Norwich North
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 19133 (47.5%)
Conservative: 12437 (30.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 6361 (15.8%)
Other: 2339 (5.8%)
Majority: 6696 (16.6%)
Actual 2005 result
Conservative: 15638 (33.2%)
Labour: 21097 (44.9%)
Liberal Democrat: 7616 (16.2%)
Green: 1252 (2.7%)
UKIP: 1122 (2.4%)
Other: 308 (0.7%)
Majority: 5459 (11.6%)
2001 Result
Conservative: 15761 (34.6%)
Labour: 21624 (47.4%)
Liberal Democrat: 6750 (14.8%)
UKIP: 471 (1%)
Green: 797 (1.7%)
Other: 211 (0.5%)
Majority: 5863 (12.9%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 17876 (32.5%)
Labour: 27346 (49.7%)
Liberal Democrat: 6951 (12.6%)
Referendum: 1777 (3.2%)
Other: 1107 (2%)
Majority: 9470 (17.2%)
Boundary changes
Current MP: Ian Gibson (Labour) (more information at They work for you)
Candidates:
Glen Tingle (UKIP)
Chloe Smith (Conservative) Educated at the University of York. Former aide to Gillian Shephard and Bernard Jenkin, now working in professional services.
Bill Holden (no description) Contested Norwich North 2005 as an independent.
2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 83507
Male: 48.8%
Female: 51.2%
Under 18: 20.4%
Over 60: 24%
Born outside UK: 3.5%
White: 98.3%
Black: 0.2%
Asian: 0.5%
Mixed: 0.7%
Other: 0.4%
Christian: 69.2%
Full time students: 2.2%
Graduates 16-74: 12.4%
No Qualifications 16-74: 33.1%
Owner-Occupied: 69.2%
Social Housing: 21.4% (Council: 16.5%, Housing Ass.: 4.9%)
Privately Rented: 6.9%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.1%
There boundary changes in Norwich North must have been pretty drastic in 1983 to turn a Labour majority of 5,591 into a Tory one of 3,371.
They were disastrous boundary changes - he would have known he could not have ‘held’ that seat barring a major Labour recovery, which was never on the cards. I wonder if he tried joining the chicken run seeking out a safer seat elsewhere - he’d have had to travel a long way from Norwich to do so.
I note he was the Liberal candidate for Richmond in 1950 and 1951
Is that who we can blame it on?
These are the results on the 1982-95 boundaries, so the 1979 result is notional.
1979
Con 22,058 46.6%
Lab 18,687 39.5%
Lib 5,899 12.5%
Oths 701 1.5%
C maj 3,371 7.1%
1983 actual change from 1979
Con 21,355 44.7% -1.9%
Lab 15,476 32.4% -7.1%
Lib/A 10,796 22.6% +10.1%
Oth 194 0.4%
C maj 5,879 12.3%
Swing 2.6% from Lab to Con
1987 actual change from 1979
Con 22,772 45.8% -0.8%
Lab 14,996 30.2% -9.3%
Lib/A 11,922 24.0% +11.5%
Con maj 7,776 15.6%
Swing 1.7% from Lab to Con (since 1987)
Swing 4.3% from Lab to Con (since 1979)
Maybe Ennals did have a personal vote, given the low swing in 1983, and the further swing in 1987.
That looks like the explanation as an outsider, if the notional result for 1979 is right.
Even if it isnt, the fact of a straight swing from Labour to Tory in 1987 is undeniable and given that Norwich South swung the other way and Labour actually gained it would suggest as much. In South of course John Garrett who had been MP from 1974 to 1983 regained the seat whereas in North there was a new candidate (Mary Honeyball - I think she was a councillor from some loony left London borough). It could also be a consequence of local Labour devoting most of their resources to winning South.
That may have had an effect, although I can’t speculate as sometimes people don’t particularly notice what wing people are on.
But I suspect someone who believes in destroying businesses by setting the rates to high, and advertising counselling sesssions based on sexual preference in glossy magazines would not go down that well in these parts.
Nevertheless, I think the explanation of Norwich South being the target for 1987 could be part of it.
Labour has done very well indeed to get so far ahead here subsequently. The 1995 boundaries were even more adverse for them, and I think they almost have a safe seat here.
Mary Honeyball, Pete, is now a thoroughly respectable Labour MEP representing London.
Of course I cannot in general associate myself with calling councils “loony left” , especially as a catch-all term for any Labour-controlled council. Pretty sure she was (perhaps still is) from Barnet which was of course not any sort of Labour council, loony-left or otherwise.
to be fair, I know nothing about her.
“Pretty sure she was (perhaps still is) from Barnet which was of course not any sort of Labour council, loony-left or otherwise.”
Indeed - a few years ago, Ken Livingstone referred to Barnet Council as being run by the “loony right”, in response to the council’s policy of removing road humps.
Yes she was on Barnet evidently. I dont know where she stood on the spectrum but that wasnt really part of my case - as Joe says people generally wouldnt be aware of that, but a Labour candidate from outside the area, replacing Ennals personal vote could in part account for the drop in the Labour vote there in 1987 in contrast to Norwich South where the candidate was the former MP. No doubt a higher profile campaign was devoted to South as well.
Intersting that Ken Livingstone labelled Barnet as ‘loony right’ over ths issue of speed humps. says more about him than anything else, and his visceral hatred of motorists which in its reciprocation played no small part in him being trufed out of office this year
Pete is right here. Obviously there was an incumbency factor for David Ennals, and that was lost in 1987, the swing perhaps slightly further accentuated by Honeyball’s not being a local candidate.
The 1983 boundary change was extremely unhelpful for Labour at the time, but the seat as it’s now to be drawn should be a Labour hold though that isn’t certain yet.
The boundary changes this time do favour Labour by adding 5% to the lead.
However, given that both the 1982 and 1995 boundary changes favoured the Tories (remember the 1992 actual result was just 266 but increased back above 2,000),
…
Labour has done extremely well in 1992-2005 to be this far ahead.