.

Twickenham

180

2005 Results:
Liberal Democrat: 26696 (51.6%)
Conservative: 16731 (32.4%)
Labour: 5868 (11.4%)
Other: 2392 (4.6%)
Majority: 9965 (19.3%)

2001 Result
Conservative: 16689 (33.4%)
Labour: 6903 (13.8%)
Liberal Democrat: 24344 (48.7%)
UKIP: 579 (1.2%)
Green: 1423 (2.8%)
Majority: 7655 (15.3%)

1997 Result
Conservative: 21956 (37.8%)
Labour: 9065 (15.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 26237 (45.1%)
Other: 886 (1.5%)
Majority: 4281 (7.4%)

No Boundary Changes:

Profile:

portraitOutgoing MP: Vincent Cable(Liberal Democrat) born 1943, York. Educated at Nunthorpe Grammar and Cambridge University, with a doctorate in Economics from Glasgow University. Former Chief Economist for Shell. A former Labour party member, councillor and special advisor to John Smith, he joined the SDP in the 1980s. Glasgow councillor 1971-1974. Contested York 1983, 1987, Twickenham 1992. MP for Twickenham since 1997. Lib Dem shadow chancellor since 2003 and Deputy leader since 2006, he served as acting leader of the party following Ming Campbell`s resignation in 2007 (more information at They work for you)

Candidates:
portraitDeborah Thomas (Conservative) born Kew. Educated at Cambridge University. Chartered Accountant, working as as project consultant for AMV. Contested Birmingham Hodge Hill in 2005.
portraitBrian Tomlinson (Labour) lawyer. Young Fabians Labour Party and Trade Union Liaison Officer.
portraitVincent Cable(Liberal Democrat) born 1943, York. Educated at Nunthorpe Grammar and Cambridge University, with a doctorate in Economics from Glasgow University. Former Chief Economist for Shell. A former Labour party member, councillor and special advisor to John Smith, he joined the SDP in the 1980s. Glasgow councillor 1971-1974. Contested York 1983, 1987, Twickenham 1992. MP for Twickenham since 1997. Lib Dem shadow chancellor since 2003 and Deputy leader since 2006, he served as acting leader of the party following Ming Campbell`s resignation in 2007 (more information at They work for you)
portraitSteve Roest (Green) Runs a green car company and is UK Director for the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

2001 Census Demographics

Total 2001 Population: 103675
Male: 48.4%
Female: 51.6%
Under 18: 21%
Over 60: 17.3%
Born outside UK: 16.3%
White: 90.8%
Black: 0.9%
Asian: 4.4%
Mixed: 2.1%
Other: 1.8%
Christian: 66.2%
Hindu: 1.6%
Jewish: 0.6%
Muslim: 2.2%
Sikh: 0.9%
Full time students: 4.9%
Graduates 16-74: 41%
No Qualifications 16-74: 14.9%
Owner-Occupied: 73.1%
Social Housing: 10.4% (Council: 3.9%, Housing Ass.: 6.4%)
Privately Rented: 13.3%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.6%

192 Responses to “Twickenham”

Pages:« 19 10 11 12 [13] Show All

  1. Morale is very important. i think parties can only win difficult seats if they believe it’s possible to begin with.

  2. No result is certain, and the electorate decides them at the time, so there’s no need to issue a categorical statement about whether you realistically can win or not in advance.
    So I fail to understand why Kieran thinks it’s such a problem. You don’t have to force the issue on the spot like that, and the reverse point can be put saying it’s rather presumptious for any party to assume they are definitely going to win any seat, or that another party can’t.

    The second point is it’s very important for parties to register a respectable total in weaker areas, particuarly the two which can win general elections, even if they don’t win seats.

  3. I take on board the points made by Joe and Andy, indeed I have agreed with the point made in Joe’s last paragraph on several occasions. This whole issue is why I have a liking for expressing a view about a particular seat via the medium of betting odds. To me this acknowledges the fact that there is a theoretical chance of any outcome on any seat (because, as Joe says, no votes have yet been cast), but also has the added bonus of stripping away the bs and boiling everything down to cold, hard figures.

    Sooner or later though you get to a stage where the odds on a party winning a seat are so long as to almost make a particular possibility not worth considering; like say the chances of Chesterfield FC winning the FA Cup. i would make a Tory win here more likely than that; probably about as likely as a Tory win in Sheffield Hallam (although the Tory performance at local elections here is better than that in Sheffield). I wouldn’t be willing to offer odds better than 1-8 about a Lib Dem hold here.

  4. Which seats have included the present-day electoral ward of St Margarets and Twickenham North? I’m guessing it was in Uxbridge to 1918, Spelthorne to 1945, Twickenham since.

  5. There’s been a Twickenham constituency since 1918 so that isn’t right. Until relatively modern times, odd though it now seems, Twickenham was regarded as a sub-area of Brentford; was there perhaps a Brentford-based seat before 1918? If so Twickenham would have been in it.

  6. Twickenham itself (and therefore the ward Harry is asking about) was indeed in Brentford before 1918. This seat included Hounslow, Heston and Isleworth and also Southall. The sothern half of this seat however (that is the Hamptons and Teddington) were in Uxbridge 1885-1918 and in Spelthorne 1918-1945.
    The 1918 Twickenham seat was essentially a redrawn and renamed Brentford seat losing Brentford itself to a new Brentford seat (which took Chiswick from Ealing) and losing Southall to Uxbridge.
    In 1945 Heston & Isleworth was carved out of Twickenham and the Twickenham seat annexed the Hampton and Teddington areas from Spelthorne to adopt the same form as it has today.

  7. Thanks Pete that’s extremely interesting, as you usually are. I must bone up on my local history! I am amazed that the Hamptons & Teddington were ever in Uxbridge for Parliamentary purposes, but then the communities are linked by the A312 – one of the main roads in the Hamptons is in fact Uxbridge Road.

  8. As Pete has said before the Uxbridge seat 1885-1918 covered a lot of the western side of the present day Greater London area. There must be dozens of current seats which were either partly or wholly in that Uxbridge seat in 1885-1918.

  9. I should have added (and will do so before corrected by some pedant) that Hanwell was also part of the pre-1918 Brentford seat. This area was also removed then and placed, rather bizzarely in the Harrow division which also included Wembley and Greenford but strangely not most of Harrow borough – Stanmore, Harrow Weald and Pinner were in the Hendon seat.

  10. Indeed not quite dozens but of the current constituencies the whole of Uxbridge, Hayes & Harlington, Ruislip Northwood and Spelthorne plus substantial chunks of Ealing North (Northolt), Feltham & Heston (Feltham) and Twickenham (Hampton).
    There is also a small area around Poyle which is now in the Windsor seat.

  11. On September 15th last year I said that Twickenham was scheduled to count on the Friday morning/afternoon.

    I’m pleased to say that they’ve changed their minds according to the latest Electoral Commission publication. Twickenham will now be counting on the night, along with Richmond Park. Kingston and Surbiton are still undecided however.

  12. Jeremy Hanley, in his maiden speech in 1983, said that his new constituency of Richmond and Barnes included the St Margarets area, which had been transferred from Twickenham. I think that contradicts what has been said upthread, although I was asking about a ward and not an area. Could someone clarify please?

  13. Jeremy Hanley, in his 1983 maiden speech, said that his new constituency of Richmond and Barnes included the St Margarets area, which had been transferred from Twickenham. I think that contradicts what has been said upthread, although I was asking about a ward and not an area. Could someone clarify please?

  14. Richmond & Barnes from 1983 to 1997 included the then East Twickenham ward which included the St Margaret’s area. This ward was returned to Twickenham in 1997

  15. Yes the boundary change was basically hated by all parties & it’s hard to see a constituency in the future crossing the river Thames and including parts of both Richmond & Twickenham. The present arrangement makes more sense especially as there isn’t a very clearly-defined border between Richmond-upon-Thames & Kingston-upon-Thames boroughs; for example, there’s a borough boundary right in the middle of a suburban parade of shops just South of Ham Common.

Pages: « 19 10 11 12 [13] Show All

Leave a Reply

NB: Before commenting please make sure you are familiar with the Comments Policy. UKPollingReport is a site for non-partisan discussion of elections and polls.

You are currently not registered or not logged into UKPolling Report. Registration is voluntary, but STRONGLY encouraged - it means you don't need to type in your details, you don't have the annoying Captcha thing and your comments can appear in party colours if you wish. You can register or login here.