Corby
2010 Results:
Conservative: 22886 (42.2%)
Labour: 20991 (38.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 7834 (14.44%)
BNP: 2525 (4.66%)
Majority: 1895 (3.5%)
2005 Results:
Labour: 20913 (43.1%)
Conservative: 19396 (40%)
Liberal Democrat: 6184 (12.7%)
Other: 2034 (4.2%)
Majority: 1517 (3.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 17583 (37.2%)
Labour: 23283 (49.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 4751 (10.1%)
UKIP: 855 (1.8%)
Other: 750 (1.6%)
Majority: 5700 (12.1%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 18028 (33.4%)
Labour: 29888 (55.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 4045 (7.5%)
Referendum: 1356 (2.5%)
Other: 640 (1.2%)
Majority: 11860 (22%)
No Boundary Changes:
Profile: Corby grew from a small village to become a medium-sized industrial town in the 1930s after the development of the steel industry in the area. Large numbers of workers were brought down from Scotland. After the war it became a designation newtown and again there was a large amount of Scottish immigration leading to the image of Corby as being a small island of Scottish industrialism in the middle of the English countryside – the 2001 census found almost 20% of people in Corby itself were born in Scotland. In the 1980s the steel works closed leading to massive unemployment in the area, though since then the economy has largely recovered.
Until recently it is one of the largest towns in the country without a railway station, with train company Midland Mainline instead running a half-hourly bus service to Kettering station.
The constituency of Corby includes not only Corby itself and the local authority of Corby, but also the majority of the largely rural East Northamptonshire council, including Thrapston and the market town of Oundle, best known for its public school. While Corby itself tends to vote Labour, the now solidly Tory East Northamptonshire makes the constituency a close marginal.
Current MP: Louise Bagshawe (Conservative) educated at Woldingham School and Oxford University. Author.
Louise Bagshawe (Conservative) educated at Woldingham School and Oxford University. Author.
Phil Hope(Labour) born 1955, London. Educated at Wandsworth comprehensive and Exeter University. Former teacher and management consultant. Kettering councillor from 1983-1987. Northamptonshire County councillor from 1993-1997. Contested Kettering 1992. First elected as MP for Corby in 1997. PPS to Nick Raynsford 1999-2001, PPS to John Prescott 2001-2003. Parliamentary under-secretary in the office of the DPM 2003-2005. Under-secretary in the department of education 2005-2007 and in the Cabinet Office since 2007. In 2007 he underwent successful chemotherapy treatment for Hodgkin`s lymphoma (more information at They work for you)
Portia Wilson (Liberal Democrat) Staff nurse. Northampton councillor since 2007. 
Roy Davies (BNP) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 97186
Male: 49.2%
Female: 50.8%
Under 18: 24.8%
Over 60: 19.3%
Born outside UK: 5%
White: 98.4%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 0.5%
Mixed: 0.6%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 72.1%
Full time students: 1.8%
Graduates 16-74: 13.6%
No Qualifications 16-74: 33.2%
Owner-Occupied: 68.2%
Social Housing: 23.5% (Council: 17.3%, Housing Ass.: 6.2%)
Privately Rented: 5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 4.4%
i have often wondered how targeted the lib dem gains in south west london were in the 97 election
whilst they clearly had a chance in twickenham and even more so richmond, i was far more surprised that they picked up seats like kingston & surbiton, sutton & cheam and carshalton & wallington, than i was by some of their more unlikely gains in the south west of england, such as northavon and torbay
they clearly won these south west london seats by effective campaigning which managed to squeeze the labour vote – no easy feat in 97 – and you feel that without these borrowed labour votes, the tories will look to capitalise
on the other hand, their mps in the four seats they currently hold are all highly regarded and have defied the odds before – their personal votes could be the key factor
I think Sutton & Cheam and Kingston & Surbiton were regarded as outside chances by the LDs. The other ones were priority targets.
I would be interesting to know what would have happened if Norman Lamont had won his selection battle for Kingston & Surbiton and had fought the seat in 1997.
‘I would be interesting to know what would have happened if Norman Lamont had won his selection battle for Kingston & Surbiton and had fought the seat in 1997.’
I suspect the Tories would still have lost – possibly by a greater margin that what they did
Even before Black Wednesday, Lamont was an unpopular member of the Major government and I doubt he won many friends after his bitter resignation speech and subsequent support of John Redwood’s bid to topple the PM
Richard Tracey’s performance in 97 almost seems respectable when compared with what happened in 2001
The local election results in Sutton were an absolute total rout in 1994 (something like LDs 30% ahead).
In Richmond/Twick, there was a period where C had very few councillors, but more because of a swing across lots of marginal wards.
The writing was on the wall in the LD/Con seats in 1997 – just few seemed to think it would really happen in a General Election (as in lots of the Labour gains aswell).
The only seats the Tories won in Sutton in 1994 were 2 (out of 2) in Cheam South, 1 (out of 3) in Sutton South and 1 (out of 1) in Woodcote:
htttp://data.london.gov.uk/documents/LBCE_1994-5-5.pdf
HH
“The private sector wealth creation is largely going to be in the financial sector, which will mean a recovering south east as opposed to continued depression in the north.”
Maybe in the very short term but in the medium term the City will have severe problems with it being a high labour cost and high property cost area with financial services costs being almost all labour and property . You can be sure there will be other parts of the world able to operate for a fraction of the cost. That the City has become synonomous with greed and arrogance means that there will be little sympathy or help when it falls into decline.
London will increasingly hollow out to being a place where the ultra rich and underclass live with relatively few in between.
That’s very astute Richard, and I can’t really disagree with it fully. I’m already seeing this in my job; there are very rich people, pretty poor people, with not a lot in between, in many of the areas of London I’m sent to to work (though I personally don’t belong to either of those categories).
Just as globalisation will shaft the City so it will also damage ‘ordinary family’ life in London.
London is now a ‘world city’ so it attracts people from all over the world, in particular rich foreigners looking for a safe haven (notice how many mention there is of rich Chinese / Russians / Arabs) investing in London property.
With its high cost of living the only people who will live in London will ultimately by the ultra rich (with a very high number of foreigners among them), the state supported (either social security or through subsidy of ‘key workers’) and temporarily young urban trendies who want the experiences that living in London can provide.
The only ‘ordinary families’ which will remain will be those who were able to buy property when it was still relatively cheap or who have inherited a house from earlier generations.
Though as people generally prefer to live among people similar to themselves there will be steady pressure on ordinary families to leave London for places where people like themselves are more typical.
A story has just broken….
A Tory candidate for Corby Borough Council has been nominated by the BNP PPC Roy Davies, as well as by another BNP member.
When questioned, Louise Bagshawe MP, said that she couldn’t remember who Roy Davies was.
So?
What’s the problem?
Do we really have to go through these bouts of ‘witch hunting’ whenever anyone is outed as BNP? Its not illegal you know.
Unless Mr Roy Davies is himself personally implicated in illegal activity, then this is not really a ‘breaking story’ at all is it. However much the left try to make it so.
No it isn’t much of a story really. Mr DFavies isn’t of course the PPC (unless the BNP have already selected a candidate here for the next electin. He is the former BNP candidate here. He may or may not still be a member of the BNP but it is not all that uncommon for people to nominate those from parties other than that which they support. I’m surprised that ‘Lancs observer’ chooses to observe this ‘story’ but has made no mention on antoher thread of the fact that in Blackburn, Lancs, a former BNP candidate and organiser is now a Labour candidate. I would have thought it more significant (if one wants to play the witch hunting game as Shaun calls it with some justification) that a former BNP activist is a candidate for one of the main parties than that one signed a nomination paper.
According to some accounts it’s sometimes difficult to find people to sign nomination papers so its not surprising that some local council candidates end up getting signatures from people who wouldn’t necessarily be their first choice.
Yes its VERY difficult. I don’t really see the point of it to be honest. A proposer and seconder would be ample.
But yes, people may nominate for one party that they don’t necessarily support one year because they are freinds with the candidate or someone has randomly knocked on their doors and asked them. And then the following year they may nominate someone else from another party or stand themselves for another party.
I’m not engaged in any with hunt. Although, I should point out that Labour expel members who nominate others and David Cameron has said Tories will be also. Pete – I had pointed out in Rossendale that a Tory candidate was a former BNP activist.
“I’m not engaged in any with hunt. Although, I should point out that Labour expel members who nominate others and David Cameron has said Tories will be also”
That may be well, but then this would be a matter for Nick Griffin presumably and whether he is happy for his members to nominate candidates from other parties.
“I had pointed out in Rossendale that a Tory candidate was a former BNP activist.”
OK. But that does not seem to me to make up for not mentioning the Blackburn situation. Indeed it might feed even more into an impression that you seem to be trying to tar one party (the Conservatives) by association with the BNP while ignoring any parallel situations involving Labour.
Pete – my main point was rather that this MP (who likes to appear on Have I Got News For You, etc) – who has now gone to ground – is being at best forgetful and at worst ignorant as her A List detractors accused her of being when selected. There were only 3 opponents in this marginal. It’s true (in Darwen, Wigan) there are cases of Lab/BNP movement/mutual aid, however there are far more involving Conservatives/BNP/UKIP which shouldn’t surprise in urban areas where they and some LDs are simply the anti-Labour candidate. I agree, Wavertree was more of a breaking story last night.
Incidentally, Shaun’s merry-go-round description of nominating could explain the case in his town of Stoke, where there are often 6 groups and many defections, as in Wigan.
Lancs Observer – What a load of nonsense. The fact that you feebly use the fact that the MP for this seat is unable to recall the name of her BNP opponent from the last election as a convenient excuse to recycle some of the barbs that were directed at her way by those oppossed to her nomination for this seat further reinforces Pete’s point that partisan leanings rather than a desire to enlighten or inform are behind your recent comments on this thread.
Also, who gives a crap who signs whose nomination papers? Being a signatory is not in any way an indication of support for the candidate in question’s beliefs, merely that the signatory consents to their nomination as a
candidate.
Lastly, I agree with Shaun. The rules for local elections should be changed so that only a proposed and seconded are required.
Kieran – I reject your accusations. I simply report facts. You are, of course, welcome to comment on this and other MPs reasons. As for Cllrs or candidates who complain its hard work obtaining 10 signatures out of 10,000 – they don’t deserve to be elected if they think that’s hard work. Of course it matters as a fact (and in criminal law) WHO signs them. Hence, the fraud allegation against Cllr Warren Bradley in Liverpool. I’ve long suspected members of all parties forge signatures. As with expenses fraud, I fully expect prosecutions to follow.
You are right that it matters whether signatures on nomination papers are bona fide. You are wrong in drawing any conclusion about an individuals political allegiance, or the kind of support a candidate attracts, on the basis of who has signed any particular set of nomination papers.
On the question of forged signatures, like many aspects of our electoral process, such as the operation of postal voting or personation, there seem to be very few checks in place to detect fraud. Checks on the validity of nomination papers would be a lot simpler were only a proposer and seconder required. I fail to see what the overly bureaucratic pain in the arse that is getting nomination papers signed by 10 people adds to the democratic process, particularly in terms of encouraging non political people to run for local office.
“As for Cllrs or candidates who complain its hard work obtaining 10 signatures out of 10,000 – they don’t deserve to be elected if they think that’s hard work.”
Get your head out of your bottom Lancs Observer!
Have you TRIED to field 20 or more candidates accross wards that you know you have almost no relatives, friends or party memebers to call upon to nominate?
Have you TRIED knocking on random doors and explaining to people that the reason you want their signature on a piece of paper is bona fide.
People like you would be complaining like mad if we didn’t do this and let one candidate get in unoppposed. We’ve had it on this very site-’why couldn’t they be bothered to contest the ward?’
And then you castigate us for stating ho difficult it is sometimes.
Perhaps you’d be a bit more in touch with real life if you did a bit less ‘observing’ and a bit more getting your own hands dirty.
P.S. the nominating process itself is not even really necessary (certainly not to the extenet of getting TEN signatures per ward). It doesn’t ven show that candidates have local support or consent to stand. Most of our signatures are obtained at random from people who don’t even know or care who the candidate is. We just tell them its a matter of ensuring their is a democratic contest. The nomination process is a block in the way of that democratic contest.
For those who really really are set on standing (even frivolous candidates) well those individuals will probably get their 10 signatures anyway.
But the organised political parties who need to field candidates accross numerous wards have got a hell of a lot of work to do just to get through nomination.
Wouldn’t this time be better spent on the actual CAMPAIGN?
I think its time we reduced nominations to just a proposer and seconder. That would make a real difference at local election time and actually improve our local democracy.
…I’m tempted to say UNLIKE the constitutional vandalism that this government is engaged in!
Absolutely right Shaun. Unopposed returns and a lack of choice when their is a contest represents the death of local democracy in the areas where they happen. There should be as few barriers to people standing for local election as possible. I am certainly not convinced that there is any need for a mechanism to discourage frivolous candidates in local elections. The profile of a candidate in a single ward at a local election is so low that I don’t think there is much incentive for random attention seekers or time wasters to out themselves forward.
I also think that the rules restricting how a candidate can describe themselves on the ballot damage the cause of getting more people involved in local politics. One of the greatest challenges for anyone not a member of a registered political party contesting a local election must be attaining a decent level of visibility and awareness of the platform on which they are standing. By limiting the descriptions available to non party members to “Independent” or “No Description” the rules prohibit the candidate from describing themselves in a way that gives the voter some information about them so that the electorate can better make an informed choice.
Way back in 1991 my late grandfather as a sitting Labour councillor in Chesterfield was deselected in his ward in favour of an unreconstructed left winger. He stood against his successor as an independent under the label “Moderate Labour”. This description gave prominence to basic information about his general political views and why he was standing, prominence they would not have had if he had been restricted to the descriptions available today.
Absolutely agree Kieran.
I know that you have stop a situation where people were standing under deliberately misleading descriptions designed to spoil the contest such as ‘literal democrat’ and the like. But the system of party registration as it stands is simply too restrictive and prevents genuine people from standing under the description that best fits them.
Labour select Andy Sawford as their PPC for 2015 here. I believe he’s the son of the Ketterting MP from 1997 to 2005. And Phil Hope was his godfather.
I don’t know the full shortlist but the other competitve candidates were Kevin McKeever (CLP Chair) and Tom Beattie (a local Cllr backed by Unite)
It was about as close it gets – in the final round Sawford drew with Beattie 94-94. It went to Sawford on the basis of the first round where Sawford was ahead 78-76. McKeever came third with 38 and the two other candidates, Naila Neilson and Roxanne Mashari, were in single digits.
That’s probably more a reflection of three strong local candidates rather than anything they did wrong, however.
Thanks InfoMan. I knew about the tie and first preferences of Sawfrord and Beattie but didn’t know how much McKeever polled.
Thanks also for the name of the other 2 shortlisted candidates
I think both women were London based (Mashari is a Cllrs in Brent and Neilson stood in Westminster last year), so they probably never stood a chance against 3 candidates with strong local connections.
What happens if Corby is split up lots of ways in the final review?
I doubt that will happen. There was even a bust up in the East Midlands Lib dems about their own Corby and Rutland link up.
The BCE will presumably stick with Daventry and Lutterworth link up, link Rutland with Harborough and link Melton with part of Nottinghamshire.
This map seems very plausible:
http://ukelect.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/leics-northants-dl.png
I know this has been discussed already, but I found this report interesting… in terms of painting a picture of the significant Scottish element in this seat.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16745551
The people interviewed in that report are quite correct.
It is disgraceful that Scots living elsewhere in the UK, and those living overseas, will be denied a vote in the independence referendum. This flies in the face of the standard practice in general elections where citizens living overseas are allowed to vote.
It is also wrong to allow non-British nationals living in Scotland to vote.
It all smells like gerrymandering to me.