|
Post by batman on Jul 2, 2022 22:09:14 GMT
Graham has a bee in his bonnet about Wimbledon which has been flying around in his bonnet for quite some time & hasn't flown away yet. We (Labour) had our chance & blew it in the 2018 local elections, for a number of reasons - but we blew it. I simply don't believe that local election results transfer that directly to a parliamentary election - certainly not a GE.
This reminds me somewhat of Stevenage back in the 1980s. The Alliance with Ben Stoneham as their candidate came close to winning in 1983 - and retained second place in 1987. Despite that Labour went on to win convincingly in 1997.
The Alliance was second in Wimbledon in both 1983 and 1987 - yet Labour won in 1997 and 2001.
the 2018 local elections established the Lib Dems as the main challengers to the Tories in a number of wards. They then cemented this in the 2019 general election, and the Cannon Hill by-election which they won. Your assertion is full of precedent but very light on any reason why Labour can make light of what are clearly generally weakening local circumstances. They're not working it, they won't work it, they won't win. However much you might like to think they would. I'd love to see a Labour MP in Wimbledon again but I'm realistic enough, and familiar enough with the constituency, to know that it's not going to happen next election.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 2, 2022 22:10:20 GMT
(there will continue to be Labour activity in the 2 wards which still have Labour councillors, Abbey & Wandle, and to some extent in Cannon Hill. Not in the rest of the constituency, not meaningful activity anyway.)
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 2, 2022 23:48:46 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 2, 2022 23:48:46 GMT
I simply don't believe that local election results transfer that directly to a parliamentary election - certainly not a GE.
This reminds me somewhat of Stevenage back in the 1980s. The Alliance with Ben Stoneham as their candidate came close to winning in 1983 - and retained second place in 1987. Despite that Labour went on to win convincingly in 1997.
The Alliance was second in Wimbledon in both 1983 and 1987 - yet Labour won in 1997 and 2001.
the 2018 local elections established the Lib Dems as the main challengers to the Tories in a number of wards. They then cemented this in the 2019 general election, and the Cannon Hill by-election which they won. Your assertion is full of precedent but very light on any reason why Labour can make light of what are clearly generally weakening local circumstances. They're not working it, they won't work it, they won't win. However much you might like to think they would. I'd love to see a Labour MP in Wimbledon again but I'm realistic enough, and familiar enough with the constituency, to know that it's not going to happen next election. Frankly if Labour is unable to win the seat next time, it would be in Labour's longer term interests for the Tories to hold on . Eventually voters would become bored with LD pleas for tactical votes - as they did in Stevenage by the 1990s. Better to see that scenario than a repeat of what happened in Carshalton & Wallington from 1983.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 0:13:08 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 3, 2022 0:13:08 GMT
(there will continue to be Labour activity in the 2 wards which still have Labour councillors, Abbey & Wandle, and to some extent in Cannon Hill. Not in the rest of the constituency, not meaningful activity anyway.) I have never quite understood the idea that lack of representation on the Council implies low levels of political activity. Surely political parties do put in a great deal of effort to win seats which they currently do not hold! It is how the Greens often make progress here in Norwich - though that support largely disappears at parliamentary elections. I grew up in an area - Pembrokeshire - where there was little history of candidates at local elections standing under party labels. When I began canvassing there in 1973 over 90% stood as Independents , and when I knocked on doors on behalf of a Labour candidate I often received strange looks and the common response 'What has politics got to do with Local Government?' Candidates wearing a party label were at a considerable disadvantage. It was simply not part of the culture there.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 10:40:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jul 3, 2022 10:40:45 GMT
the 2018 local elections established the Lib Dems as the main challengers to the Tories in a number of wards. They then cemented this in the 2019 general election, and the Cannon Hill by-election which they won. Your assertion is full of precedent but very light on any reason why Labour can make light of what are clearly generally weakening local circumstances. They're not working it, they won't work it, they won't win. However much you might like to think they would. I'd love to see a Labour MP in Wimbledon again but I'm realistic enough, and familiar enough with the constituency, to know that it's not going to happen next election. Frankly if Labour is unable to win the seat next time, it would be in Labour's longer term interests for the Tories to hold on . Eventually voters would become bored with LD pleas for tactical votes - as they did in Stevenage by the 1990s. Better to see that scenario than a repeat of what happened in Carshalton & Wallington from 1983. "Tory's Little Helper" confirms rebranding success...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 10:48:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jul 3, 2022 10:48:15 GMT
(there will continue to be Labour activity in the 2 wards which still have Labour councillors, Abbey & Wandle, and to some extent in Cannon Hill. Not in the rest of the constituency, not meaningful activity anyway.) I have never quite understood the idea that lack of representation on the Council implies low levels of political activity. Surely political parties do put in a great deal of effort to win seats which they currently do not hold! It is how the Greens often make progress here in Norwich - though that support largely disappears at parliamentary elections. I grew up in an area - Pembrokeshire - where there was little history of candidates at local elections standing under party labels. When I began canvassing there in 1973 over 90% stood as Independents , and when I knocked on doors on behalf of a Labour candidate I often received strange looks and the common response 'What has politics got to do with Local Government?' Candidates wearing a party label were at a considerable disadvantage. It was simply not part of the culture there.
Local election results do not affect Tory and Labour votes in General Elections much. However they are pretty much a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Lib Dem success (apart from by-elections, which have their own dynamic), and those votes come from Labour and Conservative. Hence Lib Dem local election success coupled with a very strong second place and quite poor 3rd for Labour do mean that Labour will not make significant progress in Wimbledon, even though their vote share may go up in line with national polls. As things stand, Tory votes will transfer to Lib Dem and the polls would have to change dramatically for the Lib Dems not to win..
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 12:23:47 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 3, 2022 12:23:47 GMT
I have never quite understood the idea that lack of representation on the Council implies low levels of political activity. Surely political parties do put in a great deal of effort to win seats which they currently do not hold! It is how the Greens often make progress here in Norwich - though that support largely disappears at parliamentary elections. I grew up in an area - Pembrokeshire - where there was little history of candidates at local elections standing under party labels. When I began canvassing there in 1973 over 90% stood as Independents , and when I knocked on doors on behalf of a Labour candidate I often received strange looks and the common response 'What has politics got to do with Local Government?' Candidates wearing a party label were at a considerable disadvantage. It was simply not part of the culture there.
Local election results do not affect Tory and Labour votes in General Elections much. However they are pretty much a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Lib Dem success (apart from by-elections, which have their own dynamic), and those votes come from Labour and Conservative. Hence Lib Dem local election success coupled with a very strong second place and quite poor 3rd for Labour do mean that Labour will not make significant progress in Wimbledon, even though their vote share may go up in line with national polls. As things stand, Tory votes will transfer to Lib Dem and the polls would have to change dramatically for the Lib Dems not to win.. I agree with much of that , but would point out that Labour's vote share in Wimbledon in 2019 remained higher than it polled in 1983 - 1987 - and even 1992.Even in such a poor year as 2019,therefore, Labour's vote share was not particularly weak in historical terms. What was different last time was how close the LDs came to winning - which really reflected much greater weakness in the Tory vote than was evident in the earlier elections which had delivered a clear Tory majority nationally. Possibly this was due to the salience of Brexit at the time - with Labour's loss of support relative to 2017 owing quite a bit to the Corbyn factor. I would though question how sustained those influences are likely to prove.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,515
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 13:46:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by Khunanup on Jul 3, 2022 13:46:47 GMT
Local election results do not affect Tory and Labour votes in General Elections much. However they are pretty much a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Lib Dem success (apart from by-elections, which have their own dynamic), and those votes come from Labour and Conservative. Hence Lib Dem local election success coupled with a very strong second place and quite poor 3rd for Labour do mean that Labour will not make significant progress in Wimbledon, even though their vote share may go up in line with national polls. As things stand, Tory votes will transfer to Lib Dem and the polls would have to change dramatically for the Lib Dems not to win.. I agree with much of that , but would point out that Labour's vote share in Wimbledon in 2019 remained higher than it polled in 1983 - 1987 - and even 1992.Even in such a poor year as 2019,therefore, Labour's vote share was not particularly weak in historical terms. What was different last time was how close the LDs came to winning - which really reflected much greater weakness in the Tory vote than was evident in the earlier elections which had delivered a clear Tory majority nationally. Possibly this was due to the salience of Brexit at the time - with Labour's loss of support relative to 2017 owing quite a bit to the Corbyn factor. I would though question how sustained those influences are likely to prove. 1983 was 39 years ago, 1992 was 30 years ago. London has been undergoing rapid demographic changes (as has much of the rest of the country), in places like Wimbledon to the detriment of the Conservatives in particular, so it's not exactly the case of comparing apples with apples...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 14:40:53 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 3, 2022 14:40:53 GMT
I agree with much of that , but would point out that Labour's vote share in Wimbledon in 2019 remained higher than it polled in 1983 - 1987 - and even 1992.Even in such a poor year as 2019,therefore, Labour's vote share was not particularly weak in historical terms. What was different last time was how close the LDs came to winning - which really reflected much greater weakness in the Tory vote than was evident in the earlier elections which had delivered a clear Tory majority nationally. Possibly this was due to the salience of Brexit at the time - with Labour's loss of support relative to 2017 owing quite a bit to the Corbyn factor. I would though question how sustained those influences are likely to prove. 1983 was 39 years ago, 1992 was 30 years ago. London has been undergoing rapid demographic changes (as has much of the rest of the country), in places like Wimbledon to the detriment of the Conservatives in particular, so it's not exactly the case of comparing apples with apples... In the elections 2010 - 2017 inclusive the Tory vote was in the range 23,000 - 25,000 but fell back to barely 20,000 in 2019 despite the increase in their national vote share.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,515
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 15:12:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Khunanup on Jul 3, 2022 15:12:38 GMT
1983 was 39 years ago, 1992 was 30 years ago. London has been undergoing rapid demographic changes (as has much of the rest of the country), in places like Wimbledon to the detriment of the Conservatives in particular, so it's not exactly the case of comparing apples with apples... In the elections 2010 - 2017 inclusive the Tory vote was in the range 23,000 - 25,000 but fell back to barely 20,000 in 2019 despite the increase in their national vote share. Exactly...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 15:20:00 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 3, 2022 15:20:00 GMT
In the elections 2010 - 2017 inclusive the Tory vote was in the range 23,000 - 25,000 but fell back to barely 20,000 in 2019 despite the increase in their national vote share. Exactly... Unlikely that there was much demographic change over that period!
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 17:26:12 GMT
via mobile
jamie likes this
Post by andrew111 on Jul 3, 2022 17:26:12 GMT
Unlikely that there was much demographic change over that period! The big change was almost certainly the same demographic being Brexit influenced. 2017 and 2019 were both elections strongly influenced by Brexit. In 2017 the Tory vote went up nationally but down by 6% in hyper Remain Wimbledon. Labour were generally the Party of choice for Remainers but the Lib Dems did come back in similar seats like Twickenham where they fought hard. In 2019 the national Tory vote stayed much the same, but again went down in Wimbledon. This time the credibility of the Lib Dems following the Euro Elections in London, plus a more intense campaign than Labour, led to another fall in the Tory vote and a fall in the Labour vote larger than the 6% fall in London as a whole. Lots of evidence shows that fear of Corbyn was a factor for Tory Remainers who were more inclined to switch to Lib Dem provided they did not think Labour could win. However I would expect that Labour focused their 2019 campaign on their better wards, and convinced some Labour voters that with the strong second place in 2017, they were the tactical choice to beat the Tories. Hence the Lib Dems, with a strong campaign and the memory of people voting Lib Dem only 6 months before, surged into second but could not squeeze enough Labour votes to win. Looking again at the 2015 vote of 53% for Hammond, I suspect the Tory vote decline is a bit factored in, and it may not fall much more in a non Brexit election even if the Tories are at current poll levels. So my prediction above of an easy win for us may be optimistic, and squeezing the Labour vote now the tactical position is clear may actually be necessary. We shall see..
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 3, 2022 18:46:02 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 3, 2022 18:46:02 GMT
Unlikely that there was much demographic change over that period! The big change was almost certainly the same demographic being Brexit influenced. 2017 and 2019 were both elections strongly influenced by Brexit. In 2017 the Tory vote went up nationally but down by 6% in hyper Remain Wimbledon. Labour were generally the Party of choice for Remainers but the Lib Dems did come back in similar seats like Twickenham where they fought hard. In 2019 the national Tory vote stayed much the same, but again went down in Wimbledon. This time the credibility of the Lib Dems following the Euro Elections in London, plus a more intense campaign than Labour, led to another fall in the Tory vote and a fall in the Labour vote larger than the 6% fall in London as a whole. Lots of evidence shows that fear of Corbyn was a factor for Tory Remainers who were more inclined to switch to Lib Dem provided they did not think Labour could win. However I would expect that Labour focused their 2019 campaign on their better wards, and convinced some Labour voters that with the strong second place in 2017, they were the tactical choice to beat the Tories. Hence the Lib Dems, with a strong campaign and the memory of people voting Lib Dem only 6 months before, surged into second but could not squeeze enough Labour votes to win. Looking again at the 2015 vote of 53% for Hammond, I suspect the Tory vote decline is a bit factored in, and it may not fall much more in a non Brexit election even if the Tories are at current poll levels. So my prediction above of an easy win for us may be optimistic, and squeezing the Labour vote now the tactical position is clear may actually be necessary. We shall see.. It is a seat where Labour and the LDs have swapped around a fair bit over the years in terms of who has been the main anti - Tory challenger - the Alliance having been second in the 1980s with the LDs regaining that position in 2010 and 2019. It is possible that voters are aware that neither party has assumed second place on a permanent extended basis. Are you aware as to the likely impact of proposed boundary changes? Perhaps this is a seat where the fading of Brexit as an issue will actually prove helpful to the Tories - unless it is replaced by an anti-Johnson factor should he still be in place.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,515
|
YouGov
Jul 4, 2022 0:52:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Khunanup on Jul 4, 2022 0:52:06 GMT
The big change was almost certainly the same demographic being Brexit influenced. 2017 and 2019 were both elections strongly influenced by Brexit. In 2017 the Tory vote went up nationally but down by 6% in hyper Remain Wimbledon. Labour were generally the Party of choice for Remainers but the Lib Dems did come back in similar seats like Twickenham where they fought hard. In 2019 the national Tory vote stayed much the same, but again went down in Wimbledon. This time the credibility of the Lib Dems following the Euro Elections in London, plus a more intense campaign than Labour, led to another fall in the Tory vote and a fall in the Labour vote larger than the 6% fall in London as a whole. Lots of evidence shows that fear of Corbyn was a factor for Tory Remainers who were more inclined to switch to Lib Dem provided they did not think Labour could win. However I would expect that Labour focused their 2019 campaign on their better wards, and convinced some Labour voters that with the strong second place in 2017, they were the tactical choice to beat the Tories. Hence the Lib Dems, with a strong campaign and the memory of people voting Lib Dem only 6 months before, surged into second but could not squeeze enough Labour votes to win. Looking again at the 2015 vote of 53% for Hammond, I suspect the Tory vote decline is a bit factored in, and it may not fall much more in a non Brexit election even if the Tories are at current poll levels. So my prediction above of an easy win for us may be optimistic, and squeezing the Labour vote now the tactical position is clear may actually be necessary. We shall see.. It is a seat where Labour and the LDs have swapped around a fair bit over the years in terms of who has been the main anti - Tory challenger - the Alliance having been second in the 1980s with the LDs regaining that position in 2010 and 2019. It is possible that voters are aware that neither party has assumed second place on a permanent extended basis. Are you aware as to the likely impact of proposed boundary changes? Perhaps this is a seat where the fading of Brexit as an issue will actually prove helpful to the Tories - unless it is replaced by an anti-Johnson factor should he still be in place.
The proposed boundary changes have Wimbledon losing Cannon Hill and gaining two wards from Kingston.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 4, 2022 6:53:56 GMT
Post by batman on Jul 4, 2022 6:53:56 GMT
indeed they do, which is even more reason why Labour will generally acknowledge that they won't have a serious shot at winning.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 4, 2022 7:25:09 GMT
You would have thought that since more than half of graham 's posts are concerned with the prospects for Wimbledon at the next general election that he might have researched this himself - it isn't as if its difficult to do
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 4, 2022 11:51:31 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 4, 2022 11:51:31 GMT
I have now looked at the proposed changes re- Wimbledon. Certainly not helpful for Labour. My sense is that they would benefit the Tories when account is taken of some strong support for Residents' Association candidates and the tendency for LDs to outperform at local elections. Is there any sense as to how likely the proposed changes are to be confirmed?
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Jul 4, 2022 13:04:57 GMT
Losing Cannon Hill is probably good for the Lib Dems - it is one the least remain parts of Wimbledon, and bad for the tories.
Adding Kingston wards will generally be bad for Labour, not great for the Tories, and good for the Lib Dems.
Overall I see this just making this an easier Lib Dem gain (infact a notional hold). It reduces the chances of Labour getting 2nd too. There was always a possibility that the tories fell from 1st to 3rd here, and I think that is now less likely.
Incidentally, the Lib Dems should work neighbouring Putney very hard - much of the Labour vote there is extremely soft centre-right angry remainer. If the Lib Dems ever got into the top 2, they could win the seat pretty easily in my view (and I've knocked on thousands of doors there). They could certainly repeat what they've done in Wimbledon given the pretty similar (I'd argue better) demographics. It could well be their best seat from a demographic perspective in the country.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 4, 2022 14:00:23 GMT
Post by graham on Jul 4, 2022 14:00:23 GMT
Losing Cannon Hill is probably good for the Lib Dems - it is one the least remain parts of Wimbledon, and bad for the tories. Adding Kingston wards will generally be bad for Labour, not great for the Tories, and good for the Lib Dems. Overall I see this just making this an easier Lib Dem gain (infact a notional hold). It reduces the chances of Labour getting 2nd too. There was always a possibility that the tories fell from 1st to 3rd here, and I think that is now less likely. Incidentally, the Lib Dems should work neighbouring Putney very hard - much of the Labour vote there is extremely soft centre-right angry remainer. If the Lib Dems ever got into the top 2, they could win the seat pretty easily in my view (and I've knocked on thousands of doors there). They could certainly repeat what they've done in Wimbledon given the pretty similar (I'd argue better) demographics. It could well be their best seat from a demographic perspective in the country. Do you not believe that the LDs outperform at local elections here? I note that in one of the Kingston wards the Residents Association has a councillor. Do those votes not tend to shift Tory at GEs?
|
|
|
YouGov
Jul 4, 2022 14:34:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by aargauer on Jul 4, 2022 14:34:10 GMT
Losing Cannon Hill is probably good for the Lib Dems - it is one the least remain parts of Wimbledon, and bad for the tories. Adding Kingston wards will generally be bad for Labour, not great for the Tories, and good for the Lib Dems. Overall I see this just making this an easier Lib Dem gain (infact a notional hold). It reduces the chances of Labour getting 2nd too. There was always a possibility that the tories fell from 1st to 3rd here, and I think that is now less likely. Incidentally, the Lib Dems should work neighbouring Putney very hard - much of the Labour vote there is extremely soft centre-right angry remainer. If the Lib Dems ever got into the top 2, they could win the seat pretty easily in my view (and I've knocked on thousands of doors there). They could certainly repeat what they've done in Wimbledon given the pretty similar (I'd argue better) demographics. It could well be their best seat from a demographic perspective in the country. Do you not believe that the LDs outperform at local elections here? I note that in one of the Kingston wards the Residents Association has a councillor. Do those votes not tend to shift Tory at GEs? To be honest, not really. And we shouldn’t underestimate the personal vote of Stephen Hammond who was almost not allowed to stand again over his brexit stance - which will have helped here.
|
|