Author: admin

  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hornsey and Wood Green

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Catherine West Labour Female 35,126 57.5% -7.9
    Dawn Barnes Liberal Democrat Female 15,884 26.0% +9.9
    Ed McGuinness Conservative Male 6,829 11.2% -3.7
    Jarelle Francis Green Male 2,192 3.6% +1.7
    Daniel Corrigan Brexit Party Male 763 1.2% 0.0
    Helen Spiby-Vann Christian Peoples Alliance Party Female 211 0.3% +0.2
    Salah Wakie Independent Male 100 0.2% 0.0

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 19,242
    Percent 31.5%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 230
    Turnout
    Constituency 74.7%
    Region 67.5%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 77.9%
    Size of electorate 81,814
    Valid votes cast 61,105
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hornchurch and Upminster

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Julia Lopez Conservative Female 35,495 65.8% +5.5
    Tele Lawal Labour Female 12,187 22.6% -6.0
    Thomas Clarke Liberal Democrat Male 3,862 7.2% +4.7
    Peter Caton Green Male 1,920 3.6% +1.6
    David Furness British National Party Male 510 0.9% +0.4

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 23,308
    Percent 43.2%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 83
    Turnout
    Constituency 66.8%
    Region 67.5%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 69.4%
    Size of electorate 80,765
    Valid votes cast 53,974
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Holborn and St Pancras

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Keir Starmer Labour Male 36,641 64.5% -5.6
    Alexandra Hayward Conservative Female 8,878 15.6% -2.7
    Matthew Kirk Liberal Democrat Male 7,314 12.9% +6.1
    Kirsten de Keyser Green Female 2,746 4.8% +1.5
    Hector Birchwood Brexit Party Male 1,032 1.8% 0.0
    Mohammad Bhatti UK Independence Party Male 138 0.2% -1.0
    Thomas Scripps Socialist Equality Party Male 37 0.1% 0.0

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 27,763
    Percent 48.9%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 42
    Turnout
    Constituency 66.0%
    Region 67.5%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 67.0%
    Size of electorate 86,061
    Valid votes cast 56,786
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hitchin and Harpenden

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Bim Afolami Conservative Male 27,719 47.1% -6.0
    Sam Collins Liberal Democrat Male 20,824 35.4% +24.8
    Kay Tart Labour Female 9,959 16.9% -15.7
    Sid Cordle Christian Peoples Alliance Party Male 268 0.5% +0.0
    Peter Marshall Advance Together Male 101 0.2% 0.0

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 6,895
    Percent 11.7%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 477
    Turnout
    Constituency 77.1%
    Region 68.2%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 77.4%
    Size of electorate 76,323
    Valid votes cast 58,871
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : High Peak

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Robert Largan Conservative Male 24,844 45.9% +0.5
    Ruth George Labour Female 24,254 44.8% -4.9
    David Lomax Liberal Democrat Male 2,750 5.1% +0.1
    Alan Graves Brexit Party Male 1,177 2.2% 0.0
    Robert Hodgetts-Haley Green Male 1,148 2.1% 0.0

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 590
    Percent 1.1%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 637
    Turnout
    Constituency 72.9%
    Region 67.2%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 73.5%
    Size of electorate 74,265
    Valid votes cast 54,173
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Heywood and Middleton

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Chris Clarkson Conservative Male 20,453 43.1% +5.0
    Liz McInnes Labour Female 19,790 41.7% -11.6
    Colin Lambert Brexit Party Male 3,952 8.3% 0.0
    Anthony Smith Liberal Democrat Male 2,073 4.4% +2.2
    Nigel Ainsworth-Barnes Green Male 1,220 2.6% 0.0

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 663
    Percent 1.4%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 631
    Turnout
    Constituency 59.2%
    Region 65.6%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 62.4%
    Size of electorate 80,162
    Valid votes cast 47,488
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hertsmere

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Oliver Dowden Conservative Male 32,651 62.5% +1.4
    Holly Kal-Weiss Labour Female 11,338 21.7% -6.9
    Stephen Barrett Liberal Democrat Male 6,561 12.6% +7.2
    John Humphries Green Male 1,653 3.2% +1.3

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 21,313
    Percent 40.8%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 114
    Turnout
    Constituency 70.6%
    Region 68.2%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 71.0%
    Size of electorate 73,971
    Valid votes cast 52,203
  • CONSTITUENCY RESULT : Hertford and Stortford

    Candidate name Party Gender Number of votes Share (%) Change vs. 2017 for party (percentage points)
    Julie Marson Conservative Female 33,712 56.1% -4.2
    Chris Vince Labour Male 14,092 23.4% -5.1
    Chris Lucas Liberal Democrat Male 8,596 14.3% +6.2
    Lucy Downes Green Female 2,705 4.5% +1.5
    Alistair Lindsay UK Independence Party Male 681 1.1% 0.0
    Brian Percival Independent Male 308 0.5% 0.0

     

    Election statistics
    Majority
    Votes 19,620
    Percent 32.6%
    Rank (1 = highest %) 221
    Turnout
    Constituency 73.5%
    Region 68.2%
    UK 67.3%
    Constituency in 2017 72.9%
    Size of electorate 81,765
    Valid votes cast 60,094
  • Max Madden – 1985 Speech on Rail Services in Bradford

    Max Madden – 1985 Speech on Rail Services in Bradford

    The speech made by Max Madden, the then Labour MP for West Bradford, in the House of Commons on 26 November 1985.

    I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Bradford’s rail services. To understand the mounting concern in Bradford about rail services it is necessary to explain the city’s unemployment crisis, the efforts that are being made to regenerate the city’s economy and the city’s anxiety about resources being deployed with a wrong sense of direction and priority.

    The jobs crisis is massive. During the period 1961 to 1978, manufacturing industry in Bradford lost 54,000 jobs, 45,000 of them in textiles alone. Between 1978 and 1981 a further 23,000 jobs in manufacturing industry were lost, 16,000 of them in textiles. The rate of unemployment has increased from 2 per cent. in 1974 to 16 per cent. in 1985, and 35,000 men and women are desperately looking for work. Wage levels remain well below the regional and national averages. The result is that millions of pounds have been taken out of the pockets of the men and women of Bradford and the rates revenue of the local authority has rapidly diminished.

    Car ownership in Bradford is very low. Only half of the families in the district own a car. There is substantial poverty and extensive deprivation. But the people of Bradford have a gritty independence. They want to help themselves. However, they are rapidly coming to the conclusion that although the Government have offered support to enable the people of Bradford to help themselves their help is inadequate.

    It is not being provided with the sense of urgency and commitment that the people of Bradford believe to be necessary. We have seen the city council, which is the city’s largest employer, losing millions in rate support grant and paying millions to the Government in rate penalty. We have seen the university, the city’s second biggest employer, suffering extensive cuts in 1981 and having to pay for substantial redundancies, and we have seen other unacceptable consequences as a result of those cuts, which are estimated to have taken another £6 million out of the local economy. All these pressures have led to extensive efforts being made by the city employers and others to diversify, to compensate for the losses experienced by manufacturing industry, by expansion of the service employment, especially in tourism.

    Transport services are obviously of vital importance to the city, and this concern led Bradford council and British Rail to enter a joint review of inter-city services and to issue a joint report recently. The report highlighted the importance of transport, particularly rail services to Bradford, and the extensive and mounting concern about the future of our rail services in the city.

    The chamber of commerce, trade unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, by which I am sponsored, the Confederation of British Industry and many others, have stressed the importance that they attach to improving the transport services. The CBI, at its annual conference recently in Harrogate, devoted a considerable amount of time urging the Government to spend more on public works of all sorts, and there were numerous references to the need to improve transport services.

    Bradford should have one of the best rail services in Britain, and should not be condemned to having one of the worst. Bradfordians using public transport, including rail services to work, business or pleasure are entitled to services that are reasonably priced, comfortable and convenient. Sadly, this is not the case today, and unless the Government intervene, the prospects are that Bradfordians will be asked to pay higher fares for an increasingly third class service.

    It would be ludicrous for the line between Bradford and Leeds not to be electrified when the line between Leeds and the east coast main line is to be electrified, we hope by 1989. The investment for that electrification amounts to more than £300 million. The Government must find a way to give British Rail the £4 million that it needs to electrify the Bradford to Leeds line. The Government must ensure that British Rail expands the direct inter-city service between Bradford and London, which is now worse than it was 20 years ago.

    The joint report prepared by Bradford city council and BR, commenting on inter-city services, said that 10 years ago there were five through trains from Bradford to London, and six in the opposite direction. Now, there are three in each direction, all via Leeds.

    “It is unfortunate … that the Inter City service to and from London is worse in 1985 than it was in 1965. Industrialists comment about the length of time it takes to get from London to Bradford when a change has to be made at Leeds. They also criticise the scruffy, slow and often crowded nature of the link between Leeds and Bradford. Conferences are being, and have been lost because of the declining rail service between Bradford and London. Most tourists come by coach or car … Journey time, comfort and convenience by rail from London particularly, are important for many new and developing industries. At the present time, Bradford is at a great disadvantage. Decision makers and investors will not be attracted to Bradford if it becomes the largest city in the country without an Inter City rail service, or if it retains the worst Inter City rail service of any of the top six metropolitan districts in the country.”

    That is a succinct description of the concern in Bradford about rail services and particularly about the inter-city service.

    Over the years, the declining rail service has had spinoff effects on other services. The Bradford post and telecom advisory committee wrote recently to a senior executive at the Post Office expressing concern that Bradford had been excluded from the new dedicated intercity transport service, which will be operating between the main cities of this country. The letter said:

    “We have recently reached the stage where the 19.43 Bradford/Kings Cross train has been withdrawn and vans are having to be sent to Sheffield and York to catch trains there. This means that the evening posting time has had to be advanced in some districts by at least half an hour. This causes tremendous inconvenience to the business community who would normally be posting between 5.00 and 5.30 pm and who how have to get their mail to the Post Office before 5.00 pm.

    We find it difficult to understand why Bradford has been excluded from the new service, yet Leeds with a far better transport network has been included. Surely it would be preferable to include in the dedicated service those large cities which are suffering from a poor network.”

    I raised the issue recently with a Department of Trade and Industry Minister and I regret very much that he gave me a dismissive and off-hand reply, saying that he was not prepared to raise the matter with the chairman of the Post Office.

    The Government must take action to ensure that local rail services are maintained. The usual spiral of deteriorating services, leading to fewer passengers, trains being axed and lines being closed, must not be allowed.

    There is also mounting concern about services to Keighley and Ilkley, and it is a genuine based anxiety. Clear assurances must be given by the Government. They must take action to ensure that those services are not only maintained, but improved.

    The Government must recognise the vital importance of all transport services and do everything possible to find the money necessary to maintain and improve Bradford’s services. The city council has suggested that we need an interdepartmental Government task force, representing the Departments of Transport, the Environment and Trade and Industry to ensure a joint Government approach so that our transport services, particularly the rail services, can be defended and improved.

    Ministers visit Bradford fairly frequently, but not many travel by train and few experience the overcrowded, uncomfortable and inconvenient arrangements suffered by most passengers on trains from Leeds to Bradford. I urge the Under-Secretary to come to Bradford to meet the city council and discuss its proposals for ensuring that the Leeds-Bradford line is electrified, and its proposals for maintaining and improving the inter-city service. Such a visit would be welcomed by the council and would give the Minister some experience of conditions for passengers between London and Bradford.

    Good transport, including a good modern rail service, is central to Bradford’s efforts in providing new jobs, encouraging existing firms to expand or new firms to come to Bradford and in attracting visitors to the city.

    I end by quoting a good editorial in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus on 5 November:

    “If short-term, cost-cutting economic factors are the sole consideration in deciding whether or not to keep open the nation’s main transport arteries, we are likely to end up with a few highly prosperous major cities, such as Leeds, surrounded by vast areas of neglect such as Bradford.

    We believe it is time for the Government to take a longer-term, social view, before cities like ours are allowed to sink further into decline.” That view is generally held in Bradford, and the Minister can help to dispel it tonight. He can only hope to do so by promising action and cash. We are told that BR cannot electrify the line between Bradford and Leeds because of the stringent financial controls imposed by the Government, and that BR must show a proper rate of return on any investment made to proceed with that investment.

    For those reasons and arguments, to give hope to Bradford, to give positive and practical help to back up the self-help it is already involved in, to try to overcome the unemployment crisis, and to help our efforts to revive our economy, I appeal to the Minister tonight to give clear assurances that he places the highest priority on ensuring that our rail and transport services are saved. That is what the people of Bradford want to hear. I hope that he can give those assurances in his reply.

  • Dennis Skinner – 1985 Comments on the National Coal Board

    Dennis Skinner – 1985 Comments on the National Coal Board

    The comments made by Dennis Skinner, the then Labour MP for Bolsover, the 18 November 1985.

    I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

    “bribery by National Coal Board officials.”

    Those officials tried to woo certain trade union leaders in the National Union of Mineworkers into the Union of Democratic Miners. They were using taxpayers’ money in the process. This matter is specific because on 9 November the deputy chairman of the National Coal Board, James Cowan, and Kevin Hunt, the industrial relations director, approached Jack Jones, the general secretary of the Leicestershire miners. By and large, the Leicestershire coalfield was not engaged in the 1984–85 strike.

    During the course of the conversation, which took place at Blackpool at the National Coal Board brass band championships, Hunt and Cowan asked Jack Jones about leading his men into the Union of Democratic Miners and coming out of the National Union of Mineworkers.

    They said to him, “One of the ways in which we can facilitate this matter is by taking care of your pension, Jack, and making sure that we will provide you with a car in order to do your union business.” That is bribery on a grand scale and it is strange that it comes at a time when the Government and the Coal Board are calling upon the National Union of Mineworkers to sign a document with the aim of improving efficiency in the coalfields so as to save money. Yet they are prepared to use money to try to smash the National Union of Mineworkers and to set up a bosses’ union in Leicestershire.

    It is specific because it is also alleged that the practice has already taken place in respect of other officials in other areas. It is a very urgent matter because bribery and treating, in the legal sense, constitutes a criminal act. Therefore, it is necessary for the House to debate the matter in full so that the appropriate action can be taken.

    As you have not found time, Mr. Speaker, for the two other applications, I ask you to look very kindly at this one.