The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition says:

No to Cuts and Privatisation!

Make the Bosses Pay!

TUSC has no big business sponsorship. TUSC is a coalition for the millions not millionaires. Every donation to TUSC strengthens our fight for a better future.

TUSC has had hundreds of declarations of support. You can support TUSC as an individual trade unionist or socialist, or apply for your organisation to join TUSC.

TUSC will oppose all cuts to council jobs, services, pay and conditions. Reject increases in council tax, rent and service charges to compensate for government cuts. Vote against the privatisation of council jobs and services.

This file is out of date and has been replaced by the TUSC results report pdf found here: http://www.tusc.org.uk/pdfs/2012/TUSC_Results_Report.pdf.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