Esher and Walton
2010 Results:
Conservative: 32134 (58.91%)
Labour: 5829 (10.69%)
Liberal Democrat: 13541 (24.83%)
UKIP: 1783 (3.27%)
English Democrat: 307 (0.56%)
Monster Raving Loony: 341 (0.63%)
Independent: 378 (0.69%)
Others: 230 (0.42%)
Majority: 18593 (34.08%)
2005 Results:
Conservative: 21882 (45.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 14155 (29.6%)
Labour: 9309 (19.4%)
Other: 2532 (5.3%)
Majority: 7727 (16.1%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 22296 (49%)
Labour: 10758 (23.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 10241 (22.5%)
UKIP: 2236 (4.9%)
Majority: 11538 (25.3%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 26747 (49.8%)
Labour: 12219 (22.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 10937 (20.4%)
Referendum: 2904 (5.4%)
Other: 860 (1.6%)
Majority: 14528 (27.1%)
No Boundary Changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Dominic Raab (Conservative) Educated at Oxford University. Chief of staff to Dominic Grieve and former foreign officer legal advisor.
Dominic Raab (Conservative) Educated at Oxford University. Chief of staff to Dominic Grieve and former foreign officer legal advisor. Francis Eldergill (Labour) 
Lionel Blackman (Liberal Democrat) Educated at Sutton Grammar. Solictor. Former Epsom and Ewell councillor.Bernard Collignon (UKIP) Educated at Eastbourne Grammar. Personnel Manager. Former member of the SDP. Contested Esher & Walton 1997, 2001, 2005.Mike Kearsley (English Democrat)
Chinners (Official Monster Raving Loony) Real name Jason Chinnery. Former civil servant. Contested Esher and Walton 2005.
Andy Lear (Best of a bad bunch) Born Kingston. Educated at Esher College and Kingston University. Technical manager.Tony Popham (Independent)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 102473
Male: 48.3%
Female: 51.7%
Under 18: 23.4%
Over 60: 20.8%
Born outside UK: 15.1%
White: 94%
Black: 0.4%
Asian: 2.3%
Mixed: 1.6%
Other: 1.6%
Christian: 74.2%
Hindu: 0.9%
Jewish: 0.7%
Muslim: 1.3%
Full time students: 2.7%
Graduates 16-74: 32.5%
No Qualifications 16-74: 17.7%
Owner-Occupied: 78%
Social Housing: 10.9% (Council: 3.1%, Housing Ass.: 7.8%)
Privately Rented: 8.4%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 3.5%
The Conservatives displayed a strong result against the Liberal Democrats in Long Ditton in the May 2008 District elections.
Have the Liberal Democrats always been strong in Long Ditton and Claygate or were they once solid Conservative territory prior to the party’s troubles in the early to mid 1990s?
I ask this, because they both seem to be the types of divisions that would be home to middle class professionals and affluent populations. I would assume that they would have naturally voted Conservative, but have since switched to the Liberal Democrats.
Long Ditton (bordering Surbiton)was first won by the Liberals in 1986 and before 2008 was last won by the Tories in 87.
Claygate was often a split ward in the 60s and 70s and was last won by a Tory in 87 (who later went independent) First won by a Liberal in 1962.
Lib Dems also held Surrey CC seats in Dittons and Claygate/Hinchley Wood 1993-2005
I am actually shocked at how the wheels are coming off the conservative campaign at the moment, despite all of Labour’s Problems. I often go to Kingston and I have seen a massive poster campaign by the Conservatives there, but I do agree that they are pretty much assured of victory here in Esher and Walton so I do think their strategy of targeting marginal seats is a wise move as its the few seats that decide a general election in this country not the many unfortunately. This is not gerrymandering just Pure Fact!
Ian Taylor has announced that he is stepping down, BBC Website just announced.
Sorry was announced in june…. need to read thing before I Jump!
This is of no value whatsoever but I have assessed this seat as CON HOLD.
Although tactical voting can be effective in a particular constituency – provided lots of others do it as well – there is no way of tactically voting to get a hung parliament.
I was hoping that a Liberal Democrat supporter would have commented on this thread that they were thinking about tactically voting Liberal Democrat in the hope of getting a Liberal Democrat govenment. C’mon, if you’re hard enough!
Before I first voted in 1966, my father gave me a bit of advice, which I follow to this day. I look down the list of candidates, pick the one who I like best, then vote for that candidate. It works every time!
My preferred candidate doesn’t always win but voting isn’t the same as picking the winner of the 3.15 at Newmarket. Get it wrong here and you can tear up your ticket. Voting is a breeze by comparison, and remember, no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
David,
I completely agree with your father’s wise advice on ignoring tactical voting and picking the candidate you like best.
Please do take a look at my website http://www.eldergill.com/ before you make up your mind.
Mr Eldergill,
Of course, you have no vested interest in advising against tactical voting, do you? I trust that you would give the same advice to, for instance, LibDem supporters in Lab/Con marginals.
By the way, I did glance at your website and was amused by “One of my major interests is education. Both our children attend local state schools …”. Both *of* your children, surely?
David,
Thanks for the comments. I’d give the same advice anywhere but I appreciate not everyone agrees with this view. Glad you took a look at the website. My interest in education comes from having teachers as parents. They both taught English for many years so will appreciate your comment on the quality of the prose
Happy Easter.
Francis
Which seats have included Oxshott?
Nothing wrong with the phrase “both our children”. Perfectly decent English where I’m sitting.
Cons Hold= 11,000 maj
@David
“My preferred candidate doesn’t always win”. You’ve done well. Since my first election in Feb 74 I’ve only found the winner once! (Lab in Islington North, 1983)
@Barnaby
“Nothing wrong with the phrase “both our children”. “. I’d put it stronger: that usage goes back to the mists of time; “both of” is a fairly recent usage.
I feel that the Labour Effort needs to be stepped up in Esher and Walton, I have already recieved Liberal Democrat and Conservative pamplets and nothing in terms of Labour!
By putting your message across to the people of this constituency who do not vote, and persuading them to vote Labour is crucial to fixing our broken ‘first past the post election system”
Con Hold
Maj 11 500
Forget the spinners …. Vote for Chinners
Con maj 12,000
Lib Dem Majority 200-500
Just got back tonight from election forum with other candidates at Holy Trinity Church, Claygate – a very worthwhile event and thanks to Reverend Plyming for organising it. I’ll be out leafleting door to door over the weekend. For anyone Labour on this forum who wants to help by leafleting locally then go to http://www.eldergill.com and email me saying where/when you can help – I’ll deliver you the leaflets personally.
Con maj but only 6000
I think the swing to the Lib Dems will be below the national average. I sense that Ian Taylor was not very popular even before the information about his second home came out – his share of the vote has decreased in all elections since 1997. The fact that he is no longer standing may well reduce the swing to the Lib Dems.
Have a friend in the constituency. Ian Taylor was utterly useless as an MP. Now he has gone, expect the Con maj to rise..
I agree that this isn’t a realistic LD target. They are already rather flattered by their position here and I don’t expect it to improve much, if at all.
CON HOLD as implied above
Huge increase in the Conservative vote share here – up 13% to 59%.
Paul’s analysis of May 3rd looks sound.
Yes, as soon as Ian Taylor left the scene the Tory vote rocketed. I just wish he’d been booted off the stage a lot earlier. You can’t get rid of big beasts like Heseltine and Clarke. But Taylor and Currey were always political pygmies-and it seems in this case at least, not particularly popular ones locally.
Shaun i wrote on this thread last year:
“It must have been difficult for someone like Ian Taylor to enthuse Conservative supporters, since he was so at odds with their values. There cant be many Conservative held seats where the numerical Tory vote, the vote share and the majority have fallen at every election since 1992 which demonstrates how incumbency can have a negative impact if the MP in question is obviously unpopular. This has gone from being the top 5 safe Tory seats to looking almost marginal in 2005.
The majority should go up to healthy proportions with the right candidate ”
I don’t know anything about Dominic Raab but the local electorate seem to approve far more than they did of their previous MP. There are often assumptions made about the incumbency vote of sitting MPs (and we can see how the loss of that can affect the result as in for example Maidstone) but it does sometimes seem to work the other way when on the retirement of an MP the majority shoots up.
The same happened in Chelmsford when Norman St John Stevas retired and in Surrey SW when Virginia Bottomley did.
Yes, I remember seeing that at the time Pete, and you have been proven to be absolutely correct.
As you say, I also know nothing about Dominic Raab. But I’d be surprised if the local party had chosen to select another raving EUphile following Taylor. That is of course, unless the association is one of the few in the country actually infested with raving EUphiles
Having said that, they never actually succeeded in deselecting Taylor did they. Although as I recall there was some movement to attempt to do so at one point.
I just hope that Taylor doesn’t instantly come back as Lord Taylor of Esher of something when Cameron appoints those 100 extra peers.
There are enough Lord Taylors as it is and there used to be even more.
I don’t think the Tory association is as right wing as all that here, but it probably found Taylor too Europhile nevertheless.
Remarkable result and clearly a negative incumbency factor as has been said, making it stand out from most very safe Tory seats where increases were modest and/or with small swings to the Libdems.
It all sounds very likely about Ian Taylor but for whom were the extra 10,000 Conservative voters actually voting for in 2005?
Not UKIP (who would seem the obvious choice) as their vote has increased as has the LibDem vote.
The big drop has come in the Labour vote so has the new Conservative candidate picked up much of the WWC vote (such as it is in a constituency like this)?
Perhaps the campaign just increased the turnout of tories hugely and the Labour base couldn’t be bothered voting for their candidate?
Elmbridge has topped the Halifax Bank quality of life list for the third year running:
htttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12082853
I can’t think of anything less reflecting ‘quality’ than a dull commuter suburb in Surrey!
‘I don’t think the Tory association is as right wing as all that here, but it probably found Taylor too Europhile nevertheless.’
Ian Taylor was the subject of de-selection on many occasions for his moderate views
He even tried to renounce them by voting for David Davis in the leadership contest in 2005, although it was too little too late – his association realised he was a liberal at heart – and being an arch Euro skeptoc himself, I can’t see Cameron wanting him back in Parliament
I wouldn’t choose this as the best place to live in the country because it’s a bit too “built-up” IMO.
The criteria they use is life expectancy, health, employment, school results, crime, house size and, rather bizarrely, the weather.
And Elmbridge ticks all those boxes
I agree with Mike and Andy though in that I can think of far better places to live in the UK than surburban Surrey – which is both too built-up and too dull
It does rather depend on what you want.
Although I guess most people want to be healthy, for example (even the obese layabouts who watch celebrity junk on their play stations and do nothing much else).
I do find this area a little dull in parts, although it is way preferable to a s**t hole like much (not necessarily all) of Streatham, for example.
It is a very comfortable place to live.
The more attractive parts of Surrey I think are in areas like Shere, Clandon (although I think a few Guildford rural wards may still be included in this seat).
I can’t quite remember how much the Con vote fell here in 1997, but I think it was under 12% which isn’t too bad given it was out of a well above average share.
So they are within about 3% of that again, which is pretty good for them. Clearly they’ve got themselves much better sorted out.