TUSC Against Cuts
The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition says:
No to Cuts and Privatisation!
Make the Bosses Pay!
Facebook   Twitter 

This file is out of date and has been replaced by the TUSC results report pdf found here: http://www.tusc.org.uk/pdfs/2012/TUSC_Results_Report.pdf. Click here to go to this file

2012 Local Elections

TUSC council ward results ‘league table’

Below is a league table of the results achieved by TUSC candidates in Thursday’s local council elections in England and Wales.  Listed by results in percentage order are the votes won by TUSC candidates in the ward indicated, with the percentage vote in parentheses (see Note on Statistical Methods on how this was calculated in multi-seat wards). 

This is the first report of the full TUSC results in the local council elections.  More reports, with further details and analysis, will be posted over the weekend.

Click here for the league table as a Word document

Local authority

Ward

Vote

 

 

 

Preston

Town Centre

967 (48.5%)

Walsall

Blakenall

1,025 (45.8%)

Coventry

St Michaels

1,469 (43.4%)

Salford

Ordsall

335 (18.7%)

Cambridge

Romsey

457 (18.5%)

Knowsley

Halewood South

282 (18.3%)

Sheffield

Burngreave

708 (14.1%)

Gateshead

High Fell

248 (13.3%)

Rugby

Wolston & the Lawfords

289 (12.3%)

Rugby

Bilton

299 (12.1%)

Rugby

Eastlands

223 (11.9%)

Rugby

Benn

177 (10.5%)

Rugby

Newbold & Brownsover

145 (10.1%)

Wakefield

Wakefield East

337 (9.9%)

Calderdale

Rastrick

258 (9.8%)

Knowsley

Prescot West

172 (9.8%)

Coventry

Lower Stoke

310 (9.7%)

Nuneaton & Bed

Camp Hill

115 (9.7%)

Rugby

New Bilton

141 (9.4%)

Walsall

Bloxwich West

250 (9.3%)

Sefton

Netherton & Orrell

227 (9.3%0

Newcastle-U-L

Kidsgrove

109 (9.0%)

Rhondda-Cynon

Porth

155 (8.9%)

Lincoln

Abbey

139 (8.9%)

Manchester

Chorlton

368 (8.7%)

Nuneaton & Bed

Exhall

149 (8.4%)

Stroud District

Cainscross

152 (8.1%)

Kirklees

Crosland Moor & Netherton

375 (7.9%)

Portsmouth

Fratton

173 (7.9%)

Rhondda-Cynon

Penrhiwceiber

135 (7.9%)

Carlisle

Currock

97 (7.9%)

Southampton

Redbridge

220 (7.6%)

Gloucester

Barton & Tredworth

170 (7.6%)

Stevenage

Bandley Hill

101 (6.7%)

Rugby

Hillmorton

119 (6.6%)

Stevenage

Longmeadow

109 (6.6%)

Stevenage

Chells

100 (6.4%)

Worcester

St John

102 (6.3%)

Coventry

Whoberley

206 (6.1%)

Liverpool

Princes Park

161 (6.0%)

Rugby

Rokeby & Overslade

125 (6.0%)

Gateshead

Deckham

118 (5.9%)

Caerphilly

Penyrheol

174 (5.8%)

Wigan

Atherton

109 (5.8%)

Lincoln

Carholme

106 (5.7%)

Peterborough

Orton Longueville

103 (5.5%)

Leeds

Armley

229 (5.2%)

Rotherham

Boston Castle

189 (5.1%)

Lincoln

Park

59 (5.1%)

Worcester

Bedwardine

94 (5.0%)

Portsmouth

Central Southsea

151 (5.4%)

Portsmouth

Copnor

131 (5.1%)

Coventry

Radford

142 (4.9%)

Manchester

Baguley

115 (4.9%)

Liverpool

Central

80 (4.9%)

Lincoln

Moorland

78 (4.8%)

Southampton

Woolston

138 (4.7%)

Wirral

Rock Ferry

130 (4.7%)

Coventry

Sherbourne

145 (4.6%)

Portsmouth

Cosham

141 (4.6%)

Portsmouth

St Jude

128 (4.6%)

Barnsley

Milton

125 (4.6%)

Swansea

Castle

148 (4.5%)

Liverpool

Kirkdale

143 (4.5%)

Portsmouth

St Thomas

137 (4.5%)

Portsmouth

Eastney and Craneswater

136 (4.4%)

Newcastle

South Heaton

74 (4.3%)

Liverpool

Yew Tree

129 (4.0%)

Manchester

Moss Side

121 (4.0%)

Liverpool

Kensington & Fairfield

109 (4.0%)

Southampton

Bitterne Park

136 (3.9%)

Portsmouth

Charles Dickens

96 (3.9%)

Swansea

Gowerton

58 (3.9%)

Cardiff

Adamsdown

68 (3.8%)

Sheffield

Gleadless Valley

176 (3.7%)

Liverpool

Belle Vale

128 (3.7%)

Stevenage

Shephall

48 (3.7%)

Swansea

Sketty

195 (3.6%)

Coventry

Westwood

122 (3.6%)

Southampton

Bargate

82 (3.6%)

Welwyn Hatfield

Hatfield East

53 (3.6%)

Coventry

Upper Stoke

120 (3.5%)

Coventry

Cheylesmore

141 (3.4%)

Southampton

Peartree

139 (3.4%)

Liverpool

Old Swan

123 (3.4%)

Coventry

Longford

111 (3.4%)

Liverpool

Riverside

109 (3.3%)

Coventry

Holbrook

99 (3.3%)

Manchester

Ancoats & Clayton

82 (3.3%)

Manchester

Sharston

78 (3.2%)

Plymouth

Sutton & Mount Gould

85 (3.1%)

Southampton

Swaythling

76 (3.1%)

Manchester

Fallowfield

70 (3.1%)

Newcastle-U-L

Wolstanton

43 (3.1%)

Cardiff

Splott

105 (3.0%)

Leeds

Headingley

82 (3.0%)

Walsall

Bloxwich East

70 (3.0%)

Manchester

Ardwick

64 (3.0%)

Sheffield

Hillsborough

130 (2.9%)

Liverpool

Clubmoor

97 (2.9%)

Liverpool

Knotty Ash

96 (2.8%)

Cardiff

Gabalfa

51 (2.8%)

Stevenage

Roebuck

41 (2.8%)

Sheffield

Walkley

136 (2.7%)

Kirklees

Newsome

119 (2.7%)

Coventry

Earlsdon

116 (2.7%)

Cardiff

Riverside

99 (2.7%)

Coventry

Wyken

89 (2.5%)

Southampton

Bitterne

77 (2.5%)

Stevenage

Bedwell

39 (2.5%)

Leeds

Otley & Yeadon

176 (2.4%)

Coventry

Henley

80 (2.4%)

Sheffield

Graves Park

116 (2.3%)

Wakefield

Pontefract North

76 (2.2%)

Lincoln

Minster

41 (2.2%)

Coventry

Woodlands

82 (2.1%)

Coventry

Binley & Willenhall

67 (2.1%)

Southampton

Bevois

63 (2.1%)

Southampton

Harefield

75 (2.0%)

Cardiff

Rumney

43 (2.0%)

Wincester

St Johns & All Saints

31 (2.0%)

Cardiff

Canton

90 (1.9%)

Southampton

Bassett

62 (1.9%)

Southampton

Coxford

57 (1.8%)

Southampton

Portswood

50 (1.5%)

Coventry

Wainbody

54 (1.5%)

Southampton

Shirley

52 (1.4%)

Rhondda-Cynon

Graig

8 (1.4%)

Leeds

Horsforth

77 (1.2%)

Coventry

Bablake

48 (1.2%)

Birmingham

Acocks Green

58 (1.1%)

Kirklees

Dewsbury South

63 (1.0%)

 

 

A note on statistical methods

The TUSC results are listed with a figure for the percentage of the vote won in each ward. How this later figure is worked out is straightforward in a contest for one seat – the percentage figure for the TUSC candidate being the percentage of all the votes cast.

But some of the wards contested by TUSC were ‘all-seat elections’ where every seat in the ward was up for election.  How to present such results, particularly where a party fields just one candidate in a two or three-seat contest, is a controversial question of psephology. 

In an example from last year’s elections, in Leicester’s Rushey Mead ward the single TUSC candidate polled 272 votes, outpolling one of the Liberal Democrat candidates.  It is a fact that 4.9% of the 5,524 people who voted in Rushey Mead used one of their three votes for TUSC.  But they actually cast 13,917 votes.  So if all the ward’s candidates’ votes were recorded as a percentage of the 5,524 actual voters, the total number of votes would be 300%. 

So the method we have used is to record the TUSC vote (or the highest TUSC vote in a multi-candidate ward) as a percentage of the aggregate of the highest votes of all the parties contesting the ward, the highest vote being taken as a maximum expression of a particular party’s support.

In the Rushey Mead example, this aggregated the highest Labour vote (2,789), the highest Independent (1,039), the Tories’ highest vote (861), the top Lib Dem vote (556), and TUSC’s 272 votes, a total of 5,517.  On this calculation, TUSC polled 4.9% in the ward.

This method is neither a ‘correct’ nor ‘incorrect’ way of presenting the support there for TUSC.  It is just another method, with its limitations openly acknowledged.