Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!news-peer0-test!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail
From: "Chris Read" 
Newsgroups: uk.politics.electoral
Subject: Largest Conservative share of vote
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:49:23 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <d5lmvj$l95$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-155-205-251.range81-155.btcentralplus.com
X-Trace: nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com 1115578163 21797 81.155.205.251 (8 May 2005 18:49:23 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:49:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.politics.electoral:141708

"Chris Read"  wrote in message 
news:d5lmvj$l95$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> Anything larger than the 59.1% Andrew Rosindell has piled up in Romford?
>
> What are the safest Tory seats now?


William Hague got 59.1% in Richmond (Yorks) as well and if you calculate an 
extra decimal place Hague just sneaks it. The Top 10 for the Conservatives 
were:

Richmond (Yorks)          59.1%
Romford                   59.1%
Kensington & Chelsea      57.9%
Buckingham                57.4%
S Holland & The Deepings  57.1%
New Forest West           56.4%
Surrey East               56.2%
Beaconsfield              55.4%
Rayleigh                  55.4%
Mole Valley               54.8%

Peter Smyth

"Chris Read"  wrote in message
news:d5lmvj$l95$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
> Anything larger than the 59.1% Andrew Rosindell has piled up in Romford?


Now that's the guy that should be running the Tory party. In 1997 the Tories
were second in Romford on 41.6%.

Are there any other seats where the Tories are back up to their 1992
(notional) percentage?

Adrian

"Peter Smyth"  wrote in message 
news:d5m3pp$edv$1$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> "Chris Read"  wrote in message 
> news:d5lmvj$l95$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> Anything larger than the 59.1% Andrew Rosindell has piled up in Romford?
>>
>> What are the safest Tory seats now?
>
> William Hague got 59.1% in Richmond (Yorks) as well and if you calculate 
> an extra decimal place Hague just sneaks it. The Top 10 for the 
> Conservatives were:
>
> Richmond (Yorks)          59.1%
> Romford                   59.1%
> Kensington & Chelsea      57.9%
> Buckingham                57.4%
> S Holland & The Deepings  57.1%
> New Forest West           56.4%
> Surrey East               56.2%
> Beaconsfield              55.4%
> Rayleigh                  55.4%
> Mole Valley               54.8%


Yes, but that's not how you calculate majority.

The top ten safest Tory seats are (in order):

1   Kensington & Chelsea maj 39.6
2   Richmond Yorks 39.4
3   Buckingham 37.5
4   New Forest West 37.5
5   Beaconsfield 35.1
6   Epsom & Ewell 33.0
7   South Holland & the Deepings 32.7
8   Surrey East 32.3
9   Epping Forest 32.0
10 Maidstone & the Weald 30.5
11 Christchurch 30.2

Adam

"Adrian Bailey"  wrote in message 
news:2sxfe.23885$a9.18212@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> "Chris Read"  wrote in message
> news:d5lmvj$l95$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> Anything larger than the 59.1% Andrew Rosindell has piled up in Romford?
>
> Now that's the guy that should be running the Tory party. In 1997 the 
> Tories
> were second in Romford on 41.6%.
>
> Are there any other seats where the Tories are back up to their 1992
> (notional) percentage?


Romford had a notional Tory majority of 29.8 in 1992, it's now 31.8
Maidstone & the Weald had a notional Tory majority of 25.8 (over LD), now 
30.5 (over Lab) so that one doesn't really count, cos the notional 1992 
majority over Labour was 40%+

Adam

Adam Gray wrote:


> Yes, but that's not how you calculate majority.


True but in a volatile multi party system it's better to have a large 
proportion of the vote than rely on favourable splits between other parties 
for the size of majority.

Rosindell just keeps on raking in the vote!


> The top ten safest Tory seats are (in order):

> 6   Epsom & Ewell 33.0


Yay! (My homeland.)


> 9   Epping Forest 32.0


Exactly where does this cover? Epping Forest itself is very big and I 
somehow doubt the seat gets anywhere near Forest Gate.


> 11 Christchurch 30.2


Nice to see the by-election stain wiped out.

Yes. Try these:

Folkestone & Hythe, Salisbury, New Forest West, Devizes.

I'm sure there are others.

In article , 
freedomforfulham@yahoo.co.uk (Mark) wrote:


> Yes. Try these:
> 
> Folkestone & Hythe, Salisbury, New Forest West, Devizes.
> 
> I'm sure there are others.
> 


Folkestone is right, not the other three.

There are a few other seats where the Tories are back up to their '92 
share though (e.g. Welwyn Hatfield, Isle of Wight, very nearly Monmouth).

Cheers
Matthew

Matthew.

Full list of all seats where 2005 C % majority bigger than 1992
notional majorities (Rallings & Thrasher):

seat	                                1992    1992	2005	2005
	                                maj	% maj	maj	% maj
Bridgwater	                        9,716	17.1	 8,469	17.6
Congleton	                        9,350	16.8	 8,246	17.7
Devizes	                               13,019	20.5	13,194	23.5
Folkestone & Hythe                      8,908	17.0	11,680	24.1
Forest of Dean                            732	 1.4	 2,049	 4.3
Isle of Wight                           1,827	 2.3	12,978	19.4
Louth & Horncastle                     10,970	21.0	 9,896	21.2
Maidstone & The Weald                  14,714	25.8	14,856	30.5
Monmouth	                        3,204	 6.3	 4,527	 9.9
New Forest West	                       15,399	30.2	17,285	37.5
Preseli Pembrokeshire                     603	 1.4	   607	 1.6
Ribble Valley                           8,629	14.3	14,171	28.5
Richmond (Yorks)	               16,707	33.3	17,807	39.4
Romford	                               14,064	29.8	11,589	31.8
Salisbury	                        8,973	14.8	11,142	20.5
Tewkesbury	                        9,797	18.6	 9,892	21.8
Welwyn Hatfield	                        6,583	11.5	 5,946	13.3
Worthing East & Shoreham                9,905	17.6	 8,183	18.4

In many ways, Ribble Valley stands out as the most impressive.

Mark

In article ,
 "Mark"  wrote:

> Matthew.
> 
> Full list of all seats where 2005 C % majority bigger than 1992
> notional majorities (Rallings & Thrasher):
> 
> seat	                                1992    1992	2005	2005
> 	                                maj	% maj	maj	% maj
> Isle of Wight                           1,827	 2.3	12,978	19.4
> Ribble Valley                           8,629	14.3	14,171	28.5
> 
> In many ways, Ribble Valley stands out as the most impressive.


I'd have said Isle of Wight. Well and truly saw off the Lib Dems
and had no byelection (remember Ribble Valley March 1991) to 
complicate matters.

-- 
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

Mark wrote:

> Full list of all seats where 2005 C % majority bigger than 1992
> notional majorities (Rallings & Thrasher):
>
> seat	                                1992    1992	2005	2005
> 	                                maj	% maj	maj	% maj
> Bridgwater	                        9,716	17.1	 8,469	17.6
> Congleton	                        9,350	16.8	 8,246	17.7
> Devizes	                               13,019	20.5	13,194	23.5
> Folkestone & Hythe                      8,908	17.0	11,680	24.1
> Forest of Dean                            732	 1.4	 2,049	 4.3
> Isle of Wight                           1,827	 2.3	12,978	19.4
> Louth & Horncastle                     10,970	21.0	 9,896	21.2
> Maidstone & The Weald                  14,714	25.8	14,856	30.5
> Monmouth	                        3,204	 6.3	 4,527	 9.9
> New Forest West	                       15,399	30.2	17,285	37.5
> Preseli Pembrokeshire                     603	 1.4	   607	 1.6
> Ribble Valley                           8,629	14.3	14,171	28.5
> Richmond (Yorks)	               16,707	33.3	17,807	39.4
> Romford	                               14,064	29.8	11,589	31.8
> Salisbury	                        8,973	14.8	11,142	20.5
> Tewkesbury	                        9,797	18.6	 9,892	21.8
> Welwyn Hatfield	                        6,583	11.5	 5,946	13.3
> Worthing East & Shoreham                9,905	17.6	 8,183	18.4


All fine and dandy, and thanks for the list, but my question was about
the Tories reachieving their 1992 share of the vote (the clue is in the
title of the thread), not their 1992 majority.

Adrian

David Boothroyd wrote:


> Well and truly saw off the Lib Dems  [ . . . ].



Is it me, or did that lot only have one election poster?

Something like,

"FOR, being nice;
"AGAINST, not being nice."


I preferred Steve Bell's "Are you drinking what we're drinking?"

OK. This is the list of the six seats where 2005 Tory share exceeded
2002 notional share plus three "near misses":

Seat                    2005    1992    %+/-

Welwyn Hatfield	        49.6	47.5	2.1
Folkestone & Hythe	53.9	52.3	1.6
Isle of Wight	        48.9	47.9	1.0
Romford	                59.1	58.1	1.0
Bury St Edmunds	        46.2	45.9	.3
South Holland & The D	57.1	57.0	.1
Forest of Dean	        40.9	41.0	-.1
Monmouth	        46.9	47.3	-.4
Ribble Valley	        51.9	52.6	-.7

Looks like this thread's bottle of Champagne goes to Grant Shapps MP.

>OK. This is the list of the six seats where 2005 Tory share exceeded

2002 notional share plus three "near misses":

I'll have a go at some explanations, pasting and splitting in the best
traditions of this NG


>Welwyn Hatfield         49.6    47.5    2.1


Unwind of anti-personal vote against the odious David Evans?


>Folkestone & Hythe  53.9    52.3    1.6


Party leader's usual personal bonus (see Hague 2001, Major 1992, Heath
1966!)


>Isle of Wight           48.9    47.9    1.0
>Romford                 59.1    58.1    1.0


Personal vote for 1st-term MP, though not a complete explanation.


>Bury St Edmunds         46.2    45.9    .3


Very much *not* the same seat as 1992 - not sure if you're using
notional figures, they might be wrong. New MP in 1997 got in by a very
close shave, has consolidated.


>South Holland & The D       57.1    57.0    .1


No idea, except that this seat didn't exist in 1992.


>Forest of Dean          40.9    41.0    -.1


Notional figures for 1992 believed to be wrong.


>Monmouth                46.9    47.3    -.4


Alex, who lives here, has surmised negative personal vote here in 1992
for Roger Evans.


>Ribble Valley           51.9    52.6    -.7


By-election unwind still a factor in 1992.


Other comments as usual welcomed.

>>Monmouth                46.9    47.3    -.4

>Alex, who lives here, has surmised negative personal vote here in 1992

for Roger Evans.

I should have added: unwind from by-election in 1992 GE here also.

In uk.politics.electoral on Wed, 18 May 2005 at 05:42:09, Mark wrote :

>OK. This is the list of the six seats where 2005 Tory share exceeded
>2002 notional share plus three "near misses":
>
>Seat                    2005    1992    %+/-
>
>Folkestone & Hythe     53.9    52.3    1.6


Why is it that having your MP become party leader seems to boost their
vote?

To me it makes no sense - they're still exactly the same person as
before, and their extra duties mean they'll have to neglect their
constituency.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

In message , Paul Hyett 
 writes

>Why is it that having your MP become party leader seems to boost their 
>vote?
>
>To me it makes no sense - they're still exactly the same person as 
>before, and their extra duties mean they'll have to neglect their 
>constituency.


Why do people read 'celebrity' magazines?

Why do people go to see the Monarch/President/Pope if they visit their 
town?

It probably goes back to the social advantages to be gained from picking 
the parasites from the dominant animal's fur at an earlier stage of our 
evolution.

-- 
Goalie of the Century

In article ,
   Paul Hyett  wrote:

> In uk.politics.electoral on Wed, 18 May 2005 at 05:42:09, Mark wrote :
> >OK. This is the list of the six seats where 2005 Tory share exceeded
> >2002 notional share plus three "near misses":
> >
> >Seat                    2005    1992    %+/-
> >
> >Folkestone & Hythe     53.9    52.3    1.6

> Why is it that having your MP become party leader seems to boost their
> vote?


Probably because of a party leader's hugely increased public visibility,
both in the media in general and at (or addressing) the Despatch Box in
the Commons.


> To me it makes no sense - they're still exactly the same person as
> before, and their extra duties mean they'll have to neglect their
> constituency.


MPs have staff for the more routine matters and to pass up to the MP
anything requiring his/her personal attention, so I suspect that only
minimal changes need to be made to that arrangement when an MP becomes
party leader.  To the public there should be negligible visible change,
though to the leader's family there might well be greater impact.

-- 
John M Ward - see http://www.horsted.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Conservative Councillor for Rochester South & Horsted ward, Medway
 * Oppose electoral fraudulent, especially through postal votes
 * Scrap the ODPM, SEERA, and the Standards Board for Englsnd
 * Return all local decisions to local people

>Why is it that having your MP become party leader seems to boost their

vote?

I think it's a combination of higher profile, higher turnout and in
some cases more assiduous canvassing. I think all three factors saved
Letwin, May and Davis this time. Letwin was reportedly in Dorset every
day.

Ted Heath held Bexley easily in 1966 when the national swing would have
had him losing. Major and Hague both had the safest Tory seats of all
when leader.

Howard should not have been in trouble in 2005 but perhaps voters
remembered that he was only saved by split Opposition votes in 1997.

In 1997 some seats were narrow squeaks for Labour, but they held most
of them next time. By contrast, the seats the Tories just held on to
mostly swung significantly to them in 2001. I wonder if this is because
voters, realising another Labour landslide was on the way, voted to
keep a popular MP - Gillian Shephard in Norfolk SW comes to mind.

The three shadow ministers' seats mentioned all had the LibDems going
closer in 2001 - perhaps there was something of the same effect this
time.

This might be the cumulation both of a canvassing effect and of a
personal decision of many Tories to make more effort to vote this time.
Remember a seat like Folkestone has many elderly Tory voters who've
been brought up to see voting as a duty.

As usual, any other ideas gratefully welcomed.

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:Z6WMYAF6IDjCFwaw@activist.demon.co.uk...

> In uk.politics.electoral on Wed, 18 May 2005 at 05:42:09, Mark wrote :
> >OK. This is the list of the six seats where 2005 Tory share exceeded
> >2002 notional share plus three "near misses":
> >
> >Seat                    2005    1992    %+/-
> >
> >Folkestone & Hythe     53.9    52.3    1.6
>
> Why is it that having your MP become party leader seems to boost their
> vote?


1. Voters have heard of the candidate.
2. There must be an element of pride in being represented by a celebrity.
3. Having a celebrity as MP brings attention (and possibly business and
investment) to the area.

Adrian

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:1116420129.586182.126600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> OK. This is the list of the six seats where 2005 Tory share exceeded
> 2002 notional share plus three "near misses":
>
> Seat                    2005    1992    %+/-
>
> Welwyn Hatfield         49.6 47.5 2.1
> Folkestone & Hythe 53.9 52.3 1.6
> Isle of Wight         48.9 47.9 1.0
> Romford                 59.1 58.1 1.0
> Bury St Edmunds         46.2 45.9 .3
> South Holland & The D 57.1 57.0 .1
> Forest of Dean         40.9 41.0 -.1
> Monmouth         46.9 47.3 -.4
> Ribble Valley         51.9 52.6 -.7
>
> Looks like this thread's bottle of Champagne goes to Grant Shapps MP.


At the same time as acknowledging the fine achievement of these MPs, it once
again emphasises the scale of the Tories' predicament. Given that turnout in
1992 was 77%, there is nowhere in the country where as many people turned
out to vote Tory in 05 as did in 92. Indeed, there can't be many seats where
the actual Tory vote was higher this time than it was in 1997, even. (Cue
list! :)

Taking that point further, it's noticeable that if the same number of people
had voted Tory this time as did in 1997 the Tories would've won the 2005
election. What is it about the Tories of 2005 that makes them even less
worth voting for than the crisis-ridden Tories of 1997?

Adrian