Dover
2010 Results:
Conservative: 22174 (44.01%)
Labour: 16900 (33.54%)
Liberal Democrat: 7962 (15.8%)
BNP: 1104 (2.19%)
UKIP: 1747 (3.47%)
English Democrat: 216 (0.43%)
Independent: 82 (0.16%)
Others: 200 (0.4%)
Majority: 5274 (10.47%)
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 21979 (45.4%)
Conservative: 16918 (34.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 7652 (15.8%)
Other: 1901 (3.9%)
Majority: 5061 (10.4%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 16739 (35%)
Labour: 21680 (45.3%)
Liberal Democrat: 7607 (15.9%)
UKIP: 1252 (2.6%)
Other: 606 (1.3%)
Majority: 4941 (10.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 16744 (37.2%)
Labour: 21943 (48.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 5131 (11.4%)
UKIP: 1142 (2.5%)
Majority: 5199 (11.6%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 17796 (32.8%)
Labour: 29535 (54.5%)
Liberal Democrat: 4302 (7.9%)
Referendum: 2124 (3.9%)
Other: 443 (0.8%)
Majority: 11739 (21.7%)
Boundary changes: only minimal adjustments to take account of ward boundary changes. This affected the wards of Little Stour and Middle Deal.
Profile: a diverse seat with a political tradition which includes coal mining, seaside resorts, a major port and some desirable surrounding countryside. The strong Labour presence in the centre of Dover itself made this Labour`s best target seat in Kent well before the 1997 election and in a county of ultra-marginals it is Labour`s safest seat. The seat consists of the towns of Dover, Deal and the surrounding countryside.
Current MP: Charlie Elphicke (Conservative) Educated at Felstead School and Nottingham university. Partner in an international legal firm, specialising in taxation. Research fellow at the CPS. Contested St Albans 2001.
Charlie Elphicke (Conservative) Educated at Felstead School and Nottingham university. Partner in an international legal firm, specialising in taxation. Research fellow at the CPS. Contested St Albans 2001.
Gwyn Prosser(Labour) born 1943, Swansea. Marine engineer in the merchant navy, who worked as a chief engineer on Sealink ferries prior to his election. Dover councillor 1987-1997. Contested Dover in 1992. First elected as MP for Dover in 1997 (more information at They work for you)
John Brigden (Liberal Democrat) Car rally organiser. Sevenoaks councillor.
Victor Matcham (UKIP)
Dennis Whiting (BNP) 
Mike Walters (English Democrat)
David Clark (CPA) Born Petts Wood. Worked in the merchant navy.George Lee-Delisle (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 91637
Male: 48.2%
Female: 51.8%
Under 18: 23%
Over 60: 23.9%
Born outside UK: 5%
White: 98.5%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 0.4%
Mixed: 0.6%
Other: 0.3%
Christian: 76.4%
Full time students: 2.3%
Graduates 16-74: 13.4%
No Qualifications 16-74: 31.7%
Owner-Occupied: 71.3%
Social Housing: 15.9% (Council: 11.3%, Housing Ass.: 4.7%)
Privately Rented: 9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 8.4%
Agreed, Sarah Palin was a big mistake which, along with the financial crash, sealed McCain’s defeat.
She will not be the Republican nominee for 2012 and hence Obama won’t get an LBJ or Reagan landslide.
Like Shaun I think it will be a modest victory this time, like Bush vs Kerry in 04.
Who will the Rebublican candidate be?
Huckabee, Romney, Jindall?
I reckon Romney will get the nod this time round.
The problem with Romney is that although he would put in a respectable performance he almost certainly wouldn’t be able to win. The Republicans might decide to choose a wild card who could do very badly but might also have a chance of winning.
Although I personally think Romney would be a good choice, I think his potential nomination would upset the Tea Party over his healthcare reforms which he enacted whilst Governor of Massachutsetts. My fear is that somebody such as Sarah Palin could stand as an Independent Tea Party Candidate and split the Republican vote thus handing the election on a plate to Obama. If things really go wrong for Obama, he could either do a LBJ and step down after one term or be primaried by Hiliary Clinton. That said, sadly I think he would win a second term due to divisions within GOP (1996 repeating itself all over again). BTW which Republican state is most likely to flip to the Democrats next time, I think it could well be Arizona due to the rising Hispanic population and Obama’s strength following the tragic shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, who I hope is making a speedy recovery.
Regarding the ‘Tea Party’ in the USA there is too much emphasis on the stranger elemnts of it.
A more serious politician associated with the movement is Marco Rubio the new Florida Senator.
He would make a very useful VP candidate for a Presidential bid by Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Indiana.
If the Republicans win Florida plus the Great Lakes states (apart from Illinois) they win the Presidential election regardless of what happens in Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.
Regarding one of the effects next year’s Presidential election will have in this country I think its almost certain that Obama will at some point declare ‘victory’ in Afghanistan and withdraw the military. Cameron would be well advised to get our soldiers out before that point or be put in a politically damaging position.
Joseph
There is no chance of Obama being ‘primaried’ by Hilary Clinton as she is the Secretary of State.
Any political disaster which was bad enough to destroy Obama politically would also destroy Clinton.
Now its easy to image such a disaster occurring – an Iran-Israel nuclear exchange with oil going to $1000 per barrel – but in such an event anyone associated with the Obama administration would be utterly discredited.
The Democrats would be able to do nothing more than politcal damage limitation, perhaps by choosing a Governor of a western or southern state as Presidential candidate.
Spot on Richard. I think you have sketched out one if the few ways in which the Reps can win the White House come Nov 2012. Other than Gov Daniels I can’t see another viable Rep candidate.
‘The problem with Romney is that although he would put in a respectable performance he almost certainly wouldn’t be able to win.’
Ditto the other candidates whether they be Palin, Huckerbee or Jindall
Romney comes out as the best from a bad bunch so from a damage limitation point of view he might be the Republicans best bet were it not for the fact that if he did get the nod the Tea Party would almost certainly be enraged to the point of running their own candidate and handing the election to Obama on a plate
There’s scenarios of 96 at play. Clinton first team was hardly a success yet he was perversely saved by the hammering he got in the 94 mid-term elections which saw the Contract with America Republicans (The Tea Party of their day) elected to Congress
Two years of these guys running Congress was all it took for Clinton to comfortably secure re-election on the back of their unpopularity
It seems bizarre that the Republicans would chose to repeat mistakes of the past and miss out of the chance to unseat another Democrat President who ought to be there for the taking
‘If the Republicans win Florida plus the Great Lakes states (apart from Illinois) they win the Presidential election regardless of what happens in Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.”
But the Republicans have a far better chance of winning in states like North Carolina, Virginia and Arizona (which I doubt will even be in play) than the Great Lake states – which includes places like Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota which haven’t voted Republican in a Presidential election for decades
Ohio is the traditional bellwether state snd it would be interesting if Obama were to win the election without taking the state (and its large chunck of electoral college block)
Thanks Hemmlig. Thats very interesting, I had no idea that Ohio was looking so insecure for Obama this time.
In which case, it will depend on how well he does in holding the smaller swing states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado etc.
To be fair (grudgingly) to Obama, like Blair, he was probably never going to live up to the massive expectations invested in him on his election. Nevertheless, I do think that he is now sufficiently tainted by failure to make next year’s election competitive.
He will probably win based on recent history, because all first term presidents now tend to win a second term. But it is going to be anything but a foregone conclusion.
As many have said above, it will largely depend on who the Republican’s choose as their candidate. From my perspective, I’d love a tea party backed figure, but it will have to be someone who can still appeal to the centre. Sarah Palin must not be anywhere near this race-and I speak as someone who is generally sympathetic to her and what she has to say. Unfortunately, her name is now too damaged in the minds of swing voters to maske hewr a credible candidate.
Is this conversation about Dover and the UK or the USA?
Anyway, whilst I am no political expert, I do sense locally that the tories will be in trouble even in this southern seat.
Both Dover and Deal, Thanet South and North have high levels of public sector workforces, both are being hit by Pfizer pulling out, and an economy that is one of the weakest in the South East and having much more in common with Northern and Midland areas than the so called prosperous south.
I would be surprised if they remain Labour but mmm well who knows. I don’t think Mr Cameron or Vote Dave should take for granted that Labour are well and truly buried as I think that really would be underestimating Labour”s ability to bounce back.
I’m sure Labour will poll better in Kent than last year but, at the moment, I don’t see them actually winning of the seats there.
“But the Republicans have a far better chance of winning in states like North Carolina, Virginia and Arizona (which I doubt will even be in play) than the Great Lake states – which includes places like Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota which haven’t voted Republican in a Presidential election for decades”
Of course and I would expect the Republicans to win North Carolina, Virginia and Arizona if they also win the Great Lake states.
What should be noted though is that the big swing to the Republicans last year took place in the Great lakes area.
Ultimately though it comes down to how the Obama Presidency is viewed. If badly he will likely lose unelss the Republicans mess up badly, if well he will most likely win unless things go just right for the Republicans.
‘Of course and I would expect the Republicans to win North Carolina, Virginia and Arizona if they also win the Great Lake states.’
Maybe, but the three states I mentioned – Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota – are as staunchly Democrat as Illinois, leaving the heavy industry states of Ohio and Indiana as the only realistic Republican gains.
Minnesota and Wisconsin even voted Democrat in the 1980s amnd if the Republicans did win in these states they’d win the Presidency, no question.
‘Ultimately though it comes down to how the Obama Presidency is viewed. If badly he will likely lose unelss the Republicans mess up badly, if well he will most likely win unless things go just right for the Republicans.’
My point is that it’s not. Just like the 96 election I think it will be determined more by fear of the Republicans than the President’s record.
Romney is the only Republican candidate pragmatic enough to appeal beyond the their increasingly narrow base which is precisely why he won’t get the nomination
“the three states I mentioned – Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota – are as staunchly Democrat as Illinois”
I disagree – certainly not when Obama is the Democrat candidate.
The Republicans came much closer to wining MI, WI and MN in 2000 and 2004 than they did Illinois. Michigan especially should have great Republican potential next year due to its economic problems.
As to 1996 I have to disagree again – US Presidents are almost always reelected. The only 1 term Presidency for either party in over 100 years was Jimmy Carter’s.
As long as Obama doesn’t mess up like Carter did – although to Obama’s concern there are significant similarities – he will be reelected.
Michigan didn’t vote Democrat in the 80s, it was gained by Bill Clinton in 1992 but hasn’t been lost by the Democrats since though it was quite close in 2004 & 2008.
Boundary changes are likely to hurt Labour here with Kent losing a seat and Dover being more than 5,000 short of the average electorate. Most likely it will take one of the Dover wards currently in Thanet South, probably Sandwich. This could work to their benefit in Thanet however as both seats are undersized and it is possible there will be a single Thanet seat covering most of Margate with Broadstairs and Ramsgate and excluding only Birchington and the Thanet Villages. It’s possible given their poor performance in North Kent and possible adverse boundary changes in Dover and elsewhere that such a Thanet seat could be Labour’s best prospect in Kent
I guess that could be true.
Some of these seaside seats are hard to guess what the long term trends are now.
We seem to have had swings to Labour checked by a Tory swing in the WWC vote, but the reality is probably more complicated, and the seats vary.
It’ll be interesting to see whether Labour’s truly dreadful sub Foot performance in their more traditionally hopeful areas of Gravesham and Medway is somewhat reversed, but it’s hard to picture at the moment still,
so I guess a unified Thanet seat would be their best chance, particuarly if the economic problems persist.
Richard
“As to 1996 I have to disagree again – US Presidents are almost always reelected. The only 1 term Presidency for either party in over 100 years was Jimmy Carter’s.”
I don’t know about the last 100 years, but you have missed George Bush Sr., one-term President who lost to Clinton in 1992 for a start.
That’s unless you meant the 100 years prior to 1988.
If it is 100 years up to 1988 in addition to Carter there was:
Benjamin Harrison defeated in 1892
William H Taft defeated in 1912 (he came third)
Herbert Hoover defeated in 1932
And not forgetting that Gerald Ford was defeated in 1976 but he was more of a “half a term” President than a one term President.
Richard meant one-term presidencies in terms of party rather than the individual president.
Hence George HW Bush’s term was the third term of the 1980-92 Republican presidency.
On topic, one reason that east Kent is so deprived in parts is that its train links to London have always been too slow to attract many commuters. It can take up to 2 hours to get from Margate to Victoria, whereas trains from an equivalent distance north of London (eg Peterborough or Colchester) are twice as fast.
With the new high speed commuter trains from St Pancras to Margate, Ramsgate and Dover, surely this will begin to change? Commuters will begin to snap up the cheap houses and the area will start to regenerate. The seaside location will be a big plus.
This will help the Tories in the longer term and I don’t think Labour will win back a Thanet seat.
‘Some of these seaside seats are hard to guess what the long term trends are now.’
Not really.
You shouldn’t let the 2010 result obscure the long-term trend from Tory to Labour. Places like Torquay, Hastings, Morecombe and even Blackpool and Brighton used to be solidly Tory.
That’s not the case now and even though some of the above places did elect Tory MPs in 2010 it was with the smallest of majorities – and one suspects the party will have difficulty hanging on to these seats
Low wages, the fact that not many go there even in summer nowadays, delapidated housing, lack of decent jobs etc all contribute to this
‘It’ll be interesting to see whether Labour’s truly dreadful sub Foot performance in their more traditionally hopeful areas of Gravesham and Medway is somewhat reversed’
Labour did very poorly in Kent in 2010 – abysmally when you consider how industrial and working class the North of the county is – but they were never competitive in these seats in the 1980s either.
They performed much worst in the West Country, especially Devon and Cornwall, where they lost their deposits in most of the county seats and even got pushed into 4th place by UKIP in a handful
Labour have never been strong here but I’m pretty sure they never polled this bad – not even in the 1980s
One of Deal’s most famous residents was the Carry On star Charles Hawtrey. He retired to Deal in 1972 after he was sacked from the Carry Ons.
His life in Deal was described by his biographer as a “sixteen year bender” until his death in 1988. He was a chronic alcoholic and was often seen around the town in a highly drunken state. He got barred from all the local pubs very quickly and took to drinking a bottle of sherry per day at home.
Hawtrey’s other pastime was making sexual advances to young sailors in the town, which surprisingly were sometimes accepted. He famously set fire to his bed starting a serious house fire in 1984 when drunk in his house with a young sailor.
In 1988 doctors told Hawtrey he would die of blocked arteries if he didn’t have his legs amputated. he chose to die with his boots on, and was dead a couple of days later. Reportedly his last words were “fuck off” (spoken to a nurse attending him).
Yes,
but what I’m saying is that some of these coastal seats, around the country,
are different blends of seaside resort (> Labour),
and
WWC (>Con ?? (according to recent years, but need to see if this is long term).
Hastings I would say is definitely more on a Labour long term swing,
but Cleethorpes, possibly Blackpool, Dover,
I would say it’s not clear.
The Tory gain in Morecambe and Lunesdale was slightly unexpected and means the situation in coastal seats is not as simple as might have been previously thought.
Labour did indeed poll badly in the South-West in 2010 Tim, but much less so in the seats that mattered. Cornwall was a particularly awful set of Labour performances, but there was no expectation of Labour being competitive in any of the county’s seats in 2010. Bristol NW and Kingswood were bad performances in seats which did matter, but against that the party did less poorly in neighbouring Filton & Bradley Stoke & NE Somerset. 4 seats in the region were held, clearly a less poor performance than East Anglia which really was a disaster for Labour except Luton, and oddly perhaps Peterborough which saw a modest swing to the Tories. Perhaps the previous Labour MPs exceptional (and richly deserved) unpopularity there had depressed the results in 2001 and 2005.
Stewart Jackson has written numerous articles moaning that Peterborough is turning into a shit hole due to the masses of Polish immigrants who live there (I’m paraphrasing).
But it must have caused some middle class Tory voters to move away.
I think the situation is quite complex.
The Tories have been doing relatively poorly in coastal seats after 1979 (but not including it)
but as Andy says, it’s not a clear pattern.
‘Labour did indeed poll badly in the South-West in 2010 Tim, but much less so in the seats that mattered. ‘
True – Labour outdid their 92 performance in some seats – Stroud, Exeter – but likewise theyv lost seats like Kingswood and Plymouth Devonport – which ought to be Labour seats. So too Swinbdon – although strictly speaking that’s not the West Country.
Still I don’t remember them ever polling so poorly in some of the rural seats – Devon North, Cornwall North, Devon West etc – where they were stuck on around 5% of the vote – worst than the Tories in industrial Scotland
They probably did do worst in the East – which has a string of working class seats with Tory majoroties – from Boston to Basildon
Labour could usually always rely on seats like Thurrock, Ipswich and Norwich South – even during their nadir years – but not any more
I find it interesting that Stewart Jackson would write atticles that Peterborough is turning into a shithole – the hilarious implication being that it wasn’t until he became its MP
I’d definitely say East Anglia was the worst region as the results there were inexplicably bad for Labour (except Peterborough, which is now the only plausible 2005 tory held labour target seat in England).
It’s looks as though Kent was mainly compensating for low swings last time. It certainly was not surprising to me that Labour did badly in the southeast.
‘That’s not the case now and even though some of the above places did elect Tory MPs in 2010 it was with the smallest of majorities – and one suspects the party will have difficulty hanging on to these seats Low wages, the fact that not many go there even in summer nowadays, delapidated housing, lack of decent jobs etc all contribute to this’
That description does not really fit Brighton IMO. It may have been that way 20 years ago but the city is now quite a nice area and I’m sure has a better economy than back in the 1980s. Tories were lucky to get seats as the area is becoming more like other progressive cities like Oxford, Cambridge and Norwich with its voting habits.
Regarding Labour performances in the south, the party certainly did better in the SW than the East with its retention of 2 Bristol seats, 1 in Plymouth and especially Exeter. The Eastern region was easily our worst area in the UK by far. You know Labour is in trouble if they can’t even hold Norwich South! That seat at least should not be too difficult to get back but I’m less optimistic about the others that were lost.
East Anglia was bad for them, and they were pushed into third places in a lot of seats where they should have 25%+.
But I think they’ll regain second places in those seats, which will probably help the Conservatives, by dealing with any LD advances in parts of Cambridgshire for example, which looked last time that it was starting to become a problem for them.
Thurrock was lost once before, in 1987, which was probably the high water mark of Thatcherism, in the South, and in Essex,
although the Labour MP was unlucky because Labour’s vote improved, but for some reason the collapse in support for the SDP actually helped the Tories more.
But it’s certainly true the Tories don’t need to be doing that well nationally to win Thurrock.
Don’t forget that the seat Labour lost in Plymouth, Tim, has no real resemblance to the Plymouth Devonport seat won easily by the party until 2010. That seat is much more similar to Plymouth Moor View which was held (though not totally witbout difficulty). The seat lost is essentially the linear successor to Plymouth Drake, not won by Labour in 1974 (though it very nearly was – Janet Fookes held on by 30-odd votes in October), but won in the party’s subsequent election-winning years of 1997-2005 as Plymouth Sutton. The seat which bore that name in 1974-1997 is now the basis of SW Devon really, if anything. There was no disgrace, in other words, in Labour fairly narrowly losing Plymouth Sutton & Devonport, as it now is, which was generally expected to be a narrow Tory gain. I think even I so predicted.
Indeed I did – “I understand that there have been several defections from LD to Labour in the city today. Good publicity for Labour but I still incline very slightly towards CON GAIN.” I wrote in May 2010.
Isn’t it odd how off-topic the contributions under Dover have become! Apologies…
‘That description does not really fit Brighton IMO. It may have been that way 20 years ago but the city is now quite a nice area and I’m sure has a better economy than back in the 1980s. Tories were lucky to get seats as the area is becoming more like other progressive cities like Oxford, Cambridge and Norwich with its voting habits.’
Quite right – as a resident i’m well aware that brighton is one of the boom coastal towns (or should that be city) that’s avoided the problems associated with the other seaside towns i mentioned
what it shares with them though is a tory vote in sharp decline – despite the party’s relative success vin hove and kemptown
‘Don’t forget that the seat Labour lost in Plymouth, Tim, has no real resemblance to the Plymouth Devonport seat won easily by the party until 2010.’
i’m well aware of that but ever since the comfortable surburban communities to the east of plymouth were moved into devon south west in 97, the two remainig urban seats ought to be reliably labour – although after the hammering they got in 2010 there weren’t many southern seats which fitted that definition
the big surprise for me was holding exeter
Exeter is a city seat and Labour continue to perform well in such seats but another major reason for their survival there is that the city also has a large public sector and public sector workers are a demographic that has become increasingly pro-Labour over the past few decades. Throw in linger memories of Adrian Rogers’ despicable behaviour toward current incumbent Ben Bradshaw as well as the latter’s personal vote and there is your answer for why Exeter stayed Labour.
Once again Tim, I’d remind you that neither Plymouth Sutton & Devonport nor any of its equivalent seats past & present has ever been safe for Labour. This may be the services influence, but the fact remains. Labour has still only ever won the seat (in the incarnation at that time of Plymouth Sutton) on one solitary occasion when the party didn’t form a government, in 1970 when David Owen narrowly held on, so it’s not entirely fair to suggest it should be a safe seat rather than a marginal as it actually is.
Exeter is a city seat and Labour continue to perform well in such seats but another major reason for their survival there is that the city also has a large public sector and public sector workers are a demographic that has become increasingly pro-Labour over the past few decades. Throw in linger memories of Adrian Rogers’ despicable behaviour’.
I think that’s right
I think most voters would have forgotten about the evangelical adrian rogers by now so the public sector vote is probably what saved it for labour as i\d assume its significantly more middle class seat than sutton & devonpart
‘Once again Tim, I’d remind you that neither Plymouth Sutton & Devonport nor any of its equivalent seats past & present has ever been safe for Labour.’
the sutton area of plymouth has never been reliably labour but i thought devonport was their best part of the city. I accept that pairing it with half (I assume) of wards from sutton would make the new seat more marginal but you’d still expect labour to be trimphant in an ‘even’ year
You are misunderstanding what occurred in the latest set of boundary changes Tim. It was not a case of the old Devonport being joined by half of Sutton – rather it was the case of the whole of the old Plymouth Sutton (itself the old Plymouth Drake) being joined by one ward (Devonport) from the Devonport seat which was thus renamed as Moor View. The situation is little more complicated because of ward boundary changes, but in essence Sutton & Devonport is the old (1997-2010) Plymouth Sutton, which was always likely to be something of a belweather seat
you can blame the boundary commision for that
there must have been a better way for them to have realigned the plymouth boundaries then by taking the one ward which happened to be the name of a seat which had existed since 1832 and transferred it to the cities other seat – which itself has existed since 1918
They had done the same in 1983 when they moved Sutton ward from Plymouth Sutton to Plymouth Drake but they got round the problem by retaining the name Plymouth Sutton even though it no longer included the eponymous ward. I think they should have done the same thing this time
I disagree with Pete on this one. The 1983 Plymouth Sutton that didn’t include the Sutton ward always seemed an anomoly-one of those anomolies we are usually very quick to slate the commission for producing.
Certainly, I think the commission did the right thing this time around. The only improvement I would have liked to see would be for Devon South West to regain its Plymouth prefix and become Plymouth Plymstock
This seat is losing Sandwich to the proposed Margate and Ramsgate seat. This is quite sensible as Sandwich, whilst in the ares of Dover Council, is next door to Ramsgate, of which it is in effect a rich suburb, not that the yachtsmen and golfers go to Ramsgate much. Ramsgate was the main source of workers for Pfizer: they are all losing their jobs in the near future.
In exchange Dover gets a couple of wards from Folkestone constituency.
Charles Elphicke’s majority is calculated by Anthony to go up to a notional 7449, considerably more than the 4991 projected for Margate and Ramsgate and (which is being little noticed so far in East Kent) more than the 6795 Conservative majority over the Liberal Democrats projected in the redrawn Canterbury seat. The Conservative majority over LibDems in Folkestone and Hythe is 7927.
This seat will be an uphill struggle for Labour.
Charles Elphicke seems to be doing a pretty good job, for an MP who had to gain his seat, of navigating the Westminster political sea. He might be around for a considerable time.