The visit of Gordon Brown today emphasises the importance of this ultra marginal. A recent MORI poll of 57 Labour-Conservative marginals shows the two parties tied at 36 per cent with the Lib Dems on 20 per cent.
There aren't that many special local factors in the constituency, even though local issues have featured in the campaign. The incumbent MP, James Plaskitt, has been an assiduous enough constituency MP, but is not a political high flyer. Any incumbency factor may have been offset by the vigorous and long-term campaign mounted by Chris White for the Conservatives.
Given their lack of presence in the constituency, and the fact that it is a Conservative-Labour marginal means that the Liberal Democrats are likely to poll below their national vote share.
The Labour majority was 266 in 2005, but the transfer of three predominantly Conservative wards to the new Kenilworth and Southam constituency gives a notional Labour majority of 4,393. There would need to be a swing to the Conservatives from Labour of over 5 per cent for them to win the seat. If they did, it would mean a slender Conservative overall majority, but because there will not be uniform national swing, they could win the seat and not have an overall majority.
I will be on the plane to the States on Thursday and my vote has already been cast. Will Chris White be on a Chiltern Railways train to London on Friday afternoon with a piece of his election literature to prove that he is the new member for Warwick and Leamington? Or will James Plaskitt resume his duties? I am genuinely uncertain, but the local Conservatives appear to be quietly confident. So my guess is a majority of 828 for Chris White.
Showing posts with label James Plaskitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Plaskitt. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Sunday, 25 April 2010
An incumbency effect?
The conventional wisdom is that personal votes don't count for much in British elections, although they might matter more in Northern Ireland or for incumbent Lib Dem and Nationalist MPs.
However, in the latest Economist Bagehot suggests that it may matter more in the wake of the expenses scandal. 'More than in previous campaigns, it seems, Britons want to know who, precisely, is asking for their vote ... this campaign is uniquely presidential and intensely local.'
James Plaskitt was elected as MP for Warwick and Leamington in 1997. He was educated at Oxford and was a politics lecturer there and at Brunel. He subsequently worked for consultants Oxford Analytica for whom many academics (including myself) undertake work.
He became leader of the Labour group on Oxfordshire County Council and contested the safe Conservative seat of Witney in 1992.
James Plaskitt has been an assiduous constituency caseworker and this is reflected in his campaign literature where he claims to be 'the stronger voice'. A strong Labour loyalist, he was eventually rewarded with a post on the lowest rank of the ministerial ladder as a 'pussy' in Work and Pensions. He was given something of a bed of nails with responsibility for the Child Support Agency and he was eventually let go in a reshuffle. There was some vague talk in one of his columns in the local press about some other post which would require legislation but nothing ever came of it. Some constituents have expressed disappointment to me that a Warwick and Leamington MP has not made a greater impact.
The literature I have seen emphasises the need to 'Secure the Recovery'. On the cover are a picture of the MP with what are presumably two apprentices, emphasising the skills building element of the Labour approach. Most of the internal matter is about the economy and public services, but a constituent also gives a testimony to Plaskitt's hard work. Voters are urged not to let Dave Cameron endanger a fragile recovery.
James Plaskitt has not been tarnished by the expenses scandal. He has issued a series of regular letters to constituents on policy areas in which they are interested, but I found these rather uninspiring. They were essentially long lists of legislative measures undertaken by the Government. Passing a piece of legislation does not solve a problem, indeed one could argue that there is too much legislation and we need to move away from the legislative factory approach (which the EU has tried to do, admittedly with limited success).
I think that voters expect constituency casework as a given these days. Plaskitt has not been high profile enough to generate a big personal vote, but he may pick up some votes from grateful constituents whose problems have been solved. But not many.
However, in the latest Economist Bagehot suggests that it may matter more in the wake of the expenses scandal. 'More than in previous campaigns, it seems, Britons want to know who, precisely, is asking for their vote ... this campaign is uniquely presidential and intensely local.'
James Plaskitt was elected as MP for Warwick and Leamington in 1997. He was educated at Oxford and was a politics lecturer there and at Brunel. He subsequently worked for consultants Oxford Analytica for whom many academics (including myself) undertake work.
He became leader of the Labour group on Oxfordshire County Council and contested the safe Conservative seat of Witney in 1992.
James Plaskitt has been an assiduous constituency caseworker and this is reflected in his campaign literature where he claims to be 'the stronger voice'. A strong Labour loyalist, he was eventually rewarded with a post on the lowest rank of the ministerial ladder as a 'pussy' in Work and Pensions. He was given something of a bed of nails with responsibility for the Child Support Agency and he was eventually let go in a reshuffle. There was some vague talk in one of his columns in the local press about some other post which would require legislation but nothing ever came of it. Some constituents have expressed disappointment to me that a Warwick and Leamington MP has not made a greater impact.
The literature I have seen emphasises the need to 'Secure the Recovery'. On the cover are a picture of the MP with what are presumably two apprentices, emphasising the skills building element of the Labour approach. Most of the internal matter is about the economy and public services, but a constituent also gives a testimony to Plaskitt's hard work. Voters are urged not to let Dave Cameron endanger a fragile recovery.
James Plaskitt has not been tarnished by the expenses scandal. He has issued a series of regular letters to constituents on policy areas in which they are interested, but I found these rather uninspiring. They were essentially long lists of legislative measures undertaken by the Government. Passing a piece of legislation does not solve a problem, indeed one could argue that there is too much legislation and we need to move away from the legislative factory approach (which the EU has tried to do, admittedly with limited success).
I think that voters expect constituency casework as a given these days. Plaskitt has not been high profile enough to generate a big personal vote, but he may pick up some votes from grateful constituents whose problems have been solved. But not many.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Yo it's Dave
Dave Cameron came to Leamington on Monday for a 'town hall meeting' with voters. I applied for a ticket, but didn't make the cut. However, there does seem to have been a cross-section of voters there and Dave seems to have given straightforward answers to their questions.
I would like to have seen him in person, as I can't quite work him out. I always thought one of the keys to Tony Blair were his rather fervent religious views and the sense of moral superiority that gave him, leading him to believe that he was entitled to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the absence of any UN mandate. As Private Eye put it this week, 'I would have invaded Iraq even if Dubya had not told me to.' I was never swept up in the enthusiasm for Blair in 1997 and voted 'None of the Above'.
Dave is a 'bells and smells' but nevertheless doubting Anglican. What does one make of that? Is he just interested in power for its own sake? Some compare him with Harold Macmillan, but I am reading a new biography of Super Mac and basically he was a devious old rogue, even though some of his decisions were right and he did have to put up with being cuckolded by Bob Boothby.
I think that Dave believes he can genuinely do a better job than Labour (which some would argue is not difficult) and does really think he can make Britain a better place. He comes across as a more likeable person than the Boy George who comes across as both nasty and incompetent. Let's hope Nick Macpherson (Eton and Balliol) stays on as permanent secretary at the Treasury.
The president of the students' union at Warwick did get in and asked Dave a neutral question about whether students would get a better deal under the Conservatives. Dave was honest enough to say that, in effect, they wouldn't.
What I was less happy about was the point scoring rhetoric which I - and probably other voters who are not very partisan - find a real turn off. Labour was described as a 'dishonest and sick' organisation. Now it is certainly the case that Labour has been economical with the actualité, although spin is nothing new (Lloyd George started the modern form). But sick?
He also argued that Britain had become 'the laughing stock of the world' because of its deficits. I am critical of the way Labour has handled fiscal policy as many economists have been for some time. However, the fact that Britain is slow to get out of the recession may have as much to do with our very large financial sector as with Labour's policy errors. In the meantime, talking Britain down doesn't help, even if Dave thinks he is getting his excuses ready for when he is prime minister.
In the Total Politics guide to the 2010 election, Warwick and Leamington is singled out as a key constituency which the Conservatives must win. The actual majority for Labour's James Plaskitt in 2005 was 266, but redistricting makes the notional majority 4,393 or 10.3 per cent. It's going to be a re-match between the incumbent and the very smart Conservative candidate Chris White. We shall be following the contest as the election approaches.
I would like to have seen him in person, as I can't quite work him out. I always thought one of the keys to Tony Blair were his rather fervent religious views and the sense of moral superiority that gave him, leading him to believe that he was entitled to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the absence of any UN mandate. As Private Eye put it this week, 'I would have invaded Iraq even if Dubya had not told me to.' I was never swept up in the enthusiasm for Blair in 1997 and voted 'None of the Above'.
Dave is a 'bells and smells' but nevertheless doubting Anglican. What does one make of that? Is he just interested in power for its own sake? Some compare him with Harold Macmillan, but I am reading a new biography of Super Mac and basically he was a devious old rogue, even though some of his decisions were right and he did have to put up with being cuckolded by Bob Boothby.
I think that Dave believes he can genuinely do a better job than Labour (which some would argue is not difficult) and does really think he can make Britain a better place. He comes across as a more likeable person than the Boy George who comes across as both nasty and incompetent. Let's hope Nick Macpherson (Eton and Balliol) stays on as permanent secretary at the Treasury.
The president of the students' union at Warwick did get in and asked Dave a neutral question about whether students would get a better deal under the Conservatives. Dave was honest enough to say that, in effect, they wouldn't.
What I was less happy about was the point scoring rhetoric which I - and probably other voters who are not very partisan - find a real turn off. Labour was described as a 'dishonest and sick' organisation. Now it is certainly the case that Labour has been economical with the actualité, although spin is nothing new (Lloyd George started the modern form). But sick?
He also argued that Britain had become 'the laughing stock of the world' because of its deficits. I am critical of the way Labour has handled fiscal policy as many economists have been for some time. However, the fact that Britain is slow to get out of the recession may have as much to do with our very large financial sector as with Labour's policy errors. In the meantime, talking Britain down doesn't help, even if Dave thinks he is getting his excuses ready for when he is prime minister.
In the Total Politics guide to the 2010 election, Warwick and Leamington is singled out as a key constituency which the Conservatives must win. The actual majority for Labour's James Plaskitt in 2005 was 266, but redistricting makes the notional majority 4,393 or 10.3 per cent. It's going to be a re-match between the incumbent and the very smart Conservative candidate Chris White. We shall be following the contest as the election approaches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)