Camborne and Redruth
2010 Results:
Conservative: 15969 (37.58%)
Labour: 6945 (16.34%)
Liberal Democrat: 15903 (37.42%)
UKIP: 2152 (5.06%)
Green: 581 (1.37%)
Socialist Labour: 168 (0.4%)
Others: 775 (1.82%)
Majority: 66 (0.16%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Liberal Democrat: 18850 (37.1%)
Labour: 14731 (29%)
Conservative: 13008 (25.6%)
Other: 4157 (8.2%)
Majority: 4119 (8.1%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 12644 (26.3%)
Labour: 14861 (31%)
Liberal Democrat: 16747 (34.9%)
UKIP: 1820 (3.8%)
Other: 1943 (4%)
Majority: 1886 (3.9%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 14005 (29.9%)
Labour: 18532 (39.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 11453 (24.5%)
UKIP: 1328 (2.8%)
Other: 1502 (3.2%)
Majority: 4527 (9.7%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 15463 (28.8%)
Labour: 18151 (33.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 13512 (25.2%)
Referendum: 3534 (6.6%)
Other: 2972 (5.5%)
Majority: 2688 (5%)
Boundary changes:
Profile:
Current MP: George Eustice (Conservative) Former Strawberry farmer, former director of the No campaign against the Euro, former press secretary to Michael Howard and David Cameron. Now co-ordinator of external relations at CCHQ. Contested South West region for UKIP in 1999.
George Eustice (Conservative) Former Strawberry farmer, former director of the No campaign against the Euro, former press secretary to Michael Howard and David Cameron. Now co-ordinator of external relations at CCHQ. Contested South West region for UKIP in 1999.
Jude Robinson (Labour) former agent and constituency assistant to Candy Atherton. Former Carrick councillor.
Julia Goldsworthy(Liberal Democrat) born 1978, Camborne. Educated at Truro school and Cambridge University. Former researcher to Matthew Taylor and regeneration officer at Carrick district council. First elected as MP for Falmouth and Camborne in 2005. Health spokesman from 2005-2006, Lib Dem shadow chief secretary to the treasury 2006-2007, Lib Dem shadow secretary of state for communities since 2007 (more information at They work for you)
Euan McPhee (Green) Born 1946, Edinburgh. Educated at Bushey Grammar School, Hatfield Polytechnic and University of Alberta. Biology lecturer and smallholder. Contested London South East 1989 European elections.
Derek Elliott (UKIP) Robert Hawkins (Socialist Labour) 
Loveday Jenkin (Mebyon Kernow) Lecturer. Kerrier councillor since 1996.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 78925
Male: 48.6%
Female: 51.4%
Under 18: 21.3%
Over 60: 25.1%
Born outside UK: 2.9%
White: 99.1%
Asian: 0.2%
Mixed: 0.4%
Other: 0.2%
Christian: 72.8%
Full time students: 2.5%
Graduates 16-74: 13.6%
No Qualifications 16-74: 31.9%
Owner-Occupied: 74%
Social Housing: 11.7% (Council: 3.7%, Housing Ass.: 8%)
Privately Rented: 11%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 18.4%
But Tim as you show from your previous post, taking a robust line on issues like law & order is not necessarily the preserve of those who would classify themselves as being on the political right.
I also naturally disagree that those on the political right are opposed to giving to charity as you put it. In fact it is more common to find opposition to the concept of private charity coming from those on the left who believe any function fulfilled by charities should be a function of the state. For my own part I am certainly not opposed to giving voluntarily to charity either myself or for anyone else. I am opposed to having money forcibly taken from me and handed over to the third world – charitable giving on my behalf and against my will, paying for the building of schools in countries whose governments are building nuclear weapons and rockets to the moon.
I also take the view that while I may willingly give to certain charities of my choice if I have a bit of surplus money, I’m afraid that when I am broke I am not going to get myself into further debt in order to fund some charitable giving. I think it would be well if the government took a similarly responsible attitude with my money
Some of TIm’s opinions about right-wingers are a bit stereotypical IMO. I would say they represent the way those on the left and centre-left like to think of right-wingers rather than the way most of them are in real life. How many “nasty right-wing” MPs are there in reality? Not many.
I didn’t mean to imply that people who vote Conservative don’t give to charity – more than those who refuse to give to charity point-blank tend to be Conservatives or obviously another party on the Right (as opposed to Labour or Lib Dem)
I understand your reservations about money going overseas intended to charity and ending up in the pockets of the corrupt leaders of those countries (whose policies are usually to blame for the situation in the first place)
The point I was making is that if Mr Cameron played to the core-vote strategy adopted by Messers Hague and Howard (banging the drum on immigration, law & order and the EU) I think the Tories would be even further way from the majority they needed to govern on their own
“I understand your reservations about money going overseas intended to charity and ending up in the pockets of the corrupt leaders of those countries”
No I am against the British government spending taxpayers money on overseas aid full stop – even if it was going to good causes. This sort of thing is up to private charities spending money freely given by individuals.
“hose who refuse to give to charity point-blank tend to be Conservatives or obviously another party on the Right (as opposed to Labour or Lib Dem)”
Evidence? The only arguments I have ever heard employed by those who refuse to give to charity is that these people ‘don’t believe in charity’ because they think whatever is being done by the charity should be done by the government/state. I have heard many people say this and while I haven’t necessarily checked their partisan identification with them, I think it’s a reasonable bet that such an opinion is likely to be held by those on the left
‘The only arguments I have ever heard employed by those who refuse to give to charity is that these people ‘don’t believe in charity’ because they think whatever is being done by the charity should be done by the government/state.’
That’s a common argument – and one regularly cited by those on the Left – but are you honesatly saying that’s he only argument you’ve ever heard
I’m sure people who don’t give for that reason are outnumbered many times by those who refuse to give because they simply don;t give a damn about the plight of the vulnerable and don’t see it as their problem
My guess would be a fair amount of such people don’t vote at all but my experience has also shown that people who take this view typically hold similarly uncharitable views on a wide range of issues whether it ne immigration, Europe, whatever and trhese people are nearly always on the Right
Isn’t that what Thatcherism was all about anyway – looking out for one’s self and not giving too much of a damn about others
Thyat’s at least how I saw it
No it isn’t what Thatcherism was about but it doesn’t surprise me that you chose to see it in such a distorted way. I must say I cannot recall many people expressing the view that they simply don’t give a damn but admittedly that may be a view that not many people would admit to. Perhaps that thinking is what really lies behind those who think it is the role of government, which is after all a way of abdicating responsibility.
“my experience has also shown that people who take this view typically hold similarly uncharitable views on a wide range of issues whether it ne immigration, Europe, whatever”
Can you explain to me how you define what is an ‘uncharitable’ view (and what would be a charitable view) on Europe?
It is certainly not what Thatcherism was/is about atall.
Quite the opposite – she thought people should help others,
and not always look to the state to do it.
“those who think it is the role of government, which is after all a way of abdicating responsibility.”
I should try not to become sucked in, but surely this is in no way an abdication of responsibility – we vote and can lobby MPs, because we feel that, in a democracy, we are responsible. The key legacy of Thachterism, for me, was nothing to do with individual charity, where I don’t believe there was any significant effect, but in the moving of various things out of the democratic sphere and into the private.
W-O-D
The secret is in your word ‘can’.
Everyone can say it is government’s responsibility and do nothing – including, funnily enough, lobbying government. I am sure not many people go down this route, especially if it was not for themselves or a close relative.
This ‘Big State’ idea on the left often goes with very small heart imho, contrary to hte fact that’s what the right get accused of when they try to reduce the size of the state.
Of course, before I get too partisan, it should be recognised by us all that matters of charity and compassion do in fact cross all political divides – well, most of them anyway!
Thatcherism was an attempt to reverse the egalitarian approach of the post-war consensus and say that it’s every man for himself
It dictated that government should be restricted primarily to policing and defence and that it was not the role of government to care for the vulnerable (but the vulnerable themselves)
An uncharitable view on Europe would be the ‘little England approach’ that sees the whole European project as a conspiracy by the French and Germans to control the continent, or even worst, a conspiracy by European buearocrats who want to enrich themselves at the expense of the EU’s member states – rather than seeing the EU as a flawed but worthwhile project, ensuring Europe’s citizens have some minimal rights and recognising the power of Europe as a trading block of nations so its peoples aren’t marginalised by the US and the emerging ecomomies in China, India and South America
There are many good reasons for opoosing the EU – which people such as yourself are au fait with
But much of the debate in this country is dominated by unfounded scaremongering based on little more than a general dislike of foreigners tinged with a heavy dose of wartime paranoyas
If you want an example pick up The Daily Mail or The Sun
“An uncharitable view on Europe would be the ‘little England approach’ that sees the whole European project as a conspiracy by the French and Germans to control the continent”
No that is a realistic view – neither ‘uncharitable’ nor necessarily a ‘Little Englander’ approach
Well you see Thatcherism through a different prism to some of us TIm – Maggie was strongwilled and woe betide those who crossed her, but not actually heartless – even if some translate some of her policies as meaning she was. She was actually quite human I thought, and as JJB says, believed in helping others – but just not a big state doing it all.
‘But much of the debate in this country is dominated by unfounded scaremongering based on little more than a general dislike of foreigners tinged with a heavy dose of wartime paranoyas ‘
The country was denied any proper debate in 2009 on the EU when the media was more interested in the expenses scandal instead.
“The problem I have with your analysis Richard is that you seem to equate the average voter as you put in as being a right-winger – primarily concerned with crime and defence, massively opposed to all imigration and opposed to giving to charity”
Where did I say that?
What I would expect the average swing voter to be concerned with though is cuts in UK defence spending (aircraft carriers without aircraft etc) while the political establishment continues to support pointless foreign military adventures – can someone tell me if we’re fighting for the wife beating heroin smugglers and against the wife stoning opium growers or is it the other way around?
Likewise I’m sure the average swing voter doesn’t think giving jailbirds the vote and replacing the snooker tables destroyed at Ford open prison should be priorities to the Home Office.
As to continued opendoor immigration it is massively unpopular but is yet another issue where the political establishment is out of touch with everyday realities – consider the handwringing yesturday about rising youth unemployment, the principle cause being immigration.
As to charity, I give myself. The key point being I choose how much and to whom. If Cameron was so keen on charitable giving then why not give every taxpayer some form of credit which they could then give to charities of their choice. Instead we have more government borrowing in order to fund third world dictators and their presidential palaces.
Surely the key point about the ‘core vote’ strategy is not that the Tories’ policies didn’t resonate with the voters, but that the issues were in of themselves at the time secondary to the state of the public services and the economy. Even Tim won’t deny that most voters’ opinions upon crime and immigration, according to the polls (and any random sample of people on the street, if you want to take an unscientific approach), are a lot more tougher in general than those of most MPs.
In fact immigration is probably the reason why David Cameron is sitting in 10 Downing Street now instead of a Labour/Lib Dem coalition – if working class voters weren’t so alienated from Labour because of immigration they probably wouldn’t have voted Tory.
‘Well you see Thatcherism through a different prism to some of us TIm – Maggie was strongwilled and woe betide those who crossed her, but not actually heartless – even if some translate some of her policies as meaning she was. She was actually quite human I thought, and as JJB says, believed in helping others – but just not a big state doing it all.’
Don’t get me wrong from the country’s point of view I think Thatcherism was no worst than the pseudo-socialist policies pusued in the 1970s that let to Britain being dubbed the sick man of Europe
It’s more its message I objected to and its tone which was unecessarily confrontational when much (but certainly not all) of what Thatcher actually did would have received much more popular support than it did
Thatcher had all the qualities that make a great leader but she was the first post-war PM who had a complete lack of interest in social justice
Whatever you say about Thatcher everyone agrees she was a ‘fighter’.
She had to have been for a woman from a lower middle class provincial background to reach the position she did.
So its not surprising that with the state of the country being what it was in 1979 she was confrontational with people who were confrontational with her.
Thatcher was willing to work constructively with other people if that was possible, the most interesting example of which was the coal industry.
If I could make a point regarding some of the above.
It makes sense that Labour will do less well than a UNS swing would suggest. The reason for this is that in Lab – Con marginals the Lib vote almost by definition will usually be below average, so there will be less of a movement to Lab. In Lib – Con marginals this will help Cons. Lib – LAb marginals are the rarest category and the swing will tend to be way over what is actually needed..
It’s an interesting point
Although the LDs will probably still do better than than the national trend in several seats such as Eastleigh, Kingston and Surbiton, Thornbury and Yate etc and it would still be surprising if Labour sprung up to 15%+ in a lot of SW seats.
It still should not be difficult for Labour to gain around 35-40 seats off the tories though on the UNS basis (bar a few that perhaps buck the trend).
Falmouth and Camborne should be interesting though given previous electoral history and Labour might have a good chance of getting back into 2nd.