Torridge and West Devon

2010 Result:
Conservative: 25230 (45.7%)
Labour: 2917 (5.3%)
Lib Dem: 22273 (40.3%)
BNP: 766 (1.4%)
Green: 1050 (1.9%)
UKIP: 3021 (5.5%)
MAJORITY: 2957 (5.4%)

Category: Marginal Conservative seat

Geography: South West, Devon. The whole of the Torridge council area and part of West Devon council area.

Main population centres: Bideford, Great Torrington, Tavistock, Holsworthy.

Profile: A large rural seat running down the western side of the border with Cornwall. Tourism is important along the relatively short stretch of coast in the north of the seat, which includes the steep coastal village of Clovelly, the Victorian seaside village of Westward Ho! (named after a novel and famously the only British placename with an exclamation mark) and the small port of Bideford. The rest of the seat is deeply rural and agricultural, with the main settlements small market towns like Great Torrington, Tavistock, Holsworthy. The glass manufacturer Dartington Crystal is based in Torrington, set up in the 1960s by the Dartington Hall Trust to bring employment to rural areas and now an important local employer and tourist attraction. To the south the constituency contains a large part of Dartmoor, including the prison.

Politics: The seat and its predecessors had traditionally been strongly Conservative, represented by the party since 1924. In 1995 the sitting Conservative MP, Emma Nicholson, defected to the Liberal Democrats. While Nicholson herself did not contest the next election (instead going on to become a Liberal Democrat MEP), the seat stayed in Liberal Democrat hands in the form of John Burnett. Burnett remained the MP here until 2005, but failed to pass his majority onto his successor after his retirement, with the seat returning to the Conservative fold. In 2010 was one of four seats where UKIP finished third (the others being North Devon, North Cornwall and the Speakers seat in Buckingham).

Current MP
GEOFFREY COX (Conservative) Born 1960, Wroughton. Educated at Kings College Taunton and Cambridge University. Barrister. Contested Torridge and West Devon 2001. First elected as MP for Torridge and West Devon in 2005.
Past Results
Con: 25013 (43%)
Lab: 6001 (10%)
LDem: 21777 (37%)
UKIP: 3790 (6%)
Oth: 2003 (3%)
MAJ: 3236 (6%)
Con: 22280 (40%)
Lab: 5959 (11%)
LDem: 23474 (42%)
UKIP: 2674 (5%)
Oth: 1297 (2%)
MAJ: 1194 (2%)
Con: 22787 (39%)
Lab: 7319 (12%)
LDem: 24744 (42%)
Oth: 2349 (4%)
MAJ: 1957 (3%)
Con: 29627 (47%)
Lab: 5997 (10%)
LDem: 26013 (42%)
Oth: 1039 (2%)
MAJ: 3614 (6%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005
**There were boundary changes after 1992

Other 2015 Candidates
PAULA DOLPHIN (Liberal Democrat) Born 1970, San Paulo. Educated at Pontif

Comments - 166 Responses on “Devon West and Torridge”
  1. “I wonder how well Mr Cox’s outside interests – earning £820,867 as a barrister in 2014 – plays in this seat. He is the epitome of a part time MP.”

    I know people who live here. They think it’s qutie good that they’ve got someone who is talented enough to be a QC…it’s not a negative for Cox.

    I find it extraordinary that in little more than a 100 years we’ve gone from a system where MPs pay was introduced so that people without any financial resources could be members of parliament, to one in which MPs will be banned from all other forms of employment.

    But of course the really rich MPs, people with serious capital, investments, property, can carry on as before, only people with useful experience in medicine, the law and other professions will be banned from practising those professions. It’s crazy…it’s not a surprise that we are badly governed.

  2. I’m not so sure about Labour fifth places in the south west.

    It would take a very strong LD tactical consolidation (to keep those voters away from Labour), the Greens to save deposits (often starting from scratch), and UKIP to make half an effort (the votes are out there for UKIP to be a comfortable third in a lot of places, but if they literally don’t try the big two parties will reel them back in).

  3. James, not sure who your “people who live here” might be, but I suspect that a lot of other people might beg to differ…

    as for his experience coming in to bear… how, if he is so busy working the Inner Temple? Does he have much time for parliament let alone the constituents..

    Maybe that explains why he spoke in parliament less than the average MP last year…

    if his experience is so useful why wasn’t he drafted in as a minister… or was he offered and turned down as they would be a real killer of the QC sideline?

  4. Antiochian,

    I have heard all that lefty claptrap for ages…he won the seat in 2005, held it in 2010 and i expect he’ll extend his majority in 2015. ’nuff said.

  5. Never been accused of being of the Left before…. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose was mother’s milk to me…

    You haven’t bothered to address the issue of where all his great QC experience is rubbing off in parliament or on the constituency…

  6. “if his experience is so useful why wasn’t he drafted in as a minister”

    the idea that the sole purpose of a backbencher is to become a minister is seriously worrying. Rather the opposite.

    Most speeches and interventions in parliamentary debates are almost entirely worhtless and are made to grandstand ….

    Yes, I do want QCs, who one would think know something about the law, in a legislature, as they have always been.

    I want GPs, businessmen, actors, authors, accountants, farmers, union activists, energetic, driven and successful people in the legislature of my country.

    I don’t want the house of commons to become a Soviet style chamber of commmissars with robots spouting out the party line in order to get preferment. I don’t wan the house of commons to be a chamber of social workers whose sole income derives from the state …you bang on about constituents, rightly, but seem to think it’s ok when those MPs become ministers….our system is broken, as people don’t really seem to understand how it evolved.

  7. You should check out the “They Work for Us” record on this specific case and then report back on the value added of QCs….

    This one reminds me of Guthrie Featherstone QC MP in Rumpole of the Bailey..

  8. “I don’t want the house of commons to become a Soviet style chamber of commmissars..”

    And neither do I. I think it valuable that MPs have some experience “outside the bubble” before they enter parliament. (Lord, deliver us from SPADs).

    But like many people I have a preference for MPs who treat their role in Westminster as their PRINCIPAL occupation and am bemused as to how you can earn £800K + in a single year if that is what you are doing.

    I was interested if anyone knew if this was an issue in the constituency – thus my original posting.

  9. Alex Carlile was active as a barrister while he was an MP and remained popular in Montgomeryshire, increasing his majority over time. Emlyn Hoosen was also a barrister while he was an MP here.

  10. Point taken BazinWales.

    But the issue is the extent to which they pursue other activities : which is why I used the word PRINCPAL. And whether that impacts on the service they provide to their constituents or the work they do in parliament.

  11. I don’t think the constituents care, and ultimately it’s up to them not some nanny-state intervention. Certainly, in the case of Sleaford and North Hykeham, their last QC MP got done on expenses, and the association selected another full time QC, who said he wouldn’t give up his practice. He got a majority of 19k at the general election!

    Practising barristers have served as MPs since the model parliament of 1295.

  12. Sorry .. PRINCIPAL

  13. “which is why I used the word PRINCPAL”

    What about nadine dorries who made a ton of money on her cr*p novel, or the other MPs, generally tories, who have extensive business interests, should they be disqualified too.

    If you go down the “ban second jobs route”, you’ll end up with a parliament of some really rich people with lots of social workers and career hacks. marvellous.

    The idea that barristers shouldn’t serve in the legislature is really really bizarre.

  14. ‘I don’t wan the house of commons to be a chamber of social workers whose sole income derives from the state ‘

    There’s far more people in today’s Parliament who are wealthy through their business interests than their are people who have relied on the state from their income – social workers, council leaders, public sector beurocrats and the like

    Of course the House of Commons aspires to have people in it who have led very successful careers but there’s still the suspicion that this helps create an old boy’s network whose member’s personal wealth is so vast that they are rarely affected by the decisions they make – which can play havoc with the lifes of the people who put them there

    That sounds very much like what we’ve got with the current government – and whilst that arrrangement might benefit those who like the members of the government are doing well, it’s less likely to do so for those less fortunate who often lives lifes their government can’t begin to comprehend – even if they wanted to

  15. It’s not right wing to argue that we want talented and successful MPs, nor is it left wing to argue that politicians should have life experience that enables them to fully grasp the impact of policies on typical lower and middle income households.

    Alas, examples of MPs that fall into both categories are fewer than one might hope. Surely a more robust criteria is to have MPs who make clear to both their party and their electorate where they stand on the tricky issues. We don’t have enough of that from any party, big or small, Britain-wide or provincial – the vast majority from all parties are completely at the beck and call of the leader of the day.

  16. Well I certainly seem to have got a debate going this morning! Sorry to Anthony if we seem to be drifting away from the site guidelines.

    James : At no point did I propose or even mention “banning” or “disqualification”. I would be grateful if do not imply that I did.

    I would however suggest that we should have absolute transparency when MPs are carrying out paid work in addition to their parliamentary activities, and this should be made fully available to their constituents. Then they can decide if the non-parliamentary work is or is not appropriate. I do not believe just publishing data on a website which most people do not access or may not even be aware of meets this criteria.

    Also why should MPs who treat their parliamentary role as a secondary activity be paid the same as those who treat it as their main activity? Isnt there a case that their salary and second home allowances should be restricted.

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of polls.

You are not currently logged into UKPollingReport. Registration is not compulsory, but is strongly encouraged. Either login here, or register here (commenters who have previously registered on the Constituency Guide section of the site *should* be able to use their existing login)