Wyre Forest

2015 Result:
Conservative: 22394 (45.3%)
Labour: 9523 (19.3%)
Lib Dem: 1228 (2.5%)
Green: 1117 (2.3%)
UKIP: 7967 (16.1%)
NHA: 7211 (14.6%)
MAJORITY: 12871 (26%)

Category: Safe Conservative seat

Geography: West Midlands, Hereford and Worcester. The whole of the Wyre Forest council area.

Main population centres: Kidderminster, Bewdley, Stourport on Severn.

Profile: Wyre Forest mainly consists of the industrial town of Kidderminister, a centre for the carpet industry, but also includes Stourport and Bewdley and outlying villages.

Politics: Politically the seat is unusual. It would probably be a Conservative/Labour marginal but in 2001 and 2005 it was won by an Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern candidate, Dr Richard Taylor, on the back of a campaign against the closure of the casualty unit at Kidderminister hospital. The Conservatives retook the seat from Dr Taylor in 2010. In 2015 Taylor stood again, now under the mantle of the National Health Action party, but sectured only fourth place..

Current MP
MARK GARNIER (Conservative) Born 1963, London. Educated at Charterhouse. Former Fund manager. Forest of Dean councillor 2003-2007. Contested Wyre Forest 2005. First elected as MP for Wyre Forest in 2010.
Past Results
Con: 18793 (37%)
Lab: 7298 (14%)
LDem: 6040 (12%)
UKIP: 1498 (3%)
Oth: 17270 (34%)
MAJ: 2643 (5%)
Con: 13489 (29%)
Lab: 10716 (23%)
UKIP: 1074 (2%)
Oth: 21708 (46%)
MAJ: 8219 (17%)
Con: 9350 (19%)
Lab: 10857 (22%)
UKIP: 368 (1%)
Oth: 28487 (58%)
MAJ: 17630 (36%)
Con: 19897 (36%)
Lab: 26843 (49%)
LDem: 4377 (8%)
Oth: 1982 (4%)
MAJ: 6946 (13%)

*There were boundary changes after 2005

2015 Candidates
MARK GARNIER (Conservative) See above.
MATTHEW LAMB (Labour) Born 1970. Educated at King Charles I High School and University of the West of England and Birmingham University. College director. Worcester councillor since 2010.
ANDREW CRICK (Liberal Democrat) Contested Henley 2010.
MICHAEL WRENCH (UKIP) Born 1968, Kidderminster. Former soldier. Wyre Forest councillor. Contested Wyre Forest 2010.
NATALIE MCVEY (Green) Service development co-ordinator.
RICHARD TAYLOR (NHA) Born 1934. Educated at Leys School and Cambridge University. Retired hospital consultant. MP for Wyre Forest 2001-2010. Contested Wyre Forest 2010.
Comments - 213 Responses on “Wyre Forest”
  1. David W – in all of your quotations, you missed the crucial point – in order to be defamatory it must be untrue.

    Luke S is also right.

    No, I’m quite sure I am certain who I as referring to: Mandy’s male escort and no, the two MPs who are quoted in the Mail – pointing out that he was less undeserving than others of gaining citizenship – knew what they meant by referring to him as a “male escort.”

    But if you want to, there’s other articles about him, including his questionable LinkedIn status as an osteopath. Indeed when contacted, the regulatory body stated he is not qualified as such or registered with them and that he’s committing a criminal offence if he receives payment on that false basis, if he is only a masseur.

    Tristan – I’ve only ever sneered at your (middle) name, although more so, because it shows precisely why you hold the views you do, unlike 80% of the public.

    Evan Davis had two delightful young left wing cuckolded male students [who for good measure were also camp and posh] amongst his ‘males’ (he sat them on one side v the female experts on the other) on BBC Newsnight last night, saying it was all the fault of masculinity. They weren’t shunned because they were camp – but because they were talking utter rubbish.

    Indeed when the Geordie male cited the example of the woman who had just been jailed for maliciously falsely accusing eight men of rape, he was accused of lying (for merely stating fact). Which is sadly often the norm on here these days.

  2. EcoW:

    “paedophiles are not a designated victim group”

    Well they were in the 1970s according to the far Left, of course (NCCL, PIE), hence Hewitt’s apology for allowing that gay liberation theology into what is today Liberty.

    But, no – they shouldn’t be according to the law.

  3. DH “you would be hard pressed to produce evidence to back up your claim”

    Is that because you think the offenders were not out at the time the offences were committed (Spacey et al), or because they were covered up* or died before the Court case (Janner et al)?

    Because of the actual ones we know of, HH is spot on. If anything I was being kind in my assertion. After all in order for it to be true it would merely need:

    i) 5% of people to be LGBT and
    ii) the % of offenders amongst politicians and celebs who are LGBT to be 6%.

    IMHO its actually 3 or 4 times that. Indeed of those in those categories convicted in recent years almost a third were gay. I didn’t cite that as evidence per se because I accept that the Courts are essentially playing catch up with a lot of historic offences so it’s still possible that in any one year the % would be at par – but again it wasn’t of those convicted recently (everyone from Fred Talbot to the Cllrs & PPCs jailed).

    * the list of 12 former Parliamentarians was posted on here last year and I don’t recall anyone disputing any of the names at the time. Indeed a widow of one actually apologised, as did Esther Rantzen as she had once gone out with Fairbairn.

  4. Lancs Observer: I’ll be quite blunt: you are a disgusting and deliberate homophobe, and not fit to be here.

  5. Lancs Observer: I’ll go further, and say that you may also be too stupid to understand the nastiness you are peddling, and also that your arguments do not stand up. Take your post at 9:35pm 2nd Nov, above:

    The very argument you put forward is false, and either you know that, but you peddle it to further your homophobic intent, or you don’t realise it’s wrong, so you’re ignorant.

    You can’t go on the basis that (i) 5% of all people are gay, but therefore if 6% of people in a sub-group are gay AND offenders, that shows gays are over-represented. First of all, you can only compare group to group, or sub-group to sub-group. So if you want to say that a certain % of offenders amongst politicians and celebs ONLY, who are also gay, are offenders, you can only compare that to the % of that sub-group who are gay, not to the prevalence of gayness in the general population.

    You either know this, but wish to spread hate, or you’re too stupid to understand this. Which is it?

    You also ignore other basic truths: that when a heterosexual male purseus an under-age girl, it is often laughed off, ignored, or hushed up: in any case, it is often treated as acceptable and ok for a man to do. So that element of criminal activity is, in out society, under-reported and under-prosecuted.

    But the basic truth is this: your obsession with trying to link gay men to pedophilia is disgusting, and harks back to that dreadful time when that’s how gay men were smeared, as predators. But what we actually see, in society, is something quite different. Your use of fake numbers, and inappropriate and unproven supposition, is vile.

  6. I regret that you use language like that because it demeans you and the numerous informative posts you’ve made over the years.

    It is important we can as a society get to the bottom of these issues without calling each other names every step of the way.

    To summarise my own view – politics has a problem with sexual abuse from the very bottom to the very top. That has become painfully obvious in recent weeks but it is also visible in the flood of councillors being prosecuted for child porn and various sexual offences, far above the prevalence of these offences amongst the general public. For sure the reasoning is complicated but we need as a society to get to the bottom of the problem and stamp it out. I’m not sure it’s overly useful to get hung up on issues of sexuality. There is a problem with some of the people who choose to go into politics and there is a problem with what politics does to some of the people who go into it.

  7. “To summarise my own view – politics has a problem with sexual abuse from the very bottom to the very top”.

    This topic has been raised on here before. What’s still missing though is any hard evidence that this is any more of a problem amongst politicians than it is in the rest of society. I have yet to be convinced that’s the case.

    Certainly Lancs won’t be any help in highlighting any relevant evidence, as he appears to have demonstrated again that he doesn’t understand how to use statistics properly to prove a point.

  8. “What’s still missing though is any hard evidence that this is any more of a problem amongst politicians than it is in the rest of society. I have yet to be convinced that’s the case.”

    That’s a fair point which I accept. There needs to be a proper study done to test whether it is the case or not.

  9. PS maybe a politics academic such as yourself might be ideal for the job. Surely it would be a worthwhile and timely exercise which should therefore be a priority for research funding.

  10. Shazia Mirza spoke well on BBC’s This Week when she reminded us that many today look to be offended on behalf of others (virtue signalling).

    I’d recommend DH view the BBC’s acclaimed docu drama in which Mark Gatiss and Daniel Mays starred. The latter played Peter Wildeblood, a journalist and the only openly gay man to give evidence to the Woolfenden Committee in 1955.

    In that evidence he described the three distinct groups who make up homosexuals:

    i) obvious effeminate gay men;

    ii) the pederasts (who he condemned absolutely); and

    iii) normal gay men (of whom he was proud to publicly state he was one).

    I’m also reminded of gay activist Cllr Steve Radford’s description of the gay community when I was a trainee journalist: “I wouldn’t bother [covering the council’s LGBT liaison committee], it’ll just be two fat lesbians and an old Trot. What you have to realise is Gs can’s stand Ls, no-one asked either Ls or Gs whether we wanted anything to do with Ts and all are suspicious of Bs.” That semi-serious evaluation is of course a truism of both the gay scene and gay activists (who are not representative of the community at all).

    So by DH’s definition, both Wildeblood & Radford are homophobes for merely repeating facts and citing reality!

    Some gay people are paedophiles – get over it (to paraphrase a gay rights’ slogan against you, DH).

    Indeed to seek to deny that fact and to attempt to shut down debate is a disturbing trait indeed [which I’ll point was used be five gay activists involved in politics who are now themselves in Court charged with such offences]

  11. I’m not sure you can dismiss other peoples emotions as virtue signalling. There are things that genuinely upset me and there’s nothing wrong with that after all I’m a human being and do have emotions. I’m sure you get upset over things msybe different things because youre human and we’re not all the same but I’m not gonna dismiss it


    “Some gay people are paedophiles – get over it (to paraphrase a gay rights’ slogan against you, DH).”

    Of course they are. So what? That doesn’t stop it being homophobic if one conflates homosexuality and paedophilia. The line may be a fine one at times, but for that reason it is important to be very clear and very careful with inferences.

  13. “So what?” DH attempts to shut down any mention of the fact they are.

    The problem of course, however, wasn’t that DH asserted my claim wasn’t yet proven (which HH & Kieran W* at least did), David Whitehouse claimed both that it wasn’t true and was automatically homophobic.

    Of course, by his own standard what he claims is illogical and cannot be true. If DH asserts LGBT people are not overrepresented amongst convicted CSE offenders – I equally ask him to show that with any evidence.

    [As well as his slur of 03.11.17 @ 10.53am, which if he repeated using my name would be defamatory]. Nor have I used “fake numbers.” Indeed I have only ever referred to those convicted – it’s clear to me that DH simply does not like those facts because they damage his own world view.

    * Although Kieran W is previously also guilty of dismissing any facts and statistics presented which do not fit with his own view on the matter. Indeed when presented with the same – that 2-3% of ex Cllrs in the North West had such convictions including a list of 8 specific authorities v 0.02% of the general public – far from accepting that proved my point in the North West [all I had ever asserted], he merely disappeared and said he wasn’t prepared to discuss the matter [because clearly he didn’t like those statistics]

    Indeed both remind myself of a firm of solicitors in the North West, Asons. They claimed our paper, myself and my colleague and others including the police were, “racist” for reporting the allegations that they ran many fraudulent insurance claims in order to receive Costs and that a disproportionate number of these were Asian clients.

    It certainly didn’t end well for them, as not only was it a fact (ABI stats) that a disproportionate number of fraudulent personal injury claims for whiplash etc were from claimants who were Asian, it would in fact be racialist not to highlight this firm just because they are Asian-run and owned.

    Subsequently the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority intervened and closed the firm down for their activities.

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)