Mole Valley
2010 Results:
Conservative: 31263 (57.55%)
Labour: 3804 (7%)
Liberal Democrat: 15610 (28.73%)
UKIP: 2752 (5.07%)
Green: 895 (1.65%)
Majority: 15653 (28.82%)
2005 Results:
Conservative: 27060 (54.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 15063 (30.5%)
Labour: 5310 (10.7%)
Other: 1982 (4%)
Majority: 11997 (24.3%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 23790 (50.5%)
Labour: 7837 (16.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 13637 (29%)
UKIP: 1333 (2.8%)
Other: 475 (1%)
Majority: 10153 (21.6%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 26178 (48%)
Labour: 8057 (14.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 15957 (29.3%)
Referendum: 2424 (4.4%)
Other: 1908 (3.5%)
Majority: 10221 (18.7%)
No Boundary Changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Paul Beresford(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)
Paul Beresford(Conservative) (more information at They work for you)James Dove (Labour) Alice Humphreys (Liberal Democrat) Rob Sedgwick (Green)Leigh Jones (UKIP)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89741
Male: 48.6%
Female: 51.4%
Under 18: 21.2%
Over 60: 24.4%
Born outside UK: 8.2%
White: 97.5%
Black: 0.3%
Asian: 0.8%
Mixed: 0.9%
Other: 0.6%
Christian: 75.9%
Full time students: 2.1%
Graduates 16-74: 28.7%
No Qualifications 16-74: 18.8%
Owner-Occupied: 76.6%
Social Housing: 12.5% (Council: 10.5%, Housing Ass.: 2%)
Privately Rented: 7.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 4.5%
Paul Beresford wasn’t popular as MP for Croydon Central. When his seat merged into Croydon NE for the 1997 election he lost the selection overwhelmingly to David Congdon, who whilst hardly being one to set the world on fire, had been a long serving councillor in Croydon and had a much deeper local base.
It was to Beresford’s benefit as Congdon lost to Labour twice in Croydon, before giving up politics, whilst Beresford got the candidacy in Mole Valley.
Paul Beresford is quite low profile and I’m not sure on what wing of the Tory Party he stands
He’s a loyal Thatcherite and Wandsworth councillor but at the same time he backed Ken Clarke for the leadership on the three occasiuons he contested it
I can’t be alone in thinking he would have had a bigger impact on the Tories than he has
At the end of the day he was probably too old when he became an MP to make it big. These days you need to be in your late 30s-early 40s to get on the ministerial fast stream, and it’s an advantage if you’ve been a special advisor or policy wonk.
Like others who became Tory MPs later in life after a long career in local government, Beresford is languishing on the back benches.
Bob Neill is a noteworthy exception.
Perhaps a high profile leader of a Council who has done something tangible finds they can do less at national level and they have too much to live up to.
Quite a lot of people supported Ken Clarke because he has leadership qualities and economic credibility
(even though his views on Europe and crime are a concern).
The Tories had very little after Black Wednesday in 1992, and particularly when all the credit for the upturn passed to New Labour in 1997 onwards.
So that is why I backed him.
I voted for him as well, but I have gone off him somewhat.
I mostly agree with him on Europe, but he is needlessly discouteous and dismissive of his critics and too lazy to master the details of his case.
He could have compromised with his party instead of enraging it, and thereby been a formidable and popular leader who could have saved this country from the last few calamitous years of Blair and Brown.
But it was not to be.
My admiration for Clarke has diminished further since he has been let loose on the Home Office.
He should have stayed at the business dept, or he could have madea popular leader of the house. He would also be a great Speaker.
yes…hmm.
He does seem to quite like winding his party up, not just about Europe,
but now against perfectly moderate concerns and questions about crime (not hang’em etc.).
That together with not reading the detail of things is a sign of being tired.
But I still like him.
‘He could have compromised with his party instead of enraging it’
How did Clarke enrage his party?
I can understand some backbench Tory MPs disliking his ‘soft’ approach to crime but I assume you are refering to his views on Europe, which is strange because unlike the rest of his party Clarke has remained consistent on Europe – being as supportive of it now as he and his fellow Tories were in the 1970s
It sounds implausible now but it’s worth remembeing that before their drubbing in 1997, there were plenty of Tory MPs who were as pro-Europe as Clarke
It was only after 97 that the Tories officially became a Euroskeptic party
‘My admiration for Clarke has diminished further since he has been let loose on the Home Office.
He should have stayed at the business dept’
It was a stupid job to give him and i can’t help thinking that maybe Cameron was hoing that placing him as Justice Minister would dimish his credibility further with his own party
He should have been made Chancellor again. He could run rings round George Osbourne and is almost universally considered as one of the best Chancellors in the history of this country – handing over to the Labour Party an ecomomy in rude health
I agree with you Clarke would be a better chancellor than Osborne.
Unfortunately the Cameroons and the wider Tory party would not have been able to accept it.
I basically agree with Clarke’s pro-European position. It’s just that he goes out of his way to be abrasive when discussing it, which lost him the chance to lead the party.
The compromises he has agreed to now – that basically there’s no chance of us being part of the Euro in the medium term so why argue about it – he should have swallowed years ago and saved the country from the last few years of Blair and Brown.
‘Unfortunately the Cameroons and the wider Tory party would not have been able to accept it.’
I wasn’t trying to suggest it has a fair chance of happening – it clearly doesn’t – but polls still show Clarke and Cable as the most popular cabinet ministers with the public – so the Justice Secretaries proposals on prisons – which go well against the line the majority of the public take – doesn’t seem to have damaged him too greatly – not with the public anyway
I am the first to say that Osburne has been nowhere near the disaster people like myself feared he might be as Chancellor, but I can’t see him ever shedding his image of a spoilt public school boy – and unlike Cameron, I can’t see the public ever warming to him
He has compromised his position on Europe to an extent – but we all know Clarke’s pro-European views and i find it refreshing that he’s not willing to change his opinion on the EU – unlike some of his colleagues who have changed their views simply to fit in with their party’s grassroots – Michael Ancram being the best example
In stark contrast to many of their recent performances, yesterday’s by-election produced a convincing LD hold under great Tory pressure:
Mole Valley DC, Bookham South
LD 1043 (47.2; +2.6)
Con 940 (42.5; -4.4)
UKIP 228 (10.3; +1.8)
Majority 103
Turnout 47.42%
LD hold
Percentage change is since May 2011.
I happened to drive through this area a week ago when returning my friend from an evening out in country pubs, and it was plastered with Tory posters with a much smaller number of LD ones. It’s a very prosperous owner-occupied area which is generally typical of Surrey (though not ostentatiously wealthy like e.g. Virginia Water or certain parts of Camberley) and it has to go down as a very good result for the LDs to hold on. I do think that the dreaded ticket-splitting does go on in this part of the world a bit; I suspect quite a lot of people prefer LD councillors but still vote Conservative for Westminster.
“In stark contrast to many of their recent performances, yesterday’s by-election produced a convincing LD hold under great Tory pressure”
Although with no Labour candidate in this case for Lib Dem voters to move to you will notice.
Well I can’t argue with that obviously. But I don’t reckon that the LD vote is mainly an ex-Labour one in this particular district. Labour has been very weak in Mole Valley for many years, and has not had more than a single seat for as long as I can remember (I think it was in North Leatherhead though I could well be wrong). I suspect the LDs might have scraped home even if Labour had stood though it would have been very close, such is Labour’s weakness in most of this area.
That is a good result for the LibDems….at least it shows that they are still politically competitive.
I second your view Barnaby – people in this part of Surrey must prefer Lib Dems on a local level but vote Tory during General Elections.
This worked the opposite way round in Waltham Forest where people voted Lib Dems on a local level and Labour nationally.
It also looks like UKIP took some votes which would have probably been given to the Tories if they didnt stand here.
“But I don’t reckon that the LD vote is mainly an ex-Labour one in this particular district. Labour has been very weak in Mole Valley for many years, and has not had more than a single seat for as long as I can remember ”
Indeed, I wouldn’t have suggested for a moment that the Lib Dem vote is an ex-Labour one here. However, we have seen a lot of movement between Lib Dems and Labour in other wards where both candidates have stood and not only in areas where the Lib Dems originally won their seats as a result of attracting Labour votes.
Having said that, it does seem that in Lib-Dem Tory contests in the south, the Lib dems are not collapsing but only falling moderately. This is in stark contrast to their performance in the north and in the larger urban areas.
I’d say it’s more the case that the LDs are better organised in by elections in the south of England because they often get their vote out on a low(er) turnout.
We’ve seen this in places like Windsor and Tunbridge Wells as well.
The Lib dems did of course get wiped out in neighbouring Waverley this year.
Still they seem very resilient in Mole Valley so it’s hard to make any definitive claims.
Mole Valley is an attractive name,
although I think it would be nice to have the Dorking name restored
which disappeared in 1983.
The Epsom and Ewell seat was somewhat over-sized in 1979 and lost Leatherhead subsequently, hence the name change to Mole Valley.
Perhaps Dorking and Leatherhead would be appt.
It’s one of so many seats which have kept the name of the local authority. There are a lot where the uninitiated won’t know where it is – this is a good example of that. Perhaps the worst is Castle Point. At least this seat is named after a specific river.
I still haven’t managed to find out who that candidate was (in another seat) in 1997 who ran a dentist
and was struck off because they filled the top and the bottom teeth together.
Definitely NOT any one here though.
There are some council estates in Dorking, for example in Chart Downs, built up the hills to the south of the town, in good condition.
I wonder whether they ever sustained a Labour councillor or two in the past, but I think not.
Labour had one councillor in Mole Valley in the late 1980s (perhaps elected 1984/88)
but that was in Leatherhead,
and they would have done poorly in the late 70s in local elections.
LDs have rather more council seats than they should in this area – clearly quite a bit of split voting still.
‘There are a lot where the uninitiated won’t know where it is – this is a good example of that. Perhaps the worst is Castle Point. ‘
Bassetlaw, Wansbeck, Hyndburn, Halton, Wyre Forest and Eddisbury are others I can think of, but I’m sure there are more
Some of those are ancient “hundreds”. The Wansbeck is a river and it’s a longstanding constituency name though it wasn’t used between 1950 & 1983. I’ve never understood the name Halton for the borough or constituency in question – is there an area called Halton in that borough? I’ve never heard of it, perhaps someone could enlighten me. I’m also in the dark about Hyndburn.
There are three wards in the constituency with Halton in the title as well Barnaby. But from what I can tell , they are split between Widnes and Runcorn.
Halton is named after the ancient Halton village in Cheshire with what is left of Halton Castle still remaining.
Hyndburn is named after the River Hyndburn.
As you will all no doubt be aware, Eddisbury takes its name from the eponymous Hundred of Cheshire.
It’s generally these seats named after smaller rivers, local authorities, or former hundreds which are hard to place: Erewash, Meon Valley, Spelthorne, Weaver Vale, and Hertsmere are some others.
But even naming constituencies after towns is tricky in areas with no large or historic places: how many non-locals could place Batley & Spen, Warley, or Filton & Bradley Stoke?
Batley And Spen= Kirklees, West Yorkshire
Warley= Sandwell, West Midlands.
Filton And Bradley Stoke= Avon/ South Gloucestershire.
I like historical or poetic names such as Eddisbury, Elmet, and Mole Valley etc. They are much more lyrical than names which woodenly list major population centres. I don’t mind listing where a constituency consists of two towns for example ‘Stalybridge and Hyde’. But naming ‘Corby’ as ‘Corby and East Northamptonshire’ is just plain clumsy in my view.
One of my favourite ex-constituencies is ‘Barkston Ash’- the’ parent’ seat of Selby and Aintsy, and Elmet. It was named after one of the wapentakes of the West Riding.
One of the most obscure constituency names has to be Ravensbourne.
Even the vast majority of people within the locality (Bromley) have no idea that it is a very obscure and very small local river.
In fact to call the Ravensbourne a river is a massive exaggeration – it’s more like a trickle or a small brook where it goes underneath the road I live on.
I can’t understand why anyone named a parliamentary constituency after such a minor landmark.
Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has to be one of the greatest constituency names ever- Basically told you pretty much what a large extent of the Scottish Borders was.
It also sounded rather nice and tripped off the tongue for such a long and unwieldy name on paper.
there’s a seat in the scottish parliament called almond valley – which conjures up images of rolling pastures and dales until you actually work out it’s essentially livingston
ravensbourne was undoubtedly one of the most obscure – and one wonders what possesed them to change the name from bromley in the first place
i think spellthorne is a nonsense too. i hail from the other side of surrey but no one i know from the sunbury and staines area refers to the area as spellthorne
the same is true of delyn in north wales
Probably because (I think) Bromley was split between the Ravesbourne and Chislehurst constituencies at that time. So it was difficult to come up with an alternative name for the Ravensbourne division.
“Probably because (I think) Bromley was split between the Ravesbourne and Chislehurst constituencies at that time.”
The town centre of Bromley was wholly within Ravensbourne.
However a larger part of the constituency population was focused on West Wickham and Biggin Hil than on Bromley town and its environsl. That’s probably why they changed the name.
Even though Bromley is named in a constituency today, some of its suburbs are in different constituencies (Beckenham, and arguably Lewisham East).
Biggin Hill wasn’t included when the seat was first created – it was a very small seat with an electorate of only 48,000 and consisted of three wards of Bromly proper (the then Bromley Common, Keston & Hayes and Matin’s Hill & Town wards) together with the then two West Wickham wards. Biggin Hill and Darwen were added in 1983. But of course Bickley and Plaistow & Sundridge were then placed in Chislehurst so that was about 40% or more of Bromley proper so that probably was the reason. Given though that the tendency then was to preface all London seats with the name of the borough (thus you had Bromley, Chislehurst, Bromley, Orpington etc) it would have made more sense to call this Bromley Central as it both included the town centre of Bromley as HH says and occupied the geographical centre of the borough of Bromley. That name might not have worked so well after 1983 however