Boston and Skegness
2010 Results:
Conservative: 21325 (49.45%)
Labour: 8899 (20.64%)
Liberal Democrat: 6371 (14.77%)
BNP: 2278 (5.28%)
UKIP: 4081 (9.46%)
Independent: 171 (0.4%)
Majority: 12426 (28.81%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Conservative: 20078 (46.4%)
Labour: 13617 (31.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 3990 (9.2%)
Other: 5568 (12.9%)
Majority: 6461 (14.9%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 19329 (46.2%)
Labour: 13422 (32.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 3649 (8.7%)
BNP: 1025 (2.4%)
Green: 420 (1%)
UKIP: 4024 (9.6%)
Majority: 5907 (14.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 17298 (42.9%)
Labour: 16783 (41.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4994 (12.4%)
UKIP: 717 (1.8%)
Green: 521 (1.3%)
Majority: 515 (1.3%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 19750 (42.4%)
Labour: 19103 (41%)
Liberal Democrat: 7721 (16.6%)
Majority: 647 (1.4%)
Boundary changes:
Profile: A largely rural seat in the South Lincolnshire fens. Boston was a Hanseatic port in the Middle Ages and a hotbed of religious dissent, the pilgrim fathers originally attempted to depart from Boston, and Boston Massachusetts is named for the town. The modernised port today remains a major local employer and Boston is the major population centre in the seat.
Elsewhere agriculture and tourism dominate. Skegness was a small fishing village and port until the 19th century, but boomed as a Victorian holiday resort and remains a popular seaside town and, like most coastal resorts, retirement location – around 30% of the electorate in the seat are retired. Ingoldmells to the north of Skegness is the site of the first Butlins holiday camp and the Fantasy Island amusement park. Other towns and villages in the constituency include Burgh le Marsh and Wainfleet All Saints, site of Batemans Brewery.
In 1997 and 2001 the seat was a very close Conservative/Labour marginal, but in 2005 the Conservatives managed to turn it into a relatively safe seat. UKIP received 9.6% of the vote here in 2005, their strongest performance in the country.
Current MP: Mark Simmonds(Conservative) born 1964, Worksop. Educated at Worksop College and Trent University. Former surveyor and estate agent. Currently shadow minister for International Development. Contested Ashfield in 1997. First elected as MP for Boston and Skegness in 2001. (more information at They work for you)
Mark Simmonds(Conservative) born 1964, Worksop. Educated at Worksop College and Trent University. Former surveyor and estate agent. Currently shadow minister for International Development. Contested Ashfield in 1997. First elected as MP for Boston and Skegness in 2001. (more information at They work for you)Paul Kenny (Labour) Former Boston councillor. Contested Boston and Skegness 2005.Philip Smith (Liberal Democrat) Mansfield councillor 1999-2007. Contested Mansfield 1997, Doncaster South 2001Christopher Pain (UKIP) Contested Louth & Horncastle 2005.David Owens (BNP)Peter Wilson (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 91856
Male: 49.1%
Female: 50.9%
Under 18: 20.5%
Over 60: 26.8%
Born outside UK: 2.8%
White: 98.6%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 0.4%
Mixed: 0.5%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 80%
Full time students: 1.7%
Graduates 16-74: 9.4%
No Qualifications 16-74: 41.5%
Owner-Occupied: 69.6%
Social Housing: 17.3% (Council: 8%, Housing Ass.: 9.3%)
Privately Rented: 9.2%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.7%
Tory Cllr Carol Taylor (Witham) has defected to sit as an Ind Cllr here.
Maybe you should start listing councillors who haven’t defected.
Yes, I haven’t been following a lot of these defections, but in this case as Boston was wholely elected, presumably this particular councillor was only recently readopted by her party as a candidate and elected under that party label for her ward.
So what has gone wrong in the month since her re-election? Its starting to look like some councillors have sailed to re-election on the coat tails of parties only to jump ship when they are safely back in for 4 years. In my view, that shows contempt for the electoral process and contempt for the party workers and ward voters that put her there.
Unusually (well perhaps not as unusually as one might think) I agree with Shaun. If I were elected as a Labour councillor (which did nearly happen once!), and I fell out with my party, I’d definitely let the electors decide. I think other defectors should too whatever their original and subsequent allegiance.
As you say, I don’t think our agreeing is as unusual as people might think.
And you’re right, if I had been elected as an Independent last time in Stoke (despite me being a Tory as everyone knows) I have no doubt that I would immediately have been asked by the Tory group to join them. And I would have said no at least until the end of my 4 year term so that the electorate would have a chance to pass judgement straight away.
I’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again, there really should be a requirement to face a by-election if elected representatives decide to defect. It would be a simple legal matter to draft the bill.
I’m not sure that would be practical. In Liverpool (which has had 3 defections per year over the past 20!), some are oppurtunists, but some simply defected when their Party or Group ceased to exist. eg an SDP Cllr in 1995 (ie she had continued to be re-elected) joined New Labour as they had moved to her position. A thought police law could be difficult to guess people’s motivations. I realise Lpool is unusual, however, having Liberal, LibDem, Lpool Labour and Labour parties!
“A thought police law could be difficult to guess people’s motivations.”
Thats correct. So the best thing to do is just have an accross the board rule-defection=by-election requirement.
It would have to be worded properly-and of course noone is going to demand a by-election requirement if a representative’s party has literally ceased to exist in the way that the SDP did. That could be incorporated in the exceptions. You could even have a rule that said a by-election is required if a representative defects at any time within 3 years of their election, to avoid unnessary by-elections in the months before their scheduled re-election.
I agree it would need to be properly drawn up and worded however.
When the subject of floor crossing has come up on here before I’ve mentioned that the practice has been outlawed in South Africa since 2009, but that country conducts all its elections under closed lists so representatives there can’t really claim to have much of personal mandate. Over here it is at least arguable that representatives have been elected at least in part due to their individual qualities as well as the voter’s support for the party they represent. After all the importance of the personal vote for sitting MPs is well known.
I would certainly support a ban on floor crossing for UK MEPs as they are elected via a South African style system. Messrs Newton-Dunn, McMillan Scott and Campbell-Bannerman should all have had to give up their seats for the next person on their respective party’s list. I suppose a case could be made for there being a similar rule for MSPs and Welsh AMs elected under the regional list system.
I have a problem though with the idea of representatives elected under FPTP or STV being required to vacate their seats on leaving the party for which they are elected. As well as ignoring whatever personal mandate they might have I would worry that such a system would put too much power in the hands of party leaderships to discipline rebellious types. A situation where chucking someone out of the party also means sacking them from their role as an elected representative would give the whips far too much power.
Floor crossing has also been outlawed in the legislature of the Canadian province of Manitoba. There any representative who leaves the party for which he or she was elected must serve out the remainder of their term as an independent. That is a better system than one in which the representative would have to quit completely, but surely leaves open the possibility of their being so called independent representatives who are actually de facto members of another party just waiting to serve out their term so they can complete their defection. In that sense I am not sure what such a rule achieves.
I think I’m with Kieran W here. I definitely think there should be a ban on switching/joining another party under party list systems but I’m not sure if that’s workable.
“I would certainly support a ban on floor crossing for UK MEPs as they are elected via a South African style system”
I agree. It would be a good start.
Of course…alternatively we could just change the system in which MEPs are elected to one a bit more democratic. I believe the recent referendum showed us what system people perfer!
No seriously, theres no chance of that now that the EU dictators have told us that our traditional system is outlawed in Europe. But the EU election system really really is ripe for reforming. I wonder why we haven’t heard much about that from our “minister for constitutional vandalism” Nick Clegg? Not ‘sexy ‘ enough for him probably.
I agree with most on here. If you switch party while serving as councillor then a by-election should be called. You could then stand as an Independant, if you have a good local following then you should have nothing to worry about.
I have noticed when watching Andy’s YouTube election night videos that returning officers seemed to be under no obligation to state what party a candidate stands for during the declarations, and some of them simply read out the names and how many votes they receive.
What a constrast to the EuroElections where party is everything and the candidate seems to count for next to nothing. I can’t even remember who my MEPs are unless I look them up online and I’m not sure which of them I would contact should I want to raise an issue with them.
‘I can’t even remember who my MEPs are unless I look them up online and I’m not sure which of them I would contact should I want to raise an issue with them.’
You can thank the last Labour government for that and their bizarre decision to scrap the first-past-the-post system that worked perfectly, with the PR list system – which has done nothing but afforded extremists attention their ignorrant-minded policies scarcely deserve
How about a referendum to replace it with the system we used to have?
I’m afraid it’s only a choice between list PR and (the LDs preferred system of) STV .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_European_Union#Voting_system
I don’t have any issue with the list system as Brons and Griffin will lose their seats anyway, my main concern is with opportunist party switching as Kieran covered upthread.
Introducing a proportional system for European election was a treaty obligation so Labour had no choice (I don’t know if this was from a treaty signed before or after they came to power). Since 55% of the electorate at the last European elections voted for parties other than Conservative, Labour and SNP it seems reasonable to have a system that reflects those votes. On FPTP it is quite likely all mainland seats would have been shared between those parties – UKIP may have been able to get ahead in one or two seats in the South West, but given they came 2nd in the national vote, it would hardly reflect their popularity, nor would Labour’s unpopularity have been reflected because of the concentration of their support in particular areas.
I was unaware it was a treaty obligation
I take your point Pete but I’m sure with the proportion of votes they achieved in the last Euro election UKIP would have taken more than a couple of seats, although at the last Euro election under the FPTP system (1994 I think) I remember the Lib Dems were riding quite high in the polls re: popular vote but only took 2 seats, and the Tories, who were as unpopular as Labour at the last Euro election, did better than expected – as you saay Labour woukld have done in 2008
But you could make that complaint against any FPTP system – the best example being the general election of 1983 where the Liberals trailed Labour by a mere couple of % pts in the popular vote yet ended up with about 200 seats less
One thing is for certain – it has taken any enjoyment i used to get from watching the results come in – not that thar’s a valid reason to revert to FPTP of course
I’m afraid I’m going to have to take issue with you Pete that “Since 55% of the electorate at the last European elections voted for parties other than Conservative, Labour and SNP it seems reasonable to have a system that reflects those votes”
You are on the very slippery slope that leads you to having to take very much the same view for other sorts of election as well.
And I’m astonished that as a UKIP supporter you can remain so dispassionate about the principle that we are being told what electoral system to adopt by foreign powers. We are being told that our traditional system is not acceptable! I find it quite horrifuing in fact, and surely that particular treaty observation must be ripe for repatration to national states to decide?
FPTP is the system this country uses. Europe should have been told to get used to it.
“I’m sure with the proportion of votes they achieved in the last Euro election UKIP would have taken more than a couple of seats”
But, under FPTP, they’d be sure to have received fewer votes – people would be more likely to tactically vote Conservative or Labour, and, if we’d kept FPTP throughout, UKIP would be unlikely to have ever won any seats and would therefore have a lower profile (if it were to exist at all).
“I believe the recent referendum showed us what system people perfer!”
Out of FPTP and AV, perhaps. Given that the two options for European elections are the current (terrible, IMO) list system and STV, the referendum tell us nothing about what people would prefer (or whether they’d prefer to revert to FPTP).
I don’t see how anyone can rationally mourn the passing of the old FPTP system used for elections to the EP. The constituencies were far too large for it to be said that they constituted identifiable communities, and that is a situation that would only have got worse had the system survived into the era of a greatly expanded EU and reduced UK representation in the EP.
Also one of the flaws with FPTP is that the fewer constituencies used the more disproportionate the result is likely to be. Quite simply FPTP is not particularly well suited to the job of electing UK members of the EP, and I certainty wouldn’t favour a switch back to it.
The best adjustment to the current system would be to switch from closed to open lists. If I remember correctly the House of Lords attempted to amend the bill that brought in the closed list system for European elections to make the lists open, only for the government to insist that the lists be closed.
A shift to open lists would be welcome, but ultimately I would prefer a situation where the UK no longer held elections to the EP because it was no longer a member if the EU.
“I’m afraid I’m going to have to take issue with you Pete that “Since 55% of the electorate at the last European elections voted for parties other than Conservative, Labour and SNP it seems reasonable to have a system that reflects those votes”
You are on the very slippery slope that leads you to having to take very much the same view for other sorts of election as well.”
Well it isn’t a slippery slope as I see it. I like D’Hondt PR, probably with the open list amendment that Kieron advocates and possibly as part of an AMS system, so I would favour that system for Westminster and local elections as well.
“And I’m astonished that as a UKIP supporter you can remain so dispassionate about the principle that we are being told what electoral system to adopt by foreign powers. We are being told that our traditional system is not acceptable! I find it quite horrifuing in fact, and surely that particular treaty observation must be ripe for repatration to national states to decide?”
Perhaps I would be more horrified if it was a system such as STV or some other preferential type system which I despise. More to the point though, I would obviously object most strongly if the EU was to interfere in the way we elected our MPs or councillors, even if they wanted us to adopt a system I would support because it is of course none of their business. It’s a bit more difficult to argue that the method for electing the European parliament is no business of the EU. Obviously if one had one’s way in relation to Europe, there would not be a European parliament (or at least there would not be members from the UK sitting in it)
Boston and Skegness 2015 most likely
Con 47.7 (-1.7)
Lab 27 (+6.4)
UKIP 12.1 (+2.6)
LD 7.5 (-7.3)
Ind 3.4 (+3)
BNP 2.5 (-2.8)
Extremely complex churn between now and 2015
Turnout 62.9 (+1.8)
Is this one of the constituencies in which a party won both of the named locations but still lost the constituency as a whole?
Con 51 lab 26 ukip 13 liberal 10
Prediction for 2015-
Simmonds (Tory)- 21, 464 (48.7%, -0.7%)
Labour- 13, 366 (30.6%, +10.0%)
UKIP- 4, 652 (10.5%, +1.0%)
Lib Dem- 3, 256 (7.4%, -7.4%)
Others- 1, 258 (2.8%, -2.9%)
Con hold.
Turnout- 43, 996.
Majority- 8, 098 (18.4%)
Swing- +5.35% From Con to Lab.
In answer to Richard, certainly in 1997 & 2001 yes. Possibly in 2005 too, though I’m sure the Tories carried at least Boston in 2010.
Would Labour have carried Hertford aswell as Stevenage in 1979,
the Tory majority only being possible from some of the villages.
I wouldn’t have thought so. More likely that Labour had a sizeable lead in Stevenage, the Tories a similar lead in Hertford and the villages overwhelmingly Conservative.
I’ve no idea but is it possible Camborne and Redruth is Tory without either of those named places actually voting Tory in 2010? What about Truro and Falmouth as well?
Would the LDs have been ahead in the west part of Oxford and the settlement of Abingdon – with the Tories winning overall on the strength of the territory in between?
Harrogate and Knaresborough? (Both possibly LD but Tory win overal?).
What about Lancaster and Fleetwood? Guessing Labour would have won those 2 places but not the seat overall.
In most of those seats the two main towns comprise a big majority of voters which makes it unlikely the Tories would have lost in both of them. Also it would require both towns to have voted in pretty much the same way as each other which again is unlikely.
I think it’s almost certain Labour carried both Lancaster & Fleetwood towns in 2010 – the areas in between are quite extensive, and almost all overwhelmingly Tory.
I agree that Fleetwood was probably Labour in 2010 but don’t be so sure with Lancaster.
Both places are about 27,000 people each but couldn’t be more different. The former naturally leans Labour and would have done so again if we consider how their vote held up in friendlier places across the country,
Lancaster is split in two parts for constituency purposes, and those bits south of the Lune are not natural Labour territory. Given the more Tory (and Green) supporting parts here, and the fact that the unnatural/unusual pairing of the two places must have played some part, I think Lancaster can’t have been carried by Labour.
With the total vote 15,404 v 15,071, I’m fairly sure this was “Lancaster and rurals” v “Fleetwood”
I don’t think I’d agree. Labour manage to win the marginal wards in most years in the Lancaster ward’s of L&F. the Green vote didn’t appear to hold up but the Tories sure very weak indeed in wards like Dukes and Castle. the Tories certainly got a solid vote here but given they can quite easily get 70% in the rural areas south of Manchester and west of Fleetwood it is those areas which would have tipped the balance
Lancaster . why does predictive text constantly alter things???
A piece of census trivia. Boston District has the highest proportion of Lithuanians in the country.
No surprise there.