Witney
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 25487 (49.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 11706 (22.7%)
Labour: 11534 (22.3%)
Other: 2920 (5.7%)
Majority: 13781 (26.7%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 26571 (49.3%)
Labour: 11845 (22%)
Liberal Democrat: 12415 (23%)
Green: 1682 (3.1%)
UKIP: 1356 (2.5%)
Majority: 14156 (26.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 22153 (45%)
Labour: 14180 (28.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 10000 (20.3%)
UKIP: 767 (1.6%)
Green: 1100 (2.2%)
Other: 1003 (2%)
Majority: 7973 (16.2%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 24282 (43.1%)
Labour: 17254 (30.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 11202 (19.9%)
Referendum: 2262 (4%)
Other: 1401 (2.5%)
Majority: 7028 (12.5%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: David Cameron(Con) born 1966, London. Leader of the Conservative Party. Educated at Eton and Oxford University, where he was a member of hte infamous Bullingdon club. Following university he worked in the Conservative Research department from 1988-1992. Special advisor to Norman Lamont from 1992-1993 and Michael Howard 1993-1994. Director of Corporate Affairs at Carlton Television from 1994-2001. Contested Stafford 1997. First elected as MP for Witney in 2001, following the defection of his predecessor Shaun Woodward to Labour. Vice-Chairman of the Conservative party 2003-2004, local government spokesman 2004, head of policy co-ordination 2004-2005. Following the 2005 election he was promoted to shadow education secretary. Following the announcement of Michael Howard`s resignation as leader Cameron indicated his intention to stand, being seen as Howard`s preferred choice as successor. His speech at the 2005 Conservative party conference, and a lacklustre speech by the then frontrunner David Davis saw him become the favourite and he was elected leader of the Conservative party in December 2005, despite allegations of drug use surfacing during the campaign. As leader of the Conservative party Cameron has sought to rebrand the Conservative party, making the environment a central plank of policy, pushing for the selection of female candidates and largely avoiding traditional Conservative issues such as immigration (more information at They work for you)
Candidates:
Joe Goldberg (Labour) Educated at Bristol University. Former political assistant to George Foulkes.
Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavsky (UKIP) born 1935. Educated at Wellington College and Trinity College, Dublin. Author and historian. Contested Barnsley East by-election 1996, Wantage 1997, 2001, 2005
Paul Wesson (Independent) Educated at Trent Polytechnic. Political consultant, former RAF officer. Former West Oxfordshire councillor for the Conservative party.
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 95640
Male: 49.2%
Female: 50.8%
Under 18: 22.6%
Over 60: 21%
Born outside UK: 5.9%
White: 98.4%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 0.4%
Mixed: 0.7%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 77.4%
Full time students: 2%
Graduates 16-74: 23.3%
No Qualifications 16-74: 21.9%
Owner-Occupied: 73.2%
Social Housing: 13.1% (Council: 4.4%, Housing Ass.: 8.7%)
Privately Rented: 7.9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 4.1%
Slightly odd since Major was already prime minister at the time.
Yes indeed Andy, silly me – I DID mean Blenheim!!
Just back to the subject of Shaun Woodward, I remember reading about a year ago that in 2000, David Cameron was struggling to find a seat when Woodward jumped ship and opened up a plum seat. Had he not done so or waited until after the 2001 GE, then it is highly unlikely that Cameron would have got elected anywhere that year.
As there where no winnable by-elections for the Tories in that parliament he would have had to wait until 2005, unless he got disillusioned and gave up trying, so he would not have been in a position to run for leader in 2005. Could David Davis have managed to generate the sort of poll ratings that Cameron enjoys? I think not, most likely we would be looking at a hung parliament next year.
The article in question mentioned that Labour MP’s who realize this mutter dark thoughts about Woodward under their breath!! He will probably go down as the most poisoned chalice in British political history!
“Could David Davis have managed to generate the sort of poll ratings that Cameron enjoys? I think not, most likely we would be looking at a hung parliament next year.”
I dont see why not. The poll ratings are generated for the most part by Gordon Brown rather than David Cameron.
An interesting ‘what if’ nevertheless
“I dont see why not. The poll ratings are generated for the most part by Gordon Brown rather than David Cameron.”
But you’ll have a hard time getting a member of the Cameroon herd to understand that Pete.
Mike Smithson over on Pb.com puts forward the theory that the more David Cameron is featured in the media, the higher the Tory rating in any opinion poll conducted immediately afterwards. That would suggest that the presence of Cameron as leader does have something to do with the Tories current exalted position in the opinion polls. I believe this theory does stand up to scrutiny, and I say that as someone who would have voted for Davis in the leadership election if I had had a vote.
A study of the opinion polls suggests that Brown has had more of an effect than Cameron:
Cameron v Blair
121 polls
Average Con lead 3.6%
Brown bounce 1 to TETNW
38 polls
Average Lab lead 5.7%
From TETNW to 2008 budget
47 polls
Average Con lead 6.4%
From 2008 budget to present (including Brown bounce 2)
166 polls
Average Con lead 14.0%
The big Conservative breakthrough came in the spring of 2008 and the factor that caused it was Labour’s betrayal of their traditional core vote in the white working class. Key issues were the abolition of the 10% tax rate, BJ4BW and immigration, the recession and the bail out of the banks and perhaps increasingly Afghanistan.
Before the spring of 2008 we were heading for a hung parliament which I suspect was what the ‘Cameron project’ was planning for all along.
I’m taking a look at seats which have experienced a large change in their electorate since 2000, which is the year the boundary commission used to draw the new boundaries. It’s an important issue because it shows how the process of equalisation of electorates, which is the whole point of the boundary review, has not been particularly successful, mainly due to the longer than usual gap between the year used for the new seats and the year when they will be used for the first time. If the Conservatives win the popular vote by say 10% next year but still fall short of an overall majority it will be precisely because of these large electorates in English seats.
In Witney the electorate in 2009 is 77,984 compared to 72,275 in 2000. I think that’s larger than any electorate in Scotland or Wales, although it looks like there may be quite a number of seats over 80,000 in England, such as Taunton Deane and Mansfield.
Which is why the Boundary Commission must be asked to report far quicker, and with far smaller interludes, than currently.
The Woodstock borough constituency had an unbroken record of Tory representation for over a hundred years prior to it’s abolition in 1885
These were nominees of the Duke of Marlborough of the day – after the fall of Walpole, with whom the Churchills were at loggerheads, the Dukes could always get their nominee elected. They did face the occasional contest, institgated by Woodstock burghers who were unhappy at various acts of ducal high-handedness or Churchill family feuds, or the frequent need of the Dukes to rein in their expenses and reduce the spending that was necessary to keep voters sweet, but they never actually lost.
Before the Reform Act, Oxfordshire was a different matter for the Marlboroughs. The combined influence of the University and the established County families kept the county seats Tory with almost no contests in the early eighteenth century; but the Dukes, who were then Whig, decided to contest the elections in 1754, in a contest so notorious for bribery and excess that it served as the model for Hogarth’s series of caricatures on electioneering. The Sheriff returned both the Tory and Whig candidates; and the Commons gave the seat to the Whig on petition on purely partisan lines. The Dukes and the Tories divvied up the seats between them after that (and, after Pitt, were on the same side anyway).
I presume Witney and Chipping Norton have had the same boundary history as Woodstock since 1885?
No they diverged slightly between 1974 and 1983. All this area was in the Banbury seat before 1974 when Oxon Mid was created – Witney and Woodstock formed part of that seat but Chipping Norton remained in Banbury until 1983 when it rejoined Witney and Woodstock in the new Witney seat.