Crewe and Nantwich
2010 Results:
Conservative: 23420 (45.85%)
Labour: 17374 (34.01%)
Liberal Democrat: 7656 (14.99%)
BNP: 1043 (2.04%)
UKIP: 1414 (2.77%)
Independent: 177 (0.35%)
Majority: 6046 (11.84%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 21857 (49%)
Conservative: 14363 (32.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 8349 (18.7%)
Other: 58 (0.1%)
Majority: 7494 (16.8%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 14162 (32.6%)
Labour: 21240 (48.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 8083 (18.6%)
Majority: 7078 (16.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 12650 (30.4%)
Labour: 22556 (54.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 5595 (13.5%)
UKIP: 746 (1.8%)
Majority: 9906 (23.8%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 13662 (27%)
Labour: 29460 (58.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 5940 (11.7%)
Referendum: 1543 (3%)
Majority: 15798 (31.2%)
Boundary changes: Loses small parts of Acton and Audlem to Eddisbury, while gaining most of Leighton. The by-election will be fought on the old, existing boundaries.
Profile: Covers Crewe itself, the much smaller town of Nantwich and the rural villages to the South and East. Nantwich and villages like Wybunbury and Haslington are the sort of comfortable, affluent and historic areas that are normally associated with Cheshire – and are naturally Conservative. They are, however, cancelled out by Crewe itself – a railway town that grew up around the Grand Juntion Railway`s works in the nineteeth century and which remains industrial. Until 2002 it was also the site of the Rolls Royce motor works, and Bentleys continue to be built at the Pyms Lane factory here.
Historically Crewe and Nantwich was a marginal seat – Gwyneth Dunwoody held it by only a few hundred votes on its creation in 1983 and by slim majorities in 1987 and 1992. Only after boundary changes in 1997 did it become more secure. The Labour majority slipped in subsequent elections and it now represents the sort of seat that would be Conservative were they to win a decent sized Parliamentary majority.
Following Gwyneth Dunwoody`s death in 2008 the seat became the first Conservative gain in a by-election for 26 years
Current MP: Edward Timpson(Conservative) born 1973, Knutsford. Educated at Durham University. Barrister, specialising in family law. First elected in 2008 by-election (more information at They work for you)
Edward Timpson(Conservative) born 1973, Knutsford. Educated at Durham University. Barrister, specialising in family law. First elected in 2008 by-election (more information at They work for you)
David Williams (Labour) Trade union political officer and former agent for Gwyneth Dunwoody.
Roy Wood (Liberal Democrat) Educated at St Edwards College and Liverpool University. Teacher. Contested Birkenhead 1997, 2001
James Clutton (UKIP)Philip Williams (BNP) 
Michael Parsons (Independent) Cheshire East councillor.2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 97511
Male: 48.9%
Female: 51.1%
Under 18: 23.3%
Over 60: 21%
Born outside UK: 3.2%
White: 97.9%
Black: 0.4%
Asian: 0.5%
Mixed: 0.8%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 79.9%
Full time students: 3.4%
Graduates 16-74: 17%
No Qualifications 16-74: 30.3%
Owner-Occupied: 76%
Social Housing: 15% (Council: 12.7%, Housing Ass.: 2.3%)
Privately Rented: 6.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 12.9%
2008 By-election
Gwyneth Dunwoody died on the 17th April and the by-election was on the 22nd May, an unusually short campaign. It was won by the Conservative party on a 17.6% swing, their first by-election gain since 1982. The Labour party nominated the daughter of the former MP, Tamsin Dunwoody, previously a member of the Welsh Parliament. The Conservatives had already selected Edward Timpson, a member of the Timpson shoe-repair family, while the Liberal Democrats replaced their previously selected candidate with Elizabeth Shenton, a Newcastle under Lyme councillor. The Labour party pursued a controversial campaign, branding Edward Timpson as a toff and using mocked up pictures of him in a top hat, and photos of his large house in their literature, a strategy that was widely perceived as having backfired. The Conservatives meanwhile focused upon the abolition of the 10p tax rate, halfway through the campaign the government announced an increase in the personal tax allowance in an attempt to off-set this, but with little reduction in anti-government feeling.
Official statement of persons nominated
By-election result
Ed Timpson (Conservative): 20539 (49.5%) +16.9
Tamsin Dunwoody (Labour): 12679 (30.6%) -18.2
Elizabeth Shenton (Liberal Democrat): 6040 (14.6%) -4.0
Mike Natrass (UKIP): 922 (2.2%)
Robert Smith (Green): 359 (0.9%)
David Roberts (Eng Dem): 275 (0.7%)
The Flying Brick (Loony): 236 (0.6%)
Mark Walklate (Ind): 217 (0.5%)
Paul Thorogood (Cut Tax): 118 (0.3%)
Gemma Garrett (Ind): 113 (0.3%)
Majority: 7860 (18.9%)
By-election Candidates: 
Tamsin Dunwoody (Labour) born 1958, Devon, daughter of Gwyneth Dunwoody, MP for Crewe and Nantwich and John Dunwoody, MP for Falmouth and Camborne. Educated at Grey Coat Hospital and the University of Kent. Former hospital manager. Member of the Welsh Assembly for Preseli Pembrokeshire from 2003-2007. Deputy minister for environment and deputy minister for economic development in the the Welsh assembly government from 2005-2007.
Elizabeth Shenton (Liberal Democrat) Former banker. Newcastle under Lyme councillor since 2006.Edward Timpson (Conservative) born 1973, Knutsford. Educated at Durham University. Barrister, specialising in family law.
Mike Nattrass (UKIP) born 1945, Leeds. Chartered surveyer. UKIP MEP for the West Midlands Region since 2004. Contested Dudley West by-election 1994 for the New Britain Party. Contested Solihull 1997 for the Referendum party. Contested Sutton Coldfield 2001, Stone 205. Deputy leader of UKIP 2002-2006.
The Flying Brick(Official Monster Raving Loony) Real name Nick Delves. Shadow Minister for the Abolition of Gravity. Contested Derbyshire West 1997, 2001, 2005.
Gemma Garrett (No description) Miss Great Britain for the year 2008, having been runner up in the previous year`s competition. Standing for the unregistered “Beauties for Britain” party.
Rob Smith (Green) Educated at the University of Liverpool. Town Planning advisor.
David Roberts (English Democrat)
Mark Walklate (No description) Former Conservative.
Paul Thorogood (Cut Tax on Diesel and Petrol) Educated at Alec Hunter Humanities College and Southampton university. Journalist.
.
Lab Gain= 500 maj
Got home today to find a Labour leaflet. Folded A4, full colour, bit obvious: “I’m local; Tories won’t fund cancer care; won’t fund college improvements” etc
Delivered by Royal Mail (not Freepost – not available this early in the campaign). Since it must have cost them 20-25p to deliver each leaflet odd they didn’t make more of an investment in the leaflet itself.
Mind you; bit of a wasted effort posting one to the Lib Dem agent ……
Pete Whitehead and Gwyn –
Yes I’d be happy to enlighten you.
First of all I should probably make it clear that Mike isn’t standing as a member of Middlewich First, he is standing as an Independent. Besides, Middlewich First isn’t a political party, it is a group of Independents, so there is no clash of interests there.
But anyway, I am aware that people might still want more of an explanation than this so…
When Middlewich First was formed, it was by a group of independent residents and defectors from other parties. They were concerned that Middlewich was being turned into a dumping ground, the people’s wishes and needs were being ignored, and the councillors weren’t doing a good enough job. (See any parallels with the situation nationally?) It’s possible the group may have chosen a different name if they had envisaged what they would be doing eight years down the line.
Anyway, Mike isn’t taking the name of Middlewich First with him, but he is taking his philosophy of putting people first and not party politics. Importantly, he is actually from Nantwich as well. Some discussion did take place about who would stand as the Independent candidate in C&N, but none of the Nantwich Independents were able to. There was more than one Middlewich First member interested in standing, so Paul Edwards took Congleton and Mike took C&N because he sees it as his home turf.
Hope this answers your question.
PS Easy mistake to make online but I’m not Mike’s wife, I’m his daughter (!)
Michelle,
Apologies for the assumption. Thanks for the explanation.
I may return to the theme of when is an independent not an independent. Certainly the Nantwich Independents were/are a registered political party.
That’s okay Gwyn.
Yeah it depends what your definition of ‘political party’ is, I suppose.
If the Nantwich Independents have operated in the same way as Middlewich First, then I see it like this:
Yes, they are registered as a party, because if they want to run for election and are a group, then by law they have to register. However, upon registration, when it comes to having to state party politics/policy/aim or however you want to put it, they will simply have filled in something along the lines of ‘non-political’. So in that sense, they are a registered party, but not a political party in that they don’t have a shared politics.
The point of joining together as Independents, I think, is to share information and resources and to be able to put greater weight behind issues that are collectively agreed on. An example of this is the attempts to stop the Incinerator being built in Middlewich. However, there will also be many instances when Independents will disagree with each other, will vote in opposition to each other, and will just generally get on with doing their own case work.
Lab Gain/Hold
Maj 1100
Not a chance Neily. Edward Timpson will continue to hold this for the Conservatives by around 5k I reckon.
I accept that “poster counting” is an imperfect tool, but so far :
Conservatives c.50
Labour 1
Lib Dems 2
Others 0
[These are posters I have actually seen, and they refer to properties rather than posters - so 3 in one garden = 1; six in a field = 1]
Crewe, is changing on a constant basis, The vote could go anyway this time!
Sorry Folks!.
But now you have let the Tories in in Crewe and Nantwich you will never get them out!. I know how difficult it is to get the Tories out coming from the Mostly Conservative South of England…
No I am not Conservative by the Way and I live in Crewe. I will not be voting as there is nowhere for me to go. There is no choice amongst the Three Main Parties. Labour Conservative, Conservative Conservative or Liberal Democrat Conservative that is the choice. Where does an Old Labour Voter go?…
Con maj 1,500
This will be within 1500 votes either way.
There is usually a longer by election unwind in seats like this. see Christchurch and Newbury for example.
Can anyone tell me (without having to wade through 38 pages of comments) why Tamsin Dunwoody isnt standing as the local candidate here? I would have thought that this would have helped Labour regain the seat?
Just realised that the BNP candidate has the same surname as the Labour candidate.
Whether this was a conscious decision by the BNP ……
John Ruddy
Given the nature of the byelection, and the shattering defeat she suffered, I don’t think it’s surprising that Tamsin Dunwoody chose not to pursue this option.
The Labour campaign in 2008 was horrible, but Dunwoody’s reaction to defeat was (at face value at least) incredibly stoic and dignified. Whether she went on to sob her heart out or kick the dog in private I know not.
165 on the Cons target list . Surely a Tory win here would represent overall majority territory. A stretch- considering latest C34% Lab26% LD24% polls?
2 Qs please:-
.
Why are bi-election regains considered trickier?
Any other seats this high on the Cons target list likely to go blue?
Any thoughts?
165 on the Cons target list . Surely a Tory win here would represent overall majority territory. A stretch- considering latest C34% Lab26% LD24% polls?
2 Qs please:-
.
Why are bi-election regains considered trickier?
Any other seats high on the Cons target list likely to go blue?
Thoughts?
re the Independent / Middlewich First candidate.
His daughter, Michelle Parsons, gave an explanation above as to how he ended up standing in Crewe & Nantwich, which included the suggestion that there had been some discussion with the Nantwich Independent party.
Interestingly, the sole Nantwich Independent borough councillor has declared for Timpson, the Conservative candidate.
Oh dear.
It’s an interesting political journey – when the NI Party was formed by three Labour defectors they were scathing about New Labour and its abandonment of Old Labour principles.
Funny that, Gwyn – I was just coming on to say something similar. I was seeing new meaning in the question, ‘When is an Independent not an Independent?’
I just want to make clear that Mike Parsons has absolutely NO party allegiance whatsoever. What other Independents do or say is up to them, since being independent is exactly that.
Mick – this can’t sensibly be considered as 165 on the Tory target list any more in a real sense. They put in a huge amount of effort to win the by-election and now have an incumbent MP who is, by most accounts, quite a capable and presentable guy who has presumably given plenty of resources to hold on. Add to that the fact that Dunwoody had a good personal vote, and it will be quite a tricky regain.
If you do want to say it’s number 165, though, I personally think this will be the seat furthest down the Tory target list to go/stay blue, and perhaps by some margin (unless Norwich North is also held which it may be – it is 163).
CON GAIN (notionally – in effect hold)
mick K : Novice, your question was why by-election gains take some reversing. The answer can be summed up in one word: mood.
In a sense this illustrates the shallowness of the political allegiances of the electorate. How certain are they of how they will vote this morning? Are 60% sure? Or is it even less?
To many of us who have been election nerds for years, and are in any case partisan, it is pretty hard to conceive how anyone more sentient than an amoeba can still be undecided at this stage; but woe betide any candidate who tells them so, as it would be quite enough to cause them to vote for someone, (anyone), else!
When there is a big swing at a by-election it usually represents a mood among the voters in one direction or another. For example, the East Fulham by-election of 1933 recorded a 29.2 swing against the government, and shook them into reconsidering the whole project of re-armament. (Possibly making the Second World War more likely, but that is a long discussion).
It is worth noting in this context that while the by-election was a victory for a Labour candidate against a government in which Labour and the Tories were sharing power, the Labour propaganda after the War drew heavily on the notion of the “Guilty Men”, (Tories), who were supposed to have appeased Hitler! No mention of Fulham then of course.
Another reasonably dramatic example of a by-election swing would be Leyton in January 1965, when Ronald Buxton for the Conservatives squeaked in by 205 votes on a swing of over 8%. This mattered a lot, as Harold Wilson’s majority was only 5 at the time! Harold had miscalculated by elevating Reg Sorensen to the House of Lords to make way for Patrick Gordon Walker, whom he had arrogantly appointed as his foreign secretary even though Walker had been defeated in the 1964 election and therefore lacked the necessary seat in the House of Commons.
The Leyton voters didn’t like a. being taken for granted in that they would vote for whoever Harold wanted to appoint as their next MP, b. voting for someone recently rejected by another constituency, and c. voting for a minister whose need for a parliamentary seat Harold just assumed was in his power to meet.
In the 1966 general election, just over a year later, this was reversed, and Gordon Walker romped home; but the mood itself had then changed you see.
Go now to 1970 and you will see that of 15 seats which Labour lost in by-elections between 1966 and 1970, nine were regained by Labour, and the others were held by the Tories. Of those regained, Dudley and Swindon were only narrow wins, while in 1966 they had been rock-solid Labour. Leicester South-West and Nelson and Colne stayed Tory, although it is likely that they would have been Labour in 1970 if there had never been those by-elections.
The best metaphor here is that if the wind simply dies down a little, the ship will keep some momentum even if it loses speed, but if the wind changes direction altogether, that is a different story.
Ships are one thing, but why would this be true of human behaviour? I feel that while the voters’ connection with politics is normally slight, there is a sufficient amount of publicity and general ballyhoo in a by-election campaign that it is hard for most people to ignore it. When they go down to vote, they are in a decided mood; and that mood is unlikely to be completely blown away unless the wind changes.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Crewe and Nantwich won by the Tories in a by-election. Should be re-ganed by Labour #seatstowatch #ge2010 -- Topsy.com
Told you so!
C gain with a majority of 6046 – a swing of 13.7%.
I am wondering if Gwyneth Dunwoody would have held on if she had still been with us. Some of the Cheshire/Lancashire results were rather disappointing, particularly Bolton and Wirral South. We gained Chester but only with a small swing.
“I am wondering if Gwyneth Dunwoody would have held on…”
Assuming she’d have stood again (she’d be 79), I think she may well have held on, but possibly only by a few hundred (as with Austin Mitchell and David Winnick).
I’ve put a post on the Cleethorpes thread with some more details about both that seat, and Grimsby,
with a link to the election .
I think Gwyneth Dunwoody would have held on by about 1-2,000 if she’d lived,
clearly the by-election has given the Tories a big advantage here.
Vote Dave – indeed. In Merseyside, Southport, Sefton Central, Wirral South and Wallasey all failed to be gained. In fact there were swings against the Tories in most of Merseyside.
Voters seem to be reluctant to remove someone who has only just won a by-election in the last couple of years before the general election. Both this seat and Brent East in 2005 are examples.
Though of course there are exceptions:
Leicester South being possibly the most notable recent-ish example (from the 2001 Parliament).
From the 2005 Parliament, Glasgow East and Dunfermline and West Fife were both won by Labour at this year’s election.
I was surprised Willie Rennie failed to hold on as he had four years to dig in… but as we know, Labour did impressively well north of the border.
They do seem a little less willing to promptly throw someone out again by 10,000 a year or two later though,
as used to happen through the 80s and in 1992, and even to a number of Tories in 1979.
I think I do partly agree with Andy.
OK, I’ll argue my corner – I like being a stubborn Devil’s advocate
:
I’d say that a seat which is gained in a by-election is more likely to change hands at the following general election than a seat which is held in a by-election.
Therefore, here is a quick overview of those seats that were gained in a by-election, going back to the ’92 Parliament.
Four seats (excluding Michael Martin’s) changed hands in by-elections in the 2005 Parliament – two were held at the next election, two were lost.
Two seats changed hands in by-elections in the 2001 Parliament – one was held at the next election, one was lost.
In the ’97 Parliament only two seats (excluding Betty Boothroyd’s) changed hands in that term – both were held at the following election.
In the ’92 Parliament eight seats (all Tory) were lost in by-elections. Not surprisingly the horrific national performance by the Tories at the following election (partly due to more widespread use of tactical voting than in previous elections) greatly limited the potential for winning any of those seats… but even then one of them (Christchurch) was won.
So, there may be fewer examples of a party winning a by-election loss at the following general election than there used to be, but that can partly be explained by the decrease in the number of by-elections, and the number of seats changing hands in by-elections, the increased use of tactical voting, and the historically unusually bad performance during part of that time-frame by the Conservative Party.
Note that from the 2001 and 2005 Parliaments, if you don’t include Michael Martin’s seat as a technical Labour gain, then of the other six seats which changed hands, half of them swiftly reverted to the party which had lost them. That seems like a still substantial proportion to me.
John D – thanks for that info
It was just an impression I had in comparison to the situation 10-15 years ago. It could be completely wrong – I haven’t checked out the facts, which is really what one should do first before making that kind of statement.
I think you and Joe do have a valid arguement, Andy.
I’d also link the decreasing number of swift reversals of by-election losses to the fact that people these days less willingly return to what in the past might have been termed their ‘natural party of choice’… we all know that traditional party loyalties have weakened.
I think people more and more take into account the actual person behind the MP, rather than simply the party behind the MP.
the results obscure that this is a classic tory/labour marginal
i thought the tories might lose this but edward timson seems to have quickly established a well deserved reputation as a hard-working and genuinely concerned constituency mp
labour held on here in the 80s for one reason alone – gwyneth dunwoody – and had she still been amongst us i’m 100% certain they would have held on again
ithis seat’s history highlights the benefits of incumbancy
“labour held on here in the 80s for one reason alone – gwyneth dunwoody – and had she still been amongst us i’m 100% certain they would have held on again”
As I’m sure has been mentioned previously on this thread, one of Labour’s best results in 1983 – in an otherwise disastrous election was in this seat – which had been notionally Conservative in 1979.
Well, good for her,
to be fair.
It is actually quite encouraging that people who are highly respected can resist bad national results for their respective parties,
and there were even more this time.
Not that I would wish to tarnish everyone who loses – many seats will vote almost entirely on national issues and good MPs can’t avoid the trend.
The Tories polled identical shares of the vote in Crewe&Nantwich and Congleton – 45.8%.
The combined Lab/LD vote was 49.0% in Crewe&Nantwich and 49.1% in Congleton.
Perhaps this is an area where the shadow of a by-election will help rather than hinder the Conservatives
Edward Timpson is the first Conservative MP for Crewe since Sir Donald Somervell, who was the Home Secretary in Churchill’s Tory caretaker Government just after the end of WWII in Europe and who lost the seat to Labour in 1945
Pingback: UK Polling Report
Although I’m pleased with the results nationwide, for the Conservatives,
it looks like Labour has recovered quite a bit in Crewe in the Cheshire East unitary elections.
Not added it up yet – but a cause for concern.
There was what I think was a postponed election in Crewe S last night, won convincingly by Labour, but I don’t think the Tories did badly either. The LD vote collapsed spectacularly. Here’s the result :
Lab 970 / 899 (59.7; +25.7)
Con 507 / 489 (31.2; +13.8)
LD 147 / 146 (9.1; -33.7)
Majorities 463 / 392
Turnout 22.08%
Lab gains from LD
Percentage change is since May 2008.
Labour might like to be even further ahead of the Tories than this in such a polarised constituency, but I don’t think it’s Labour’s strongest area in Crewe. Perhaps someone with better local knowledge could comment.
There is a story on the BBC news website today that the Welsh Assembly are planning to introduce new ‘regional councils’ to take over the organisation of services such as social services and leave the existing 22 Welsh authorities with less power and less to do.
This reminded me of a story I saw in the local press here the other day saying that in Cheshire, people have not been satisifed with the localness of the new (imposed by Labour) two unitary authorities. It seems that here, parish councils are going to be given MORE responsibility and more power over things such as public toilets and council owned buildings.
It looks like as a reaction to the trend towards larger and less democratic, less local unitary authorities we are now seeing the effective reintroduction of different tiers of local government. So in Wales, the unitaries are becomming the lower tier (like the old district councils) and the new regional authorities are effectively the new counties. Similarly, in Cheshire the Parish councils look to be becomming the new lower tier ‘districts’ with the two unitaries effectively becomming the new counties.
I suspect that this is a trend that will coninue in other areas where unitaries were imposed such as Shropshire, Cornwall and Wiltshire. Which makes me wonder, what is the point of abolishing districts and counties when they are being reintroduced by the back door anyway?
Interesting as I’d suppose that there is opposition to this from the other parties, and as Labour are a minority government at the Assembly such a move would be defeated by the opposition parties.
‘it looks like Labour has recovered quite a bit in Crewe in the Cheshire East unitary elections.
Not added it up yet – but a cause for concern.’
It looks as though the tories suffered a bit from a sub 25% turnout in 2/3 of the Crewe wards but generally held up OK elsewhere .
I’ve added the numbers up here inc the delayed double header (only 5 LDs stood).
Con 12115 42.4
Lab 11787 41.2
Ind 2712 9.5
LD 1373 4.8
SF 608 2.1
If this constituency is unchanged, the tories should most likely hold on to it by around 4/5% at the next election I would think.
“It looks as though the tories suffered a bit from a sub 25% turnout in 2/3 of the Crewe wards but generally held up OK elsewhere .”
Surely the Conservatives would have benefited from a low turnout in Crewe
Yes perhaps, just looked like that in a couple of wards or so. It definitely helped them in the delayed double header. I notice the tories did win leighton ward by 135 which I missed out.
Thanks for adding up the figures.
Like Norwich North, this seat needs to be tested somewhat further away from the by-election.
The Tories may retain the edge in both seats, but both could be gained by Labour in different national circumstances.