|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 15, 2017 13:02:58 GMT
Three more really interesting elections coming up next week with more potential to spring surprises! I will add the basic data for all 3 soon unless someone better equipped to do so likes to take in on....
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 15, 2017 13:58:45 GMT
Chesterfield BC, Holmebrook Ward
Labour resigned
4 candidates:
Keith Falconer (Lib Dem)
Ron Mihaly (Lab)
Oliver Scheidt ( Conservative)
Paul Stone (Chesterfield Independent)
Election results 2003: LD 1051*/984, Lab 489/484, SocAll 66
Election results 2007: LD 750*/745, Lab 357/350, Con 262
Election results 2011: Lab 760/755, LD 581*/576
Election results 2015: Lab 997/973, LD 555*/515, Con 258, Peace 140
* Keith Falconer was the candidate in each of the starred results.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 15, 2017 14:28:40 GMT
Oadby and Wigston BC, Oadby Uplands Ward
Labour resigned
3 candidates:
Ghattoraya , Kamal (Con)
Kaufman,Lily (LD)
Luke, Matthew William (Lab)
Election results 2003: LD 752/750, Con 400/353, Lab 257/237
Election results 2007: LD 793/673,, Con 415/365, Lab 257/237
Election results 2011: LD 775/762, Con 636/531, Lab 459
Election results 2015 LD 1089/872, Lab 902, Con 835
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 15, 2017 16:19:30 GMT
Waveney DC, Oulton Broad Ward
Conservative died
4 candidates:
Jacklin, Len (Lab)
Robinson, Keith Gordon (Con)
Thomas, Chris (Lib Dem)
Trindall, Phillip Gordon (UKIP)
2002 election results:Con 610/546, Lab 508/460, LD 223
2004 election results: Con 631, Lab 393, LD 248, Green 151
2006 election results: Con 740, Lab 345, LD 150, Green 133
2008 election results: Con 621, Lab 386, LD 182, Green 106
2010 election results: Con 1195, Lab 775, LD 407, Green 145
2011 election results: Con 797/715, Lab577/496,UKIP 193, Green 169, LD 112
2015 election results: Con 1187/880, Lab 821/737, UKIP 628, Green 232
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 15, 2017 20:19:26 GMT
Early thoughts on these 3 by-elections,starting with Oulton Broad. Maybe this should be a good test of the seaside theory- Labour have been dioinf very well close to the sea, as this is ,and proximity to the North Sea with at least a bit of ukippery background, where Labour are always a bit behind but not so hugely... my feeling that this ought to be winnable by Labour in present circumstances, and failure to do so might be a sign that their coastal storm surge is subsiding.
Then the other two , in Chesterfield and in Oadby, are in an odd sort of way rather similar, in that if you go back a decade or so they were both pretty solidly Lib Dem - in each case not perhaps quite the Lib Dem heartland but close enough to be pulled in for some while and then for the dominance to start to slip, post 2010. Interestingly the seats that have come up are the ones that had ceased to be Lib Dem held.I am sure that if the Lib Dems fail to retake these two in a by-election, having lost them when they were overwhelmed in a general election surge, there will be plenty to proclaim the End to be Nigh. My own feeling is that coming back in a former stronghold where maybe the original activists and supporters are ageing and not so easily replaced, can actually be very difficult, harder sometimes than breaking new ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 15, 2017 20:43:13 GMT
Early thoughts on these 3 by-elections,starting with Oulton Broad. Maybe this should be a good test of the seaside theory- Labour have been dioinf very well close to the sea, as this is ,and proximity to the North Sea with at least a bit of ukippery background, where Labour are always a bit behind but not so hugely... my feeling that this ought to be winnable by Labour in present circumstances, and failure to do so might be a sign that their coastal storm surge is subsiding. Then the other two , in Chesterfield and in Oadby, are in an odd sort of way rather similar, in that if you go back a decade or so they were both pretty solidly Lib Dem - in each case not perhaps quite the Lib Dem heartland but close enough to be pulled in for some while and then for the dominance to start to slip, post 2010. Interestingly the seats that have come up are the ones that had ceased to be Lib Dem held.I am sure that if the Lib Dems fail to retake these two in a by-election, having lost them when they were overwhelmed in a general election surge, there will be plenty to proclaim the End to be Nigh. My own feeling is that coming back in a former stronghold where maybe the original activists and supporters are ageing and not so easily replaced, can actually be very difficult, harder sometimes than breaking new ground. Good post and thanks for all the work you do in collating all the results - I for one certainly appreciate it. Oulton Broad has voted Labour before: in 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 - indeed it gave them more than 60% of the vote in 1996. Given those results I was somewhat surprised that Labour didn't come closer to the Conservatives in 2011. And, of course, (I think though I may be wrong) Waveney was unique in being the only Brexit constituency in the entire country when the Labour vote share fell in June. Holmebrook has also voted Conservative before (albeit only in 1976). Given the Tories good performance in Chesterfield at the general election, who knows what could happen, though a Tory win must be vanishingly unlikely. The Tories will certainly be hoping for an increased vote share on 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 16, 2017 8:28:00 GMT
Oulton Broad has voted Labour before: in 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 - indeed it gave them more than 60% of the vote in 1996. Given those results I was somewhat surprised that Labour didn't come closer to the Conservatives in 2011. And, of course, (I think though I may be wrong) Waveney was unique in being the only Brexit constituency in the entire country when the Labour vote share fell in June. Yes when I said Labour was always behind in Oulton Broad I was specifically referring to this century! I am tending only to give past results over this century as being the only ones likely to be relevant in terms of predicting the winner this time. What happened last century is of interest to the historians among us,though, and if I get time I may go back to some wards and add some earlier results where they are likely to be relevant, i.e. where the ward boundaries remain at least approximately the same. As to the relative failure of Labour here in recent years do you know of any changes in the demographics in this area? I can imagine, though have no local knowledge at all, that this is the sort of area which might be attracting growth in retirement developments of the sort that might favour the Tories? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,540
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 16, 2017 10:01:32 GMT
Waveney was one of Labour's most disappointing results in the recent GE, so a gain here now would be even more encouraging than normally.
|
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 16, 2017 14:41:56 GMT
Oulton Broad has voted Labour before: in 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999 - indeed it gave them more than 60% of the vote in 1996. Given those results I was somewhat surprised that Labour didn't come closer to the Conservatives in 2011. And, of course, (I think though I may be wrong) Waveney was unique in being the only Brexit constituency in the entire country when the Labour vote share fell in June. Yes when I said Labour was always behind in Oulton Broad I was specifically referring to this century! I am tending only to give past results over this century as being the only ones likely to be relevant in terms of predicting the winner this time. What happened last century is of interest to the historians among us,though, and if I get time I may go back to some wards and add some earlier results where they are likely to be relevant, i.e. where the ward boundaries remain at least approximately the same. As to the relative failure of Labour here in recent years do you know of any changes in the demographics in this area? I can imagine, though have no local knowledge at all, that this is the sort of area which might be attracting growth in retirement developments of the sort that might favour the Tories? I wasn't criticising you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out for general consumption that Labour do have a history of success in Oulton Broad in the relatively recent history so it wouldn't be political surprise of the century if they won this Thursday. I was going to suggest that maybe the fact that Bob Blizzard wasn't standing this time was responsible for Labour's poor performance, but then if you look at other seats where the previous Labour MP wasn't standing again (e.g Gillingham) Labour's vote share rose if not in line with the national average, at least there was a rise. One can only say that Labour's result in Waveney in 2017 was very poor and I'm not sure if there is a very good explanation for it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 16, 2017 22:34:32 GMT
Yes when I said Labour was always behind in Oulton Broad I was specifically referring to this century! I am tending only to give past results over this century as being the only ones likely to be relevant in terms of predicting the winner this time. What happened last century is of interest to the historians among us,though, and if I get time I may go back to some wards and add some earlier results where they are likely to be relevant, i.e. where the ward boundaries remain at least approximately the same. As to the relative failure of Labour here in recent years do you know of any changes in the demographics in this area? I can imagine, though have no local knowledge at all, that this is the sort of area which might be attracting growth in retirement developments of the sort that might favour the Tories? I wasn't criticising you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out for general consumption that Labour do have a history of success in Oulton Broad in the relatively recent history so it wouldn't be political surprise of the century if they won this Thursday. I was going to suggest that maybe the fact that Bob Blizzard wasn't standing this time was responsible for Labour's poor performance, but then if you look at other seats where the previous Labour MP wasn't standing again (e.g Gillingham) Labour's vote share rose if not in line with the national average, at least there was a rise. One can only say that Labour's result in Waveney in 2017 was very poor and I'm not sure if there is a very good explanation for it. The 1990s Oulton Broad ward jigger was referring to was quite a lot larger than the present one (it was a 3-seat ward, whereas the present ward has 2 councillors) and I suspect that the boundaries of the present ward are better for the Conservatives than the previous edition was. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 16, 2017 22:54:13 GMT
I wasn't criticising you in the slightest. I was merely pointing out for general consumption that Labour do have a history of success in Oulton Broad in the relatively recent history so it wouldn't be political surprise of the century if they won this Thursday. I was going to suggest that maybe the fact that Bob Blizzard wasn't standing this time was responsible for Labour's poor performance, but then if you look at other seats where the previous Labour MP wasn't standing again (e.g Gillingham) Labour's vote share rose if not in line with the national average, at least there was a rise. One can only say that Labour's result in Waveney in 2017 was very poor and I'm not sure if there is a very good explanation for it. The 1990s Oulton Broad ward jigger was referring to was quite a lot larger than the present one (it was a 3-seat ward, whereas the present ward has 2 councillors) and I suspect that the boundaries of the present ward are better for the Conservatives than the previous edition was. Looking on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England website, the present version of Oulton Broad doesn't seem that much different from the previous one. The present version certainly (if I've read the report correctly) isn't smaller - either in area or population - than the old version. The old version (again if I've read the report correctly) of Oulton Broad shed some territory and about 1,300 voters (2000 electorate) to Oulton ward. |
|
|
|
Post by lancyiain on Sept 17, 2017 8:15:15 GMT
The 1990s Oulton Broad ward jigger was referring to was quite a lot larger than the present one (it was a 3-seat ward, whereas the present ward has 2 councillors) and I suspect that the boundaries of the present ward are better for the Conservatives than the previous edition was. Looking on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England website, the present version of Oulton Broad doesn't seem that much different from the previous one. The present version certainly (if I've read the report correctly) isn't smaller - either in area or population - than the old version. The old version (again if I've read the report correctly) of Oulton Broad shed some territory and about 1,300 voters (2000 electorate) to Oulton ward. Perhaps the change is why Oulton is friendlier to Labour than Oulton Broad is. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 17, 2017 9:25:14 GMT
The 1990s Oulton Broad ward jigger was referring to was quite a lot larger than the present one (it was a 3-seat ward, whereas the present ward has 2 councillors) and I suspect that the boundaries of the present ward are better for the Conservatives than the previous edition was. Looking on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England website, the present version of Oulton Broad doesn't seem that much different from the previous one. The present version certainly (if I've read the report correctly) isn't smaller - either in area or population - than the old version. The old version (again if I've read the report correctly) of Oulton Broad shed some territory and about 1,300 voters (2000 electorate) to Oulton ward. can you please give me a date for that review as after a quick scroll I couldn't find it' You seem to be saying Andrew is wrong on a matter of his particular expertise which is fascinating so would like to judge for myself but fell at the first hurdle not finding the report  |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 17, 2017 20:45:54 GMT
Looking on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England website, the present version of Oulton Broad doesn't seem that much different from the previous one. The present version certainly (if I've read the report correctly) isn't smaller - either in area or population - than the old version. The old version (again if I've read the report correctly) of Oulton Broad shed some territory and about 1,300 voters (2000 electorate) to Oulton ward. can you please give me a date for that review as after a quick scroll I couldn't find it' You seem to be saying Andrew is wrong on a matter of his particular expertise which is fascinating so would like to judge for myself but fell at the first hurdle not finding the report The report was published on 26 June 2001. You go on to the LGBCE website, type Waveney into the search box, scroll down to and click on the third option entitled "Waveney" and on that page there should be a link to the last LGBCE review for Waveney. I was surprised as well, but I've just re-read the report and it definitely indicates that the previous version of Oulton Broad ward was bigger in both area and population than the present version. |
|
|
|
Post by lancyiain on Sept 17, 2017 21:48:42 GMT
can you please give me a date for that review as after a quick scroll I couldn't find it' You seem to be saying Andrew is wrong on a matter of his particular expertise which is fascinating so would like to judge for myself but fell at the first hurdle not finding the report The report was published on 26 June 2001. You go on to the LGBCE website, type Waveney into the search box, scroll down to and click on the third option entitled "Waveney" and on that page there should be a link to the last LGBCE review for Waveney. I was surprised as well, but I've just re-read the report and it definitely indicates that the previous version of Oulton Broad ward was bigger in both area and population than the present version. I'm confused. You seem to now be agreeing with what Andrew said about the old ward being bigger in area and population whereas before you seemed to be disagreeing with him, saying that the present version of the ward was not smaller than the old. Am I missing something or have you changed your mind? |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 17, 2017 21:59:26 GMT
The report was published on 26 June 2001. You go on to the LGBCE website, type Waveney into the search box, scroll down to and click on the third option entitled "Waveney" and on that page there should be a link to the last LGBCE review for Waveney. I was surprised as well, but I've just re-read the report and it definitely indicates that the previous version of Oulton Broad ward was bigger in both area and population than the present version. I'm confused. You seem to now be agreeing with what Andrew said about the old ward being bigger in area and population whereas before you seemed to be disagreeing with him, saying that the present version of the ward was not smaller than the old. Am I missing something or have you changed your mind? No sorry - I have changed my mind because I misread the report the first time (which I did warn might be the case given I couldn't believe that andrewteale would make an error like that). The present version of Oulton Broad is smaller than the old version, having shed some territory to Oulton ward. It's not an excuse but I wasn't helped by the table about the old wards being 6 pages further on than the table about the new wards. I owe Andrew a big apology for doubting the veracity of his information and doubting his expertise. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 18, 2017 6:52:57 GMT
No sorry - I have changed my mind because I misread the report the first time (which I did warn might be the case given I couldn't believe that andrewteale would make an error like that). The present version of Oulton Broad is smaller than the old version, having shed some territory to Oulton ward. It's not an excuse but I wasn't helped by the table about the old wards being 6 pages further on than the table about the new wards. I owe Andrew a big apology for doubting the veracity of his information and doubting his expertise. Thank you for that correction and for pointing me to the report- for some reason I had been scrolling through the list of reports and not using the search button, so we can all do silly things! And I'm still trying to learn about all this at my advanced age and you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks. So for the record -the old ward had 5296 electors and the new one 3967, having shed a chunk into Oulton Ward. So I won't add the earlier results for Oulton Broad into the summary as that might be confusing- as if we aren't confused enough already |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 18, 2017 16:07:54 GMT
Thanks to Jigger, I have spent a happy little while looking up the past electoral history of Oulton Broad and Oulton! I can see if you go back to the seventies there were no fewer than 5 councillors in the ward and each time the five Tories were just ahead of five Labour -only a handful of votes between the fifth Tory and the first Labour. Then we changed to three councillors and at first the Tory dominance continued, but Labour broke through in the eighties when you started getting Alliance and then LibDems getting some of the Tory vote, until (as Jigger described it) Labour started winning quite big. Then the 2002 boundary changes reduced the ward to 2 members and took away a third of the electorate. and left the ward reasonably comfortably Tory. Oulton ward, where those electors were transferred, has remained very open -it seems to change hands every time between Tory, Labour and Independent.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 18, 2017 19:07:45 GMT
I'm confused. You seem to now be agreeing with what Andrew said about the old ward being bigger in area and population whereas before you seemed to be disagreeing with him, saying that the present version of the ward was not smaller than the old. Am I missing something or have you changed your mind? No sorry - I have changed my mind because I misread the report the first time (which I did warn might be the case given I couldn't believe that andrewteale would make an error like that). The present version of Oulton Broad is smaller than the old version, having shed some territory to Oulton ward. It's not an excuse but I wasn't helped by the table about the old wards being 6 pages further on than the table about the new wards. I owe Andrew a big apology for doubting the veracity of his information and doubting his expertise. No apology needed. It just so happened I was researching the preview when you were posting yesterday, so I did a check to see whether the previous boundaries were comparable. If they had been comparable, those good Labour performances in the mid-Nineties would have gone into the text. Once you get your head around the format of LGBCE reports from that era they're a little goldmine. Unfortunately the format they use these days isn't quite so helpful in working out the correspondence between old and new wards. For example, take the recent Peterborough review: you'd be hard-pushed to see from the final report that Park ward had unchanged boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 21, 2017 11:33:26 GMT
|
|
