Hastings and Rye
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 18528 (40.7%)
Conservative: 17323 (38.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 7229 (15.9%)
Other: 2418 (5.3%)
Majority: 1205 (2.6%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 16081 (37.4%)
Labour: 18107 (42.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 6479 (15.1%)
Green: 1032 (2.4%)
UKIP: 1098 (2.6%)
Other: 207 (0.5%)
Majority: 2026 (4.7%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 15094 (36.6%)
Labour: 19402 (47.1%)
Liberal Democrat: 4266 (10.3%)
UKIP: 911 (2.2%)
Green: 721 (1.7%)
Other: 824 (2%)
Majority: 4308 (10.5%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 14307 (29.2%)
Labour: 16867 (34.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 13717 (28%)
Referendum: 2511 (5.1%)
Other: 1667 (3.4%)
Majority: 2560 (5.2%)
Boundary changes: Loses a small part of Rother Levels ward (the villages of Rye Foreign and Bowler’s Town) but gains the Brede Valley from Bexhill and Battle.
Profile: A seat on the south-east coast at the eastern end of Sussex. Hastings, Rye and small town of Winchelsea are all historic cinque ports. Hastings is naturally best known for the 1066 Battle of Hastings, though the site of the battle is actually in the neighbouring constituency of Bexhill & Battle. It was once an important fishing port (a fishing industry remains, but much reduced) but thrived as a victorian seaside resort. It met with the decline common to most such seaside resorts with the growth of foreign package holidays, falling into deprivation and decline, run down hotels becoming bedsits and accomodation for asylum seekers. More recently Hastings has begun to recover though regeneration and redevelopment projects.
Rye is another historic town and tourist centre, though more genteel with cobbled streets and medieval buildings. To it’s south east is the village of Camber and the brash holiday parks of Camber Sands.
This was an unusual Labour gain in 1997. The Liberal Democrats had been in second place in 1992 and it would have seemed more natural for them to benefit from the anti-Conservative tide. In the event it was the Labour party, possibly as a result of an opinion poll published in the Observer shortly before polling day showing the Labour party best placed to defeat the Conservatives in the seat.
Current MP: Michael Jabez Foster (Labour) born 1946, Hastings. Educated at Hastings Grammar School and Leicester University. Solicitor, specialisting in employment law. Hastings councillor 1970-1977 and 1981-1985. East Sussex County councillor 1974-1997. Contested Hastings February 1974, October 1974, 1979. First elected as MP for Hastings and Rye 1997. PPS to the Attorney General 1999-2005. His unusual middle name is normally included to distinguish him from the other Michael Foster, the anti-fox hunting MP for Worcester who is disambiguated in his own by being referred to as “Michael Foster Worcester” (more information at They work for you)
Candidates: 
Amber Rudd (Conservative) Managing director of a recruitment and consultancy firm. Contested Liverpool Garston 2005. 
Nick Perry (Liberal Democrat) born 1976, St Helens. Educated at Cambridge University. Social worker.
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 102075
Male: 47.8%
Female: 52.2%
Under 18: 22.8%
Over 60: 24.4%
Born outside UK: 5.3%
White: 97.3%
Black: 0.4%
Asian: 0.7%
Mixed: 1.2%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 68.9%
Muslim: 0.7%
Full time students: 2.1%
Graduates 16-74: 14.6%
No Qualifications 16-74: 31.7%
Owner-Occupied: 65.8%
Social Housing: 15.1% (Council: 2.1%, Housing Ass.: 13.1%)
Privately Rented: 15.8%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 10.8%
75 Responses
Pages:« 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
Camber Sands must be Hastings’ own version of Jaywick.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pmPortsmouth South
You have to remember Sean, they all go home again!?
Tim, the town has indeed been in decline though it does have the Old Town & enough historical bits to counterbalance the estates etc. Hastings is also quite isolated so had that slightly parochial outlook. The Lib Dems were also strong in Hastings they took the council in 1996) & up until ‘97 that’s where the non-Tory vote really went. It really was a surprise when Labour took the seat (& for me, living there at the time, very disappointing).
January 8th, 2008 at 8:01 pmNick Perry is the Lib Dem candidate here - a 31 year old social worker.
February 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pmAldershot (Windsor and Glasgow North)
Why did the Lib Dem’s do so badly here in 1997?
This must have been their most disappointing result of all that year.
Statistically, there was more likelyhood of Labour leaping from third place in seats like Edinburgh West (a Labour target in 1992).
February 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pmTwickenham (& Richmond Park,Windsor)
Peter, what’s your prediction here?
February 15th, 2008 at 10:54 pmPeter, we have actually been all over this ground earlier on this thread (I am pretty sure it is here - if not - look on St Albans).
February 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pmThis seat is clearly an extreme case of the Lib Dem vote being squeezed in what has become a Tory/Labour margainal.
With respect to a previous post about 1997, this seat was heavily affected in the 1990s by the decline of Britsh seaside resorts, and the importation of people on benfits into bedsitters 9how many of them will have voted is another matter). In addition, Labour had a strongly locally identified candidate who could pick up votes heavily in a three way marginal where people were disatified by the Tories and actually thinking how to vote. In subsequent elections this seat has been heavily targeted by Government-led local initiatives.
With a majority of 1205, Labour must stand to lose the seat if the next General Election is held at a bad time for them. However, there is an additional question as to where disaffected Labour votes might go. It would appear from local election results that they will go to the Tories, with a continuing squeeze on the Lib Dems. On the other hand, the seat could also go Tory if centrist/Lib Dem tending voters cease to vote labour and return to the Lib Dems.
There has just been discussion for the Eastbourne seat on whether the Lib dems should move activists tactically from this seat to Eastbourne. I have pointed out in relation to this that it is not just the next election that matters. If Labour lose the seat to Labour precedent from 1979/1983/1987 suggests that the Lib Dem vote will stay squeezed, but it might then bounce upwards at the following election: in the nature of things one guesses that Mike Foster would not stand again and in addition voters appear to cease voting tactically for a party that has lost. The Lib Dems would then presumably hope to win in the second election after Labour lost - around 2020!
The previous paragraph looks at possible Lib Dem votes, but as previous post have pointed out this seat has been subject to demographic change, particularly in Hastings itself. However, my suspicion is that this downmarket shift may actually affect the Lib Dem vote more than the Tories, particularly if Cameron’s strategy of moving back towards working-class Conservatism pays off.
Dare I mention the elephant in the room? Issues such as people and drug smuggling are serious concerns in this seat with its proximity to the continent and downmarket housing, even if they are not reflected in census demographics.
February 25th, 2008 at 5:43 pmPortsmouth South
Frederic, I really do have to pick you up on your analysis of this seat, in so much as it really is wholly inaccurate.
To begin with, Hastings had been in decline in the manner of most seaside resorts since the 1960s (remember there was a major Mods v. Rocker running battle here in 1968(?)), changes in the ’90s were actually far less marked than the influx of London overspill onto the new council estates in the ’60s & ’70s. The change in voting patterns was in many ways therefore quite predictable, it was just very slow in catching up with the actual demographics of the town, I have long thought of the borough as being one where it’s natural state would be having a hung council with all the parties having similar representation.
As for the ‘downmarket shift’ this is again out of date. The town is now dragging itself out of the doldrums which were palpably in the 1980’s & early ’90s (another factor I suspect in the ultimate overthrow of the Tory establishment in the town). It is becoming somewhat of a bohemian centre again as it once used to be & people seem to be moving in more than out these days. If the better transport links come to fruition the place would have a lot going for it.
Finally. Elephant in the room?! More like Sun headline circa 1997 (’Hell on Sea’ anyone?). Drugs are certainly an issue, as they are in any town with these demographics. But in the end the only things landed by boat at Hastings are fish so I don’t think direct smuggling is really an issue, not in the way that they would be in Folkestone or Newhaven for example.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:31 pmTwickenham (& Richmond Park,Windsor)
In May 2008, Hastings & Rye had local elections in Hastings council area,
but not the four wards which come from Rother (including Rye), so have added those figures in from May 2007.
Total constituency
CON 13,154 46.6%
LAB 9,102 32.3%
LD 5,105 18.1%
BNP 472 1.7%
IND 268 0.9%
UKIP 120 0.4%
The two components are -
Hastings Council area - May 2008
which was Con 42.5%, Lab 34.5%, LD 19.0%,
BNP 2.1% Ind 1.2% UKIP 0.5%
and Rother from last year - May 2007
Con 62.7% Lab 22.8% LD 14.5%
In Hastings (May 2008), all swings were in favour of the Conservatives against 2004, although several were low, although a couple around 8%,
except for Braybrooke, and Central St Leonards which had a slight swing to Labour.
But there was one Labour gain from the Lib Dems on a 19.1% swing - Castle.
Ore, which mysteriously is the destination of the trains from London, despite being, I understand, a small place, voted Con 50.3% to 34.9% Lab and 14.8% LD this year.
Rye (in Rother) voted 54.5% Con to 45.5% Lab in May 2007.
These results appear to provide better news for Labour, but it will surely be a difficult one to hold.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:04 pmTwickenham (& Richmond Park,Windsor)
I should add, of course, that if the Rother area had voted in 2008 rather than 2007, it could have put the Tories a bit further ahead (than above).
May 11th, 2008 at 4:30 pmBradford South
“These results appear to provide better news for Labour, but it will surely be a difficult one to hold.”
The swing required for a gain here is just 1.3%, less than half of what is was in 2005 (2.9%). Labour could theoretically win the next election without holding this seat. I would be surprised if the Conservatives don’t win by at least 3000.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:21 pmTwickenham (& Richmond Park,Windsor)
Their chances of holding this are not good - the point is the swing is likely to be low.
Labour is about 2 per cent down from 1997 to 2008, although that is partly because the Lib Dems fell away once Labour was established here.
But for Labour to be doing better here than in Bury or Wolverhampton is something of an achievement on a rotten night for the government.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pmRuislip Northwood
To put it another way. the tories were somthing like 20% ahead of Labout on projected national share but the lead is only 14% here which would technically mean that if Labour are ahead nationally or even narrowly behind they would hold on here. I dont think they will but that des illustrate how this seat has swung log term, and is largely a consequence of the collapse of the LD support in what used to be one of their top target seats
May 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pmIf Labour do unexpectedly hold on to a few seats they would otherwise lose this one always has to be near the top of the list of possible candidates.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:22 amI am a local politics student. I know it will be close between Labour and the Conservatives here, but I have been impressed by the Lib Dem candidate, Nick Perry. One to watch for the future I think.
May 15th, 2008 at 11:33 amPages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All