Dorset West
2010 Results:
Conservative: 27287 (47.59%)
Labour: 3815 (6.65%)
Liberal Democrat: 23364 (40.75%)
UKIP: 2196 (3.83%)
Green: 675 (1.18%)
Majority: 3923 (6.84%)
2005 Results:
Conservative: 24763 (46.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 22302 (41.9%)
Labour: 4124 (7.7%)
Other: 2036 (3.8%)
Majority: 2461 (4.6%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 22126 (44.6%)
Labour: 6733 (13.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 20712 (41.8%)
Majority: 1414 (2.9%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 22036 (41.1%)
Labour: 9491 (17.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 20196 (37.7%)
Other: 1829 (3.4%)
Majority: 1840 (3.4%)
No Boundary Changes: West Dorset remains largely co-terminous with West Dorset District Council, with the exception of Owermoigne ward which falls within the
Profile: An affluent and mainly rural seat, the main towns are Dorchester, Bridport, the coastal resort of Lyme Regis, Beaminster and Sherborne. Like many seats on the south coast it is a popular retirement location and has a high proportion of pensioners. The seat also contains the village of Tolpuddle, the site of an annual festival organisated by the TUC to commemorate the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
West Dorset has consistently returned a Conservative MP, throughout the 1980s the Conservatives enjoyed huge majorities. In 1997 though it became a close Conservative/Lib Dem marginal and since then a haven for tactical voting – at subsequent elections both the Conservative and Lib Dem vote shares have risen as the Labour vote is remorselessly squeezed. The singer-songwriter Billy Bragg lives in West Dorset and has run high profile campaigns encouraging Labour voters to vote tactically to defeat Oliver Letwin, thus far unsucessfully.
Current MP: Oliver Letwin(Conservative) born 1956, Hampstead, son of Professor William Letwin and the American political philosopher Shirley Letwin. Educated at Eton and Cambridge. Served in the Number 10 policy unit in the 1980s and was one of those behind the ill-fated poll tax. Contested Hampstead and Highgate in 1992 and was first returned for West Dorset in 1997. Served as Shadow Chief Secretary under William Hague, Shadow Home Secretary under Iain Duncan Smith and Shadow Chancellor under Michael Howard. Following David Cameron`s election as Conservative leader he was appointed Chairman of the Conservative policy review. Letwin is identified as being on the left of the party, and widely regarded as thoughtful, affable, urbane but somewhat gaffe prone – he famously allowed a man who turned out to be burglar into his house to use the toilet, and had to go into hiding during the 2001 campaign after expressing an aspiration to cut public spending by 20 billion (more information at They work for you)
Oliver Letwin(Conservative) born 1956, Hampstead, son of Professor William Letwin and the American political philosopher Shirley Letwin. Educated at Eton and Cambridge. Served in the Number 10 policy unit in the 1980s and was one of those behind the ill-fated poll tax. Contested Hampstead and Highgate in 1992 and was first returned for West Dorset in 1997. Served as Shadow Chief Secretary under William Hague, Shadow Home Secretary under Iain Duncan Smith and Shadow Chancellor under Michael Howard. Following David Cameron`s election as Conservative leader he was appointed Chairman of the Conservative policy review. Letwin is identified as being on the left of the party, and widely regarded as thoughtful, affable, urbane but somewhat gaffe prone – he famously allowed a man who turned out to be burglar into his house to use the toilet, and had to go into hiding during the 2001 campaign after expressing an aspiration to cut public spending by 20 billion (more information at They work for you)
Steve Bick (Labour) GP.
Sue Farrant (Liberal Democrat) born Devon. Educated at Plymouth High School and Wye College. West Berkshire councillor since 2003. Contested Swindon South 2005. 
Susan Greene (Green) Contested Dorset West 2005.
Oliver Chisholm (UKIP) 2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 88929
Male: 47.7%
Female: 52.3%
Under 18: 20.3%
Over 60: 30.7%
Born outside UK: 4.9%
White: 98.7%
Asian: 0.2%
Mixed: 0.5%
Other: 0.5%
Christian: 77.5%
Full time students: 2%
Graduates 16-74: 21.4%
No Qualifications 16-74: 25.2%
Owner-Occupied: 72.4%
Social Housing: 14% (Council: 0.8%, Housing Ass.: 13.3%)
Privately Rented: 9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 9.2%
And I also agree wiith you Richard that the Conservatives can’t win an overall majoirty just ba taking seats from the Lib Dems.
But the point for debate is: Which seats do the tories concentrate on taking? Is there much point in going for outer suburban seats in the big cities they didn’t win last time (Birmingham Edgbaston, Dudley North, Walsall North, Walsall South, Wirral South, Bolton West, Bolton North East, Bury South etc), or do they go for marginal seats outside the conurbations currently held by Labour (Exeter, Bristol East, Slough, Luton South, Gedling, Telford, Newcastle-under Lyme, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Blackpool Soth, Barrow, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Middlesborough South and Cleveland East etc)?
This is an important question because of the fact that in 2010 the Conservatives did better than expected outside the big conurbations than they did in them? For example, winning Cannock Chase on 15%, but failing to win ultr-marginal Birmingham Edgbaston.
‘The AV referendum did suggest that WWC areas might have rather more in common with traditional Conservatives strongholds than either have with the ‘intellectuals’.’
i agree – but of all tory leaders in the past 21 years, cameron seems the least likely to be able to connect with the voters the tories most need to win their majority – especially after spending his first two years trying to reach out to the ‘urban middle classes’
if he succeeds then this is yet more evidence of the uk following US political trends
Some of those seats on that list are those the Tories would need to target.
Others, though, are not good prospects.
They also need to work on some old industrial areas which are semi rural, and where the demographics are changing.
I don’t blame David Cameron for not getting an outright win,
given we needed a large swing to get even what we have.
A lot of good work was done to think through policies on the domestic agenda, but Tories didn’t get that across very well. If they had done so, it would have re-assured more people at a time of cuts.
The boundary changes are almost certain to reduce the number of additional seats the Tories need for a majority from 20 to about 10 or even fewer depending on how they’re drawn. That could make a real difference to the possible answers to the question posed by Adam above.
“(Birmingham Edgbaston, Dudley North, Walsall North, Walsall South, Wirral South, Bolton West, Bolton North East, Bury South etc), or do they go for marginal seats outside the conurbations currently held by Labour (Exeter, Bristol East, Slough, Luton South, Gedling, Telford, Newcastle-under Lyme, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Blackpool Soth, Barrow, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Middlesborough South and Cleveland East etc)?”
Quite a mish-mash there!
Bolton W, Wirral S and Walsall N do have the demographics which should help the Conservatives rather more than heavily ethnic Slough and Luton S, ‘intellectual’ Exeter, clapped out seaside town Blackpool S and middle suburban Gedling.
“They also need to work on some old industrial areas which are semi rural, and where the demographics are changing.”
True but as TJ says this goes against what the ‘Cameron Project’ was aimed at.
“A lot of good work was done to think through policies on the domestic agenda, but Tories didn’t get that across very well. If they had done so, it would have re-assured more people at a time of cuts.”
The problem was that the ideas were rather ‘high concept’ and sounded as if they’d been discussed at Notting Hill policy seminars and were not put into the practical terms needed to win over over average voters in average towns.
Cameron to me comes over as someone nervous to leave his comfort zone but also wants to win the approval of people he associates with. The problem that gives the Conservatives is that Cameron seems a very urban person compared to Major and Thatcher who were rather small town middle England. Or rather Thatcher and Major seemed in tune with the voters they needed to win over in a way Cameron doesn’t.
“Quite a mish-mash there!”
Yes, while the point is well made about deciding how to effectively target, the dichotomy Adam has described seems slightly odd. Basically one group is seats which are in Met counties and the other is seats which aren’t. This doesn’t really do justice to the difference between some of the seats within each group and the similarity between some seats in different groups. Dudley North and Birmingham Edgbaston are very different kinds of seats, though in the same conurbation. I don’t see how Bristol East or Gedling are not parts of conurbations. Wirral South and Ellesmere Port & Neston are placed in different categories purely because of an arbitrary line drawn by a bureacrat 40 years ago. They are similar seats, both being a mixture of industrial and working class areas on the Mersey and middle class residential areas towards the Dee. The only real difference between the two is in the relative strength of the industrial working class element (it is bigger in EP&N)
It strikes me that most of the political establishment are rather more at home in places like Milan or Munich or Barcelona than in the middling areas that decide a UK election. Likewise in this country outside of London the only places they are used to are the likes of Manchester or Birmingham or Newcastle. Places which have TV studios and famous sports teams.
Consider these places:
Chesterfield
Bury
Wycombe
Shrewsbury
Accrington
Stevenage
Torquay
Gillingham
Rotherham
Crewe
Newcastle Under Lyme
Oxford
Southend
Aldershot
Macclesfield
Northampton
Cheltenham
Bradford
Burton
Morecambe
Hereford
Barnet
Lincoln
Stockport
Or this one:
Crawley
Kingston
Luton
Wrexham
Fleetwood
Kidderminster
Darlington
York
Newport
Bath
Grimsby
Wellingborough
Corby
Mansfield
Kettering
Gateshead
Hayes
Cambridge
Barrow
Tamworth
Stroud
Southport
Altrincham
Eastbourne
Lots of battleground constituencies there, but where do those lists come from?
Interesting quiz Richard, I don’t know the answer – will keep thinking.
I think it must be demographic related,
as see no pattern politically or
related to sport.
The way Blair would take holidays with clapped out “celebs” in the West Indies, rather than enjoying the Yorkshire Dales or Somerset, regardless of weather was pretty sick yes.
I think David Cameron is actually quite good about getting around the country.
I think the first list does contain all mid ranking football teams, but doubt that is the answer.
Eastbourne on the second list has thrown me.
Most of those places look like they would be above average economically active.
It looks like League 2 and the Conference
I wonder if Pete knew that through his knowledge of football or of constituencies.
By rather abstract point is that the electoral battleground, in particular for the Conservatives, is in the medium sized towns not the urban areas.
I think this is one way that politics has changed over the previous generation. When voting was still class dominated the issues in urban areas were similar to those in middling towns. But the political establishment still seem most concerned by urban issues even though these are often contrary to those of other places.
I don’t have much knowledge about football but i did used to play the pools on occasion so the names were somewhat familiar and it struck me they sounded like a bunch of lower league football clubs. I checked on wikipedia.
I have very little knowledge of football, which would probably make me entirely unelectable.
But I did only slightly suspect it was that.
I think Richard is basically correct on the analysis though.
I solved that puzzle, but am still puzzled about Newcastle-under-Lyme. Who plays there? Is it Forest Green? I was never sure where that is.
Port Vale is Newcastle Under Lyme.
Though I actually think they play in Stoke, its just that I always associate them with NuL.
Forrest Green is Nailsworth, Stroud.
I also included both Corby and Wellingborough for Rushden and Diamonds as Rushden is in Wellingborough but they play in Irthlingborough which is in Corby constituency.
I did that because there are two Cambridge teams – Cambridge and Histon – in the Conference.
I thought Port Vale was in Stoke-on-Trent North? Its original name was Burslem Port Vale.
Funnily enough I always associated Port Vale with Newcastle under Lyme – no idea way, maybe just because Stoke has Stoke
Well I’m not up on the football either, but I think you’ll find that Port Vale is very much Stoke as Barnaby has said.
I wasn’t aware Newcastle even has a football team though!
The story re Oliver Letwin seems to be something about nothing. AFAIK he did not throw away any confidential documents. I think Ed Miliband and Labour who described his actions as ‘worrying’ display breathtaking hypocrisy as it was several Labour ministers who mislaid more important documents. This is a non story which will disappear by tonight. BTW given his Heathite policies I am not Oliver Letwins biggest fans, but he has not really done anything that wrong.
Maybe so,
but it doesn’t look all that good.
It’s not a sensible way of disposing of documents.
Just aswell its Miliband going on about it – if he’d done this a few years ago it would be a hanging offence by the Lib Dems.
Let’s not have any more silly mistakes.
Letwin may have Heathite policies now, to some extent, but like John Bercow he was once a right-winger – he was a strong supporter of Iain Duncan Smith for the Party leadership.
I would tend to agree that this is not as serious a matter as the circumstances which caused Liam Fox to resign. He’s been silly though.
‘Letwin may have Heathite policies now, to some extent, but like John Bercow he was once a right-winger – he was a strong supporter of Iain Duncan Smith for the Party leadership.’
Really?
I remember Letwin being quite vocal in his support for Portillo in 2001 – although I did assume he switched to IDS after the Spaniard got voted out of the race
I understood Hague to have backed IDS from the off – just as Howard backed Cameron
I wonder who Major voted for in 1997. I would have assumed Clarke but surely the latter’s 11th-hour deal with Redwood would have lost him that vote
“the Spaniard”
wtf
I believe Letwin did switch to IDS in 2001 once Portillo fell out of the contest. I’m not sure why he’s accused of having “Heathite” policies however. Is this the same man who is coming round to the idea that we have to think about EU withdrawel???
Hague also certainly did back IDS from the start. It was controversial at the time, as it was argued that outgoing leaders should remain neutral. Andrew Lansley came out for Clarke and argued that although he was going to remain neutral in the contest, the fact that Hague came out for IDS meant that he no longer felt he had to be.
“I wonder who Major voted for in 1997. I would have assumed Clarke but surely the latter’s 11th-hour deal with Redwood would have lost him that vote”
He almost certainly voted for Clarke in the final ballot in 1997. He was quoted in the press however as saying that the Clarke-Redwood Pact was an “unholy alliance” and that he couldn’t believe it when it was announced.
Shaun
Maybe you are mixing up 1997 and 2001.
In 1997, Major was scrupulously even-handed and refused to publicly back any candidate. However, he let it be known off the record right from the beginning that he was supporting Hague. Major was irritated at Clarke for forcing him not to rule out membership of the Euro during the election campaign, which undoubtedly boosted the Referendum party and lost the Tories several seats, and was in no mood to back his leadership bid, regardless of the later deal with Redwood.
In 2001 Major publicly backed Clarke against IDS, who had been a prominent Maastricht rebel.
In today’s circumstances Michael Portillo would have been a better prime minister than David Cameron.
He could have pursued a similar centrist course but would not have been hampered by either being a “posh boy” nor by lack of parliamentary / governmental experience.
“In 1997, Major was scrupulously even-handed and refused to publicly back any candidate.”
Yes I remember he was. I always presumed he voted for Clarke however. I’m surprised to hear that.
“In today’s circumstances Michael Portillo would have been a better prime minister than David Cameron.”
I entirely agree. I didn’t support the Portillo agenda. I don’t support the Cameron agenda.
But my major problem with this government is both that the agenda is wrong AND that the Prime Minister is unfit to serve in the office due to his personal incompetance, strategic errors and general bungleing.
The Cameron agenda could be more successul if it was in the hands of someone capable to carrying it out. Unfortunately, Cameron is just a fool.
“Yes I remember he was. I always presumed he voted for Clarke however. I’m surprised to hear that.”
There was a very good article in the Telegraph a few weeks after the 97 election saying that Major had given Hague his behind-the-scenes backing. The reader was left in no doubt that Major was not well disposed to Clarke at the time, and that had Hague pulled out of the race, Major would probably have supported Howard or Lilley ahead of Clarke.
Almost certainly it wasn’t put online.
‘had Hague pulled out of the race, Major would probably have supported Howard or Lilley ahead of Clarke.’
I find that impossible to believe given that Major now primarily blames the Right – and quite rightly too (no pun intended) – for the failure of his 92-97 administration
Obviously Lilley and Howard weren’t a particular thorn in Major’s sude although I’m assuming he was including both of them (along with Portillo and Redwood) in his infamous ‘bastards’ comment
‘the Prime Minister is unfit to serve in the office due to his personal incompetance, strategic errors and general bungling.’
I think that’s a tad harsh Shaun – although I do worry about that too many cabinet ministers (and this applied just as much to the last Labour government as this one) are people who haven’t had a job outside politics – which leaves them ill-served to running the country
There were only three bastards in the original comment and it’s thought that Howard wasn’t one of them as although he was one of the leading right wingers in the Cabinet, he tended to display critical loyalty as opposed to briefing behind the PM’s back (ala Portillo).
In any case by the end of the 1992 – 1997 Parliament the Conservative Europhiles were the roadblock to unity as a large majority of the Conservative Parliamentary Party would have been able to unite around a policy of ruling out Euro entry – which Clarke and Heseltine blocked.
“I find that impossible to believe given that Major now primarily blames the Right – and quite rightly too (no pun intended) – for the failure of his 92-97 administration”
Read his autobiography. He blames not just the right, but many of those on the left of the party as well.
As Douglas says, Howard was not a “bastard”, nor was Lilley. The comment referred to Portillo, Redwood and Gillian Shepherd.
Major was very close to Heseltine but had a much more fractious relationship with Clarke, who was just as intransigent from the opposite point of view as the bastards were.
Major was convinced (rightly) that neither a Redwood from the right or a Clarke from the left could lead the party without splitting it in half. He believed a compromise candidate was the only solution. His first choice as successor was Heseltine, who was left-leaning but more willing to compromise with the right than Clarke was/is. After Heseltine’s untimely withdrawl due to a heart attack, his choice switched to Hague.
I think Major’s hunch was right. A Clarke, Redwood or Portillo would have certainly split the party – as would have Heseltine. He might have been willing to compromise with the Right but many of them would never have forgiven him for his role in Lady Thatcher’s downfall
Never realised Gillian Shepherd was one of the “bastards”. I never saw her as one of the Right – more a loyal, standard traditional Conservative
I see a lot of similarities between John Major and Lord Liverpool
Don’t know what happened there…
I see a lot of similarities between John Major and Lord Liverpool – in the sense that both were surrounded by more talented and charismatic collegues, all of whom would have split the party had they got the top job
It is certainly news to me that Shepherd was one of the bastards – I thought she was a real Major loyalist. Not doubting HH if that is what it says in Majors biography, but I’m as surprised as Tim. John Major was certainly mistaken if he believed Heseltine could have united the party in 1997 – many on the right (including myself) would have left the party for UKIP about a decade earlier than they did
I can’t quite recall which of the 3 it was, or whether it was ever confirmed (I suspect not), or whether it was specifically 3.
I’d have thought it would be John Redwood, Michael Portillo, and either Michael Forsyth or Peter Lilley.
I think Gillian Shepherd would have held quite similar views to myself – definitely no to the Euro and EU integration
but supportive of John Major personally,
so I’m somewhat surprised to hear her name mentioned on this.
It should be remembered that probably pretty few people in the Conservative Party actually wanted a single currency or any other of these EU measures by this stage.
The question was whether to oppose it vigorously or whether to sign the Treaties for the sake of whistling a bit louder in the hope of greater influence overall or just in case circumstances changed.
Plus there are of course some people who tend to go with the flow, to put it politely.
With hindsight, John Major’s judgement looks flawed in a number of areas. On Europe, it looked hopelessly flawed at the time.
‘With hindsight, John Major’s judgement looks flawed in a number of areas. On Europe, it looked hopelessly flawed at the time’
I disagree
It’s easy to dismiss it noiw we all know what’s happerned to ehe Euro but ast the time I thought the Major government’s ‘wait and see’ approach to the single currency was absolutely right – certainly preferable to Blair’s ‘agreeing with it in principle’ line
Whilst we have to concede that the likes of Pete and Shaun got it right on the Euro, during the early and mid 90s there was a belief – albeit more on the continent than over here – that it could be one of Europe’s greatest successes
It hasn’t panned out like that but it would have been foolish for Major to dismiss it come what may
It’s one thing we have Gordon Brown to thank for
John Major didn’t name the bastards – either by interview or in his autobiography – but he did say who they weren’t.
He explicitly said Howard was not one of them.
Redwood and Portillo were widely assumed to be two of the three – the third, as Pete says, being more press speculation. So it’s between Lilley and Shepherd (I’m not sure Forsyth was in the cabinet at the time).
“Whilst we have to concede that the likes of Pete and Shaun got it right on the Euro, during the early and mid 90s there was a belief – albeit more on the continent than over here – that it could be one of Europe’s greatest successes”
In the 1990s we didn’t know that the Euro entry conditions would be so corrupt and lax that unsuitable unreformed southern European PIIGS economies with big structural deficits would be allowed to join.
Had the Euro been a northern European currency union focused on Germany, Benelux, Scandinavia and maybe France, it would undoubtedly have been a success story, and it could well have been beneficial for us to join in.
Economically it was right for Major to keep our options open, but politically maybe less so.
It was clear in the early and mid 1990s that the entry conditions would be ignored
just as the European Commission and those at the true heart of it always insisted on making countries vote again if they dared to vote against the Treaties involved.
But the entry conditions weren’t the key point anyway – if an economy is so structurally different, it won’t be tied by one currency successfully.
The northern European economies are not structurally different, they are very similar and have in general benefitted from the Euro, at least until now when they are having to bail out the PIIGS.
The structural chasm is between north and south, with France a kind of half and half between the two.
A core currency union between Germany, Benelux, Scandinavia and possibly the UK could have worked very well. It is the south that has dragged the edifice down.
I do not believe it was obvious that the entry conditions would be ignored in the early 1990s. At that time the shape and membership of the Euro still had not been designed. If entry conditions were no problem early on, then Greece would not have hired Goldman Sachs at massive expense in the early 2000s to cook the books to get them over the entry hurdles.
It was pretty clear from the early 1990s that the single currency was intended for a lot of countries – not just a select adjoining few in the more prosperous areas,
and the (rather irrelevant) entry rules were often ignored at the launch.
It is true that there are some countries which do almost run into each other,
but the UK is structured very differently from others in the north.
The UK of course was a relatively depressed region itself when we were forced to leave the ERM in September 1992, and even when it recovered it was not convergent with others in the north.
I expect the C majority will go up a bit further,
but they’d be advised to continue treating it as marginal.
The 2011 results showed the Lib Dems weakening in Bridport, but less so in Dorchester which is fairly large town.
Can’t really see a massive swing from Lib Dem to Labour here.
There is a suppressed Labour vote here, but it is dying off and Labour’s local organisation is quite pitiful.
But the Lib Dems could potentially lose some votes among the public sector element (espec .in Dorchester) and the ‘bohemian’ element in Bridport to the Greens if the latter make a serious effort.
It’s just about possible that Letwin’s majority could rise as high as 8000 in the short term. It will be interesting to see what happens here anyway.
Letwin did relatively well in 2001 and 2005 but I thought his 2010 result was sluggish against the LDs.
One of the interesting features of the recent results here is that the big decline in the Labour vote hasn’t been matched by a rise in the Lib Dem share – despite a big effort by the Lib Dems (and Labour to some extent) to encouraging switching. The impression is that the Lib Dems may have reached their high water mark here and their vote could be in danger of splintering somewhat.
It’s notable that they also may have lost their touch in terms of stirring things up on local issues. They had a good issue to campaign on in last year’s locals – the folie de grandeur that is the new council offices in Dorchester – but they made no headway with it and actually lost seats.