
This file is out of date and has been replaced by the TUSC results report pdf found here: http://www.tusc.org.uk/pdfs/2012/TUSC_Results_Report.pdf.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