories in remainder of Penn, Merry Hill, Tettenhall Regis and Wightwick (which let’s face it, after Friday, Labour are more than capable of securing all these with a bit of work over the next 2-3 years) and concentrate on winning the new constituency seats that the boundary changes will design for the Tories in the West Midlands. Uppal may even go for one of the new seats, as he would appear to have little interest in Wolverhampton.
OR
B) Uppal and Tory HQ will realise the Tories are doomed in Wolverhampton if they don’t get their arses into gear, and spend the next 2 years sandbagging Penn, Merry Hill, and the Tettenhalls, in preparation for fighting the new Wolverhampton South seat (assuming there is one).
I have to say, I am not totally sure which option the Tories will take. But one thing is certain now. If they can lose Penn just like that, and Merry Hill, they they do not have long to get organised to make sure it doesn’t happen again in 2 years, and that Uppal doesn’t also lose in 2 years.
For the first time in my life, Labour has the very real prospect before them, of having all 60 seats in Wolverhampton by 2015 and either all 3 or all 2 MP’s!
For the sake of democracy, wake up Wolverhampton Tories. This could be the beginning of the end for you!!!!
Considering this was such a good result for Labour and yet the Conservatives still outpolled you by 2 to 1 in Tettenhall, it doesn’t look like you’re about to win them any time soon. Even if you did in 2014 and again in 2015 you would still not have 60 seats, because the 3 non-Labour seats returned this week will be held until 2016. I think Labour did self-evidently well enough that there isn;t need to engage in silly hyperbole of this kind
I spoke to a friend who knows the Wightwick candidate this weekend.
The new tory in Wightwick reckons he directly transferred 200 votes from Labour to the tories. I’ll accept that – it happens – families and friends mean a lot in the asian community. Thats a net transfer of 400 votes. However lets be more prudent, say 150 – thats 300 net. UKIP didnt stand this time – lets extrapolate UKIP from elsewhere in the constituency and assume a 75% transfer from other canvass returns – thats the tories down by 225, perhaps down by a total of just over 500. That puts them on a circa 400 majority in a ward where we have never knocked a door, delivered a leaflet and I have been told where there are 3000 council houses. Those council houses never vote because the tories normally pour out but not any more. Wightwick and Regis are winnable.
PS/Wolves Stadium
Your pre-election forecasts were good. So why do you have to annoy everyone by posting under two names and debating with your own points? Your sock puppetry stands out a mile and ruins the credibility of your posts.
Pete – you talk of “silly hyperbole” with my wild predictions of Labour success unless the Tories work harder in WSW.
Let’s scroll back a few years, and even a few weeks, and look at what people were saying on this very forum, and others, any time anyone mentioned the possibility of Labour winning Penn or Merry Hill, or come to that, at one stage, Park!!
On Friday, Labour picked up seats that it was only last year defeated by 400 votes in (Merry Hill), and only as recently as 2010 defeated by 1,000 in (Penn). Seats that Labour have only ever, at most, won once (Merry Hill) and never (Penn).
Yet, with Tettenhall Regis and Wightwick, where the majorities were 700 and 900 respectively (more than halved), you rather rudely call my prediction that with hard work and lack of Tory interest Labour could win them “silly hyperbole”.
I suspect that come 2015 and 2016, the survival of the Tories in will be in very serious trouble indeed in Wolverhampton unless they see this as an urgent wake-up call.
I am saying this would be bad for democracy to leave a hugely populated Labour Council and 2-3 Labour MP’s completely unchecked and unchallenged.
Hemmelig – you are completely and utterly mistaken with your assertion that PS and I are the same posters. I cannot prove that to you, but no doubt the administrators for this website can????
You say I am “annoying everyone”. Well, quite frankly, who is “everyone” at 1am, on Saturday/Sunday? I doubt more than a dozen nerdy people (I am an armchair nerd and armchair political commentator) in the world are that tuned in to this particular discussion.
Secondly, it is interesting to note that people often accuse others of “annoying” them when someone says something they don’t like very much; i.e. me telling you about the results for Wolverhampton South West and the talking about the possible consequences for the local Tories. You clearly dislike me talking about this.
Is this because you are perhaps a Tory and cannot quite believe what has happened in Wolverhampton, and don’t want to think about what may happen in the future? Ok, understandable if so!
If I serve the interests of democracy by helping the Tories to realise they need to retain some seats next time in Wolverhampton, then so be it………
I can confirm that I am not the same person as Wolves Stadium/Wolves Aye We/Pete Whitehead/Shaun Bennett or H.Hemmelig.
I suspect that the tories will change direction nationally to stop the UKIP threat and thereby reduce our chances in Tettenhall however without that change of direction I think the tories could be done for in Wolverhampton. Probably quite a few of their activists will walk away if they think they cant be elected to the council.
Just thought I would add some number crunching to this:
Labour – 9,081 – 47.82% (+ 8.84% G.E. 2010)
Tories – 6,936 – 36.52% ( – 4.18% G.E. 2010)
UKIP – 1,573 – 8.28% ( + 4.58% G.E. 2010)
Lib Dems – 877 – 4.61% ( – 11.4% G.E. 2010)
Independent – 324 (Didn’t stand G.E. 2010)
Green – 197 (Didn’t stand G.E. 2010)
Overall Turnout in Wolverhampton South West for local elections May 2012 = 19,228 (out of 61,928)
= 31.05% ( Minus 36% G.E. 2010)
Now, that was the result for Wolverhampton South West as it stands at the moment………
If, the new constituency boundaries add Blakenhall to the existing WSW wards, to make the new Wolverhampton South Constituency, then it would have looked as follows:
Labour – 11,283
Tories – 7,304
Hmm, interesting times ahead, and hardly good news for Mr Uppal or the Tories. They are still pretty shell-shocked after losing 9 councillors, but especially by the loss of Penn and Merry Hill.
I repeat again my warning to the Tories that Labour wouldn’t require a great deal more effort to wipe the Tories from Wolverhampton by May 2016.
I am hearing from certain sources that Pat Patten is considering “getting out” of Penn in 2014, surely thereby leaving Martin Waite’s team to steal another easy victory there!
I am also hearing that Christine Mills only agreed to become Mayor again because she has had enough and will also quit Merry Hill in 2014, leaving Alan Bolshaw’s Labour team to do another demolition job there.
I also am gathering intelligence that the local Tories are getting very agitated with Mr Uppal, and moves are afoot within the local party to replace him as candidate when the boundaries change. I understand he has also let it be known he would prefer to seek another parliamentary seat.
So, that only leaves the Tettenhalls as the Tories’ safest bet in Wolverhampton, and Spring Vale for the Lib Dems. As I said in my posts last week, those 3 seats could easily be worked on by Labour, and in my view gained within a few years!
“Yet, with Tettenhall Regis and Wightwick, where the majorities were 700 and 900 respectively (more than halved), you rather rudely call my prediction that with hard work and lack of Tory interest Labour could win them “silly hyperbole”.
The fact that the Tories won them and won them easily proves Pete’s point that it WAS silly hyperbole, surely?
I never for one minute suggested that the Tories would not win Tettenhall Regis and Wightwick this year.
What I was saying and am saying still is that I can recall times not that long ago (to me at least!) whereby Park, Penn and Merry Hill (with the exception of 1995 in the case of Merry Hill) were completely out of reach for the Labour candidates, to the same tune that Tettenhall Regis and Wightwick are currently.
In my many years observing politics at close quarter, I have come to the conclusion that all that stands in the way of any particular party winning a seat is the fact that they have not, thus far, done so!
Frankly some of those councillors mentioned should never have been elected and even give the tories a worse name than they deserve. Wolverhampton will be far better off without them. The trouble is have we got enough good quality Labour candidates to replace them? We dont want to let any Tom Dick Harry or Milkinder in simply because we need the numbers. We have had problems with that before.
No elected politician should ever be lazy. There is no real excuse, once a person is on the “payroll”.
I have often argued that councillors should remember that they are part-time employees of the council, and should really be formally contracted upon their election to do so many hours per week, and have specific written expectations and duties, not just within their own wards, but at the council buildings.
There should be far more independent monitoring of councillor activities. An written report could perhaps go to respective party managers (or to the electorate in the case of independents) about the performance of their councillor – perhaps even with the power to bar particularly poor performers from standing again for the same ward!
This might mean even giving councillors reasonable access to greater facilities and resource help, such as letter writing, administration and PA support etc. The extra cost of this could perhaps be offset by having just 2 councillors per ward, rather than 3. I think 3 is overkill myself!
Employers should also be strongly encouraged to guarantee reasonable time off (paid or unpaid) to employees so they can pursue the honourable aim of serving their communities as councillors.
Just a thought!!
Saw Paul Uppal on Sangat a while ago boasting about how he had “touched” 1000 constituents through surgeries, letters, emails and phone calls since being elected.
How on earth does he think that is a high number? No wonder he is having problems with his activists.
Enoch would have been 100 today.
I find it very curious how the electorate of St. Peters increased by 1300 voters in less than one year. There are no big new housing developments there.
Has the area covered by St Peter’s ward always been in this seat, since 1950? I believe it was in Wolverhampton West before that
On the basis of the October 2012 figures, Wolverhampton South West has the highest claimant count unemployment rate of all Conservative held seats – 6.6%, compared to a national average of 3.8%
Of the top 100 seats in terms of claimant count unemployment, only a further 3 are Conservative held – Peterborough, Great Yarmouth and Rochford & Southend East.
At the other end of the scale, only 1 of the 100 seats with the lowest unemployment is held by Labour – Aberdeen South with 1.7%.
The Lib Dems have a bit of representation at both ends of the scale – with 15 seats amongst the 100 lowest unemployment rates, and 4 amongst the 100 highest – those latter 4 are Brent Central, Birmingham Yardley, Bradford East and Redcar.
Also potentially interesting that a seat like Birmingham Edgbaston – a potential Tory target, has far higher claimant count unemployment (at 6.3%) than other midland seats like Stoke-On-Trent North (4.7%) and Derbyshire North East (3.1%)
“Has the area covered by St Peter’s ward always been in this seat, since 1950? I believe it was in Wolverhampton West before that”
Though the city centre itself (and therefore the epopnymous St Peters) would have been in the old Wolverhampton SW, the residential areas north of the centre (Whitmore Reans and Dunstall Hill) which make up the majority of the area and electorate of the current ward would have been in Wolverhampton NE from 1950 to 1974. I discovered this relatively recently as at the time I lived in this ward I always assumed I was living in Enoch’s old seat and it turned out that while I was in the sense that I was in Wolverhampton SW, the area I lived had never been part of his seat. I did however live in a part of his old seat earlier when I lived at Blakenhall which is now in Wolverhampton SE
Labour List have got this as Labour’s 13th highest target seat.
Apparently we will be putting a lot of additional resources into our top 60 target seats.
By an extraodinary coincidence, this seat is number 13 on this target list too. funny that!
I wish you the best of luck.
I think UKIP could poll several thousand in this seat if the picked a good candidate early, leafleted regularly and also campaigned on local issues. Sadly they won’t do any of that.
I would have thought that most of the tory voters in this seat would be just as at home voting UKIP. Nick Budgen and Enoch Powell were practically UKIP MPs prior to the existence of UKIP.
I think you misunderstood me, which is understandable given that I seem to have neglected to post the relevant link – ‘this target list’ being this http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/labour-target-seats/
This is not on any UKIP target list that I know of.
The point I was making was that there is nothing very revelatory about the target list recently published by Labour List
I see what you mean now. I wasn’t aware of that list on this website.
I stand by my comments about UKIP having the potential to do very well in this seat.
The politics of Nigel Farage would certainly suit tory voters in Tettenhall better than David Cameron’s hug a hoodie. The immigration policies would be popular with the aging tory vote in Graiseley and the working class tory vote that bizarrely exists in this seat and Wolverhampton North East.
The working-class Tory vote was once relatively bizarre, but surely we all know it has become much less so in recent years. Class-based voting is much less dominant than it was a couple of generations ago. It is however a very patchy picture; some almost entirely white working-class areas have hardly any Tory voters at all (pretty much all of Scotland & Wales, ex-mining areas in e.g. Co. Durham, Liverpool), but in others it is a major factor (the SE outside London, parts of Outer London, suburban areas in the E & W Midlands). It wouldn’t be a surprise that in areas where there is a large non-white vote some remaining white working-class voters vote against Labour, though it doesn’t look as if Graisley is an area where the Tories are doing well, or pretty much anywhere in Wolverhampton in fact, except Tettenhall.
South West will definitely go Labour again – irrespective of the tory/ukip vote, we benefit from a lot of voters returning from the Lib Dems to Labour and long term demographic change. Park is a great example of this – it used to be a safeish tory ward in the 1990′s, it went Labour and then a small tory part went into Wightwick. A temporary Lib Dem surge and now it is back to Labour and safe as houses.
Interestingly, if UKIP had stood in Wightwick on the old pre 2004 boundaries, I think the tories would have lost to Labour! That would be a historic historic upset! Previously this ward had the largest percentage majority in the West Midlands!
Demographically it looks like a labour seat and not a tory one.
Wolverhampton has tended to be a high-swing area since the days of Enoch Powell, as local elections in 2008 and 2012 both continued to confirm.
In the North East constituency there was much more movement towards the Conservatives than here, which makes me wonder if incumbency – possibly double incumbency – will play a crucial role next time. This would be likely to work in the Conservatives’ favour, as in many seats we gained in 2010. I have reason to believe Rob Marris was a popular MP.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge than myself on candidate selections could confirm if he is planning a comeback?
Looks like we have seven re-matches so far from the 2010 election:
1. Waveney: Peter Aldous vs Bob Blizzard
2. Stroud: Neil Carmichael vs David Drew
3. Bedford: Richard Fuller vs Patrick Hall
4. Northampton North: Michael Ellis vs Sally Keeble
5. Swindon South: Robert Buckland vs Anne Snelgrove
6. Stevenage: Stephen McPartland vs Sharon Taylor
7. Cambridge: Julian Huppert vs Daniel Zeichner
I would think that 4/7 them will likely succeed. Stroud is so odd that I wouldnt make a guess at this point. Id be pretty shocked if we lost Swindon South or Stevenage.
I have a funny feeling about Huppert holding Cambridge too. Could well be as low as 3/7 succeeding.
2001 showed the importance of the double incumbency effect in an election with a small swing. The Conservatives won virtually nothing, despite a swing in their favour. One exception was Norfolk NW where the previous MP stood again reducing it to a single incumbency effect. The other seats the Conservatives won were Newark (where the sitting MP had been subject to adverse publcity) , and 3 in South Essex (a notoriously different sub-culture).
If I was in Labour central office I’d be encouraging ex-MPs to restand in close marginals.
First-time incumbency can be pretty powerful. But nevertheless the local elections look rather ominous for the Conservatives here. I’d be pretty surprised if Uppal could hang on, at the moment at least.