The Constituency of Durham North West

Well no great shock, Hilary is back off to London....66 majority eh that will keep you on your toes!

Turn out was down 0.5% to 58% which is a suprise in such a safe seat.

The great shock for myself is that Alan Ord the missing link man finished second with almost zero campaigning.

Also a shock is that Watts didn't lose his deposit. He polled almost 10% of the vote!

It seems that Watts took a great deal of votes from the Tories with their share dropping to 16.4% down from 20.9%.

Hilarys majority has dropped from 41.6% to 34% with a 6.8% swing of Labour voters to the Libdems. This has to be down to traditional Labour voters not being able to vote Tory as a protest vote.

I think that if Alan Ord had been given the money to campaign I think Hilary could have been in trouble, not beaten but her majority cut like next door in Durham City.

Well this has been fun, I will update this site with any further news as I find it today.

Oh here are the figures:

Hilary Armstrong Labour 21,312 53.9 -8.6
Alan Ord Liberal Democrat 7,869 19.9 +5.0
Jamie Devlin Conservative 6,463 16.4 -4.5
Watts Stelling Independent 3,865 9.8 +9.8
Majority 13,443 34.0
Turnout 39,509 58.0

2001:

Hilary Armstrong Labour 24,526 62.5%
William Clouston Conservative 8,193 20.9%
Alan Ord LibDem 5,846 14.9%
Joan Hartnell Socialist Labour 661 1.7%
Electorate 67,062; Turnout 58.5%; Majority 16,333 (41.6%)
Swing: 5.9% to Con from Lab

Thanks to Justin for the lovely graphic.

Well not just yet, but I thought I would give those nice chaps at local Labour H.Q. a reminder.

Over at Hilary's official website you get the chance to "Ask Hilary" see...

Throughout the campaign Hilary will be logging on to answer your questions online. If you are a resident in North West Durham and would like to submit a question please use the form below.

Now I submited a question to Hilary, which I got answered in person.

But I am curious as I see no sign of Hilary "logging on to answer" any questions so far.

Is this due to lack of interest in the feature or lack of interest in the campaign?

I would be interested to know if anyone has submited a question, or if someone from Labour H.Q. would like to share how many questions have been asked...

Right first off.

Read this.

Done?

Watch this.

Done?

Right then go and vote for a woman who forced sorry used politicals arguments to make other MPs to vote for the war in Iraq, will force oops ask people to vote for ID Cards (Cost to you only 50 pounds!) and all the other nasty things like the terrorism bill (I could be put under house arrest for doing this)

Or go out and vote for some one else.

Who, my recomendation is Jamie Devlin the only candidate who is really bothering.

Oh but the torries are terrorists aren't they...

Now I am no Tory for example...

Cut tax = cut spending = increase in spending from savings

To me is like

Cut pay = cut speanding = means I can buy savers bean rather than Heinz Beans.

I don't mind paying for "stuff" but anyway needed to highlight my non-Tory-ness first.

I got this excelent response to my earlier question on jobs emailed to all 3 candidates (Sorry Watts you missed out as I didn't have your email address at the time...you can email me a response if you like)

As I thought Hilary banged on about the New Deal in her reply.

Jamie does an excelent job of tearing that apart, this is long but if you want an view from the otherside give it a read.

Labour often claim that falling unemployment is a result of their policies but unemployment has been declining since 1993 and has very little to do with Labour - it is a result of the golden economic legacy they inherited from the Conservatives. In fact, since Labour introduced their much vaunted New Deal programmes in 1998, the rate of fall in unemployment has actually slowed.

Worse than this, what Labour are not so vocal about is the 1 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost since 1997, the 1 million people parked on incapacity benefit who want to work, the 1 million young people who are not in education or a job and the 2 million people who are classed as "economically inactive" who want to work but do not appear in the unemployment figures. What has Labour's welfare to work programmes done for these people?

The New Deal is one of the biggest red-herrings of Tony Blair's premiership. Its flagship programme, the New Deal for Young People (NDYP), has failed hundreds of thousands of young people looking for work. Since 1998, 1.1 million young people have been put through the programme, but only 37% have moved into sustained and unsubsidised jobs - and a sustained job is only defined as one lasting for more than 13 weeks. Nearly one third leave the programme for "unknown destinations" and the remainder return to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or move onto other benefits.

The New Deal 25 Plus (ND25+) was introduced in 1998 and is a voluntary programme for unemployed people who had been claiming JSA for more than 2 years. In the first 3 years, more than 350,000 left the programme but only 17% found a sustained job. An enhanced programme came in which included mandatory participation, but the performance is still dismal. Over 665,000 people have now left the ND25+ 'enhanced' programme, but only 23% have gained sustained jobs. (NDYP and ND25+ Statistical Summary, December 2004).

The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) is open to all non-working lone parents and was introduced in October 1998. Given that NDLP participation is voluntary, those on the programme are a self-selecting group of some of the most willing to work lone parents. You would therefore expect the results to be impressive. However, the Government's own figures show that only 51% of people leaving the programme have so far left income support for any form of employment - the rest end up back on benefits.

Labour's New Deal has failed to help people get sustained jobs where they can build a career and save for the future. One of the architects of the New Deal, John Denham (former Home Office Minister), is now a fierce critic. In a recent speech to the Fabian society he said: "New Labour's big blind spot may be that plenty of jobs do not mean plenty of opportunities. The demonstrable lack of progress on social mobility remains a scar on the Labour Government." (May 2004)

Help needs to be concentrated on those who need it, rather than those who are likely to find work through their own efforts or general JSA rules. The large number of people facing serious barriers to employment, including the 2 million "economically inactive" people who want to work, deserve a scheme that really gives them the direct help they need. The Conservative Party will deliver radical welfare reform by allowing providers from the commercial and not-for-profit sectors to deliver specialist welfare-to-work schemes that help people into real jobs that last. We will replace the New Deal with two key welfare programmes.

"Work First" will offer a fast-track into work for long-term unemployed people. Jobseekers would be referred to independent contractors who would provide job-matching services in return for fees paid to them by government. Contractors could use the fees to provide the help they feel is best for jobseekers, not the help ministers think is best. For example, personal advisors would have the discretion to provide resources for a new suit or a short vocational training course.

"Opportunity First" will help sick and disabled people on incapacity benefit back to work. This scheme will allow specialist voluntary and commercial organisations to help sick and disabled people on incapacity benefit get back to work. For the first time, fees paid to contractors would include additional funds for medical and vocational rehabilitation for claimants. Again, financial incentives will be available for placements into sustainable jobs.