Forest of Dean
2010 Results:
Conservative: 22853 (46.87%)
Labour: 11789 (24.18%)
Liberal Democrat: 10676 (21.89%)
UKIP: 2522 (5.17%)
Green: 923 (1.89%)
Majority: 11064 (22.69%)
2005 Results:
Conservative: 19474 (40.9%)
Labour: 17425 (36.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 8185 (17.2%)
Other: 2556 (5.4%)
Majority: 2049 (4.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 17301 (38.8%)
Labour: 19350 (43.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 5762 (12.9%)
UKIP: 661 (1.5%)
Green: 1254 (2.8%)
Other: 279 (0.6%)
Majority: 2049 (4.6%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 17860 (35.6%)
Labour: 24203 (48.2%)
Liberal Democrat: 6165 (12.3%)
Referendum: 1624 (3.2%)
Other: 332 (0.7%)
Majority: 6343 (12.6%)
No Boundary Changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Mark Harper(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)
Mark Harper(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)Bruce Hogan (Labour) Retired teacher. Forest of Dean District councillor and Gloucestershire County Councillor. Former Leader of Forest of Dean Council and Deputy leader of Gloucestershire County Council Labour group. Chris Coleman (Liberal Democrat) Born 1978, Gloucestershire. Solicitor. Cheltenham councillor 2002-2008. Contested Stoke on Trent South 2001, Forest of Dean 2005.James Greenwood (Green)Tim Congdon (UKIP)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 84325
Male: 48.8%
Female: 51.2%
Under 18: 22.2%
Over 60: 22.9%
Born outside UK: 2.8%
White: 99.1%
Asian: 0.2%
Mixed: 0.4%
Other: 0.2%
Christian: 77.3%
Full time students: 2.5%
Graduates 16-74: 17%
No Qualifications 16-74: 29.3%
Owner-Occupied: 77%
Social Housing: 13.8% (Council: 11%, Housing Ass.: 2.7%)
Privately Rented: 5.5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 6.2%
Here is a result for a Council by-election held in the Coleford ward of Forest of Dean District Council in November. The by-election followed the resignation of a Tory Councillor. In 2007, the Tories won all 5 seats in Coleford.
Ind 267 (29.8; +1.2), Liberal Democrat 230 (25.7; +25.7), Conservative 210 (23.5; -17.7), Labour 188 (21.0; -9.2) Majority 37. Turnout 21%.
This is clearly a pretty poor result for the Tories who hold the constituency and a disaster for Labour. The parties won 17% and 7% respectively in the Mitcheldean & Drybrook by-election which was won by the Liberal Democrats with 55% of the vote. That was also a rock-solid Tory seat in 2007.
Whilst the Labour Party has clearly disintegrated in areas like the Forest, there is clearly no great love for the Tories either!
Just thought you might be interested following the response to my previous postings about the Mitcheldean & Drybrook by-election…
“Mitcheldean & Drybrook … was also a rock-solid Tory seat in 2007.”
Not quite. The result then:
Ind 777
Con 452
Con 392
Lab 391
LD 378
LD 332
Con 326
The LD candidate who won 378 was an incumbent elected in 2003 who went on to regain the seat in the byelection. IIRC the Conservative and Labour candidates came from different areas of the district altogether and I suspect these kind of considerations play heavily in an area like this, more so than party labels in local elections. Similar factors applied in Coleford I think and that was also far from a traditionally safe Tory seat but one which was gained from Labour in 2007. As Richard said above these kind of local byel;ection results have very little bearing on anything.
Not that any of these local by-elections actually matter in the Forest of Dean, the Tories won’t be doing anything other than putting up their majority to over 5,000.
Lets also just remember that Forest of Dean had NEVER been under Tory control before 2007 and the constituency has only been voting Tory in general elections since 1979.
A few minor by-election losses here will not turn around the general trend of the last 20 years which has been overwhelmingly pro-Tory. Indeed, Labour may well struggle to win this seat in future years of victory for them if the Tories do really well this year.
As stated this looks like local factors and local council by-elections are no gauge what so ever of how a GE vote is going to go. I am sure Mark Harper will hold this comfortably as Shaun states with a 5,000 plus majority.
What were the boundaries of the former constituency of Gloucestershire West?
They were very similar to this seat, but included some territory to the North which is now included in Tewkesbury. It was the creation of that seat in 1997 which caused Forest of Dean at the time to be regarded as a notionally Labour seat on 1992 figures, whereas West Gloucestershire was won by the Tories that year.
Cons Hold= 6,000 maj
The election here has been thrown wide open by the entry of a nationally known figure of local resident, Professor Tim Congdon CBE as the UKIP Candidate.
Didn’t Mr Congdon advise the Tory Government between 1992 and 1997. Not the greatest claim to fame really is it?
Con Hold
Maj 3900
Con maj 9,000
I think the Leaders debate will probobly give a boost to the Lib Dems especially amongst younger voters. Quite a few young people have started to promise their votes to the Nick Clegg bandwaggon
definite Lib Dem voter, but sadly expect Con maj
I grew up all my life in the Forest and have always been a LibDem supporter but obviously people scoffed at my Lib Dem tendencies when I was in the Forest because people are adament that a vote for LD is a vote for the Tories.
Having graduated from drama school this year an bow living in London I am living in a constituency that has equal share between the lib dens and labour. It is suddenly so much more refreshing to know that my vote will count for something here.
I hope that whatever governmen we get this year, that they will seriously rethink the electoral system so voting doesn’t always have to be so tactical as it is in the FOD.
I still miss the trees though.
The Liberal Democrats now second favourites on Betfair to win here. Labour appear to have given up and their candidate has told the local paper that he has “no plans” to go to the rural parts of the constituency! Astonishing given this is a rural constituency. There has also been some local annoyance that the sitting Tory has refused to attend public meetings. Is this one to watch? Well, I guess they all are at the moment!
Oh dear, there are still people desperately pushing the Lib Dems in unwinnable seats like this is there. How sad.
I said nothing of the sort Shaun! My comment was mainly about Labour falling apart as you will see if you read beyond the first three words!
Rewriting history there I think FODRES. Very unwise since we can still see your original comment. I’ll break it down for you:
Line 1: The Liberal Democrats now second favourites on Betfair to win here
Line 2: Labour appear to have given up and their candidate has told the local paper that he has “no plans” to go to the rural parts of the constituency! Astonishing given this is a rural constituency
Line 3: There has also been some local annoyance that the sitting Tory has refused to attend public meetings
Line 4: Is this one to watch? Well, I guess they all are at the moment!
So Line 1 suggested the Lib Dems were now second favourite to win, Line 2 attacked Labour, Line 3 attacked the Tories and Line 4 concluded that its now one to watch-the strong implication being that it is one to watch from a Lib Dem perspective.
Honestly, if you’re going to try and back track, at least come up with a better argument!
Line 4 is the clincher. If I wrote that about Bury St Edmunds everyone would rightly think I was suggesting a close result. It won’t be close, neither will this. CON HOLD.
I shall bow to your evident local knowledge of this particular seat and to your clearly impartial comments about every constituency in the country!
Is there any point of this site if people’s comments get derided by a handful of old hacks who clearly have nothing better to do with their time than tell everyone how right they are?
Fodres is actually technically correct in asserting that the Lib Dems are second favourites to win this seat on Betfair. However the amounts of money available on that market are so tiny (no more than a £6 bet can be placed on any outcome other than a Tory victory) as to make that fact not much of a reliable indication of anything. They are not second favourites with any of the mainstream bookmakers, being as long as 66-1 with Paddy Power while Labour are no longer than 9-1.
I wasn’t criticising the factual nature of what FODRES said about the state of the betting. So far as I’m concerned that is totally irrelevant. My problem was the more sinister implication that this was evident the seat would be a toss up between Tory and Lib Dem.
FODRES, there is no need to sulk. There is no need to pretend that your comment was entirely for information only. I know what you were trying to suggest. You were caught out and its time to cut the losses and regroup.
I’m very pleased you bow to my superior local knowledge on this seat and my impartial comments on every other seat in the country though. Lol
CON HOLD
As it turns out, Betfair weren’t far off in showing the Lib Dems as second favourite to win this seat… they did almost take second place.
I know the boundaries are a bit different, so I don’t know how comparable the results over the past 30-odd years are, but comparing the result here with those in the preceeding West Gloucestershire seat, Labour are down to their 1983 level of support, and the Lib Dems are actually still a few points below what their predecessors got in the ’80s (they were second in ’83).
The Tory vote share is very slightly lower than in ’79, but higher than ’83, ’87 (just), and ’92.
I think the Tory majority is the now the largest it’s ever been, in perecentage terms (numerically the ’87 majority was a few hundred bigger).
this looks to me to be a permament goner for my Party. The poor result doesn’t surprise me at all.
this looks to me to be a permament goner for my Party.
These things always go in cycles
The Forest of dean is industrial, working class and close enough to Wales for the Labour party to always have a not unsubstantial core vote
I would have thought they have a considerably better chance of winning here than some of their other unlikely gains in 1997 – St Albans, Castle Point, Norfolk North West etc
“….they have a considerably better chance of winning here than some of their other unlikely gains in 1997…”
The difference between this seat and the others you list is that this seat was far from an unlikely Labour gain in ’97. Indeed I think (with the pre-97 boundary changes) it was actually a notional hold in 1997.
Also, I don’t think the fact that it’s close to Wales necessarily means that it automatically stays in Labour’s ‘winnable’ column. Afterall, it borders Monmouth, which is only winnable in exceptional years for Labour.
However, I am not yet convinced that this seat is now “a permanent goner” for Labour.
The Sunday Telegraph said Mark Harper was pelted with eggs after a meeting where he was trying to explain the sale of the forests, in his constituency.
He had to be helped out in a police van aswell.
Regarding the new boundaries 4 of the 6 Gloucestershire seats are the right size but Gloucester is slightly too large and Forest of Dean is about 4,000 voters short.
‘The difference between this seat and the others you list is that this seat was far from an unlikely Labour gain in ’97. Indeed I think (with the pre-97 boundary changes) it was actually a notional hold in 1997.’
That’s my point
Mr Harper has done well to push his majority up to 11,000+ in what ought to be a marginal seat – but in 97 the Tories lost quite a few seats where in 92 they had majorities over 15,000
We’ll have to see how things pan out – I’m not convinced Labour’s current opinion poll lead will hold – but whatever happens i don’t see this seat as a ‘permanent goner’
I think another Labour victory in this seat is unlikely, unless there is a landslide.
I agree & have said so before, Joe. This seat has had slow but constant demographic change ever since the mines closed here several decades ago, and Dennis Potter, a Labour supporter who came from here, even in the 70s wrote of his “changing forest”. Although some ex-mining villages & small towns are still Labour-inclined, the important town of Lydney seems to have moved from being a Labour to a clearly Tory town, and it isn’t alone. The below-average Labour results in 1997 (as TIm suggests) and 2001 were followed by further significant shifts to the Tories and I would be surprised if Labour ever wins the seat again. Even if 1997 were repeated, it now looks as if Labour would fall slightly short, and there will be further demographic change in favour of the Tories before any future election too.
This is probably the case,
but one should be wary of extrapolating long term demographic trends as though they are some political force which in the end over-rides everything else. They might be,
but political perceptions of the parties can change over decades too and be intermingled with the demographic part of political trends.
That said, I think Barnaby, Pete, and I are of similar view about this seat,
although I could just see Labour winning here if there was some very unpopular Tory government again in the future.
Perhaps the boundaries will be little altered.
This seat shares some characteristics with Monmouth over the border.
‘This seat shares some characteristics with Monmouth over the border.’
Which has also become increasingly Conservative over the last 20-30 years
Results are just in for the local elections and the Conservatives have lost control of the council. According to the national BBC site, the council is an NOC hold. On paper it looks as if it was NOC just before the election – due to a number of defections from the Conservatives to Independent, the party ended up just short of a controlling majority. However, due to 2 councillors (one Labour, one Independent) being too ill to turn up for meetings, the Cons clung on to power.
So for this election, big gains for Labour, the LibDems sinking from 3 to 1, and two Greens almost – but not quite – getting in. The Cons lost out certainly due to their reluctance to support the Hands Off Our Forest anti-sell-off campaign, by staying loyal to Mark Harper MP, and doing their best to scupper and water down motions against sell-off in the council chamber. But I’m surprised they didn’t get more of a thrashing. I’m also surprised the Independents didn’t make gains. The LibDems’ suffering was nationally related, rather than any local issues.
It remains to be seen whether Mark Harper’s 11,000 majority will be overturned come 2015. Judging by this election result, I doubt it.
Yes, a fairly good night for Labour in the local elections in May 2011 in the Forest of Dean.
Although it doesn’t look like a bad Conservative result either, there is clearly quite a sticky Labour vote here, and not just in the towns.
Whereas it looks like the Tories will hold on for some time to come, I think the idea that Labour couldn’t ever win here again (sometimes even confirmed by their supporters) does seem premature.
This is not some typical southern seat but in parts resembles touches of a South Wales valley.
Result of the Berry Hill by-election last night :
Labour 276
Conservative 102
UKIP 85
Lab Hold
Has there REALLY been nothing of interest to discuss here since february 2011?
Still a safe Tory seat, I feel.
Although I have not been very happy with Mark Harper as a minister. He was usually called upon to ‘defend the indefensible’ with regards the AV referendum, House of Lords reform and the boundary changes bill (with the initial proposition to pair the Isle of Wight with the mainland). Its not something that would especially affect his vote here though.