Labour underperformances in 1997

[YL]

Jan 21, 2019 9:06:56 GMT iain said:

Jan 21, 2019 8:56:43 GMT YL said:

Some of that is due to boundary changes; Nether Edge, which was transferred to Central, was the only ward in the 1992 version of the constituency to vote Labour in the 1992 locals.

The rest of it is obviously down to tactical voting.

Nether Edge voted Lib Dem in 1992.

Sorry, I should have checked. But there's no doubt that it was the strongest Hallam ward for Labour in the 1992 GE.

[martinwhelton]

Jan 19, 2019 20:33:46 GMT finsobruce said:

Jan 19, 2019 20:26:57 GMT heslingtonian said:

I’d put Colchester in the same category as a seat that is moving in Labour’s direction having not been competitive for a long time.

Colchester's only Labour MP Charles Smith (1945-50), later a minister in the House of Lords was the co-editor of a 1938 colletion of  Fabian essays called "Democratic Sweden".

And Labour came within 2,000 votes of winning Colchester in 1997 even though they were in third place. The seat is now Labour's best prospect in Essex with a substantial Liberal vote still to squeeze. Part of this is being a university town, though ironically it's located in the Harwich and North Essex seat which does help the Conservatives slightly as Wivenhoe is Labour leaning.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jan 21, 2019 8:59:56 GMT heslingtonian said:

Jan 21, 2019 8:18:42 GMT iainbhx said:

Meriden was always going to be a turnout and registration battle between the two halves of the seat.

True but given the fact that Labour gained nearby Warwick & Leamington (a much notionally stronger Conservative seat on its 1997 than its current boundaries) and Rugby & Kenilworth, they should have probably also picked up Meriden.

I don't think that's true. The notional election results for 1992 show the Conservative lead in Warwick and Leamington was 18.3%, in Rugby and Kenilworth was 20.4%, but in Meriden was 24.2%. Given the swing was just over 10%, the first two should have gone but Meriden would not have done.

[The Bishop]

Jan 21, 2019 8:59:56 GMT heslingtonian said:

Jan 21, 2019 8:18:42 GMT iainbhx said:

Meriden was always going to be a turnout and registration battle between the two halves of the seat.

True but given the fact that Labour gained nearby Warwick & Leamington (a much notionally stronger Conservative seat on its 1997 than its current boundaries) and Rugby & Kenilworth, they should have probably also picked up Meriden.

Had there been a by-election due to Iain Mills passing away a few months earlier than he actually did, Labour would very likely have won it.

And if they had, Meriden could well have remained a Labour seat until 2005 (though I'm not sure if it would be more competitive now)

[physicsguy]

Jan 21, 2019 0:44:20 GMT sirbenjamin said:

Colchester, Rushcliffe and Watford all very concerning from a football perspective. And this in the aftermath of a couple of fairly poor elections for both us and the LDs.

At what point do the FA step in? (Answer: Never, because they don't really give a fuck about balance, fairness or representativeness)

Both Fulham and Chelsea are vulnerable if the next boundary changes decide to pair Fulham with Hammersmith instead of Chelsea.

[heslingtonian]

Jan 21, 2019 9:26:27 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jan 21, 2019 8:59:56 GMT heslingtonian said:

True but given the fact that Labour gained nearby Warwick & Leamington (a much notionally stronger Conservative seat on its 1997 than its current boundaries) and Rugby & Kenilworth, they should have probably also picked up Meriden.

I don't think that's true. The notional election results for 1992 show the Conservative lead in Warwick and Leamington was 18.3%, in Rugby and Kenilworth was 20.4%, but in Meriden was 24.2%. Given the swing was just over 10%, the first two should have gone but Meriden would not have done.

Perhaps but no Conservative incumbent in Meriden in 1997 compared to long-standing incumbents in the other two seats.

[bsjmcr]

Just discovered Wirral South. Maybe people here will know more about the by-election earlier that year, but the turnout then was an impressive 71% increasing to 81% at the GE, yet there was a fall in numerical and % majority and %age vote, and the same Con candidate as well. Surely there was no need for the by-election anyway given the imminent GE?

[pragmaticidealist]

Jan 22, 2019 15:05:30 GMT bsjmcr said:

Just discovered Wirral South. Maybe people here will know more about the by-election earlier that year, but the turnout then was an impressive 71% increasing to 81% at the GE, yet there was a fall in numerical and % majority and %age vote, and the same Con candidate as well. Surely there was no need for the by-election anyway given the imminent GE?

It's not surprising at all that the majority fell at the GE compared to the by-election. By-elections, no matter when they are held, are often treated a protest by a substantial proportion of the electorate, whereas GEs are the more serious business of deciding who the government should be. Compare the Liverpool Edge Hill by-election of 1979 to the general election that was held only about five weeks later for another example, or Bermondsey in 1983, or the various 'gains' that Labour made in the 1970 GE. 

In any case, I think the swing in Wirral South between the 1992 GE and the 1997 GE was well above the national average. 

[bsjmcr]

Jan 22, 2019 16:18:43 GMT Andrew_S said:

Jan 22, 2019 15:05:30 GMT bsjmcr said:

Just discovered Wirral South. Maybe people here will know more about the by-election earlier that year, but the turnout then was an impressive 71% increasing to 81% at the GE, yet there was a fall in numerical and % majority and %age vote, and the same Con candidate as well. Surely there was no need for the by-election anyway given the imminent GE?

It's usually best not to compare by-elections with general elections unless there's a good reason.

I agree, but the B-E turnout was higher than the GE turnout of many, many seats which is why I was comparing. Perhaps need to see it from the point of view that oppositions often do very well in BE's which they did but going into the GE they were the incumbents? The Conservatives as challengers in the GE had time to manageto get a few more votes out? Interestingly looking up their candidate on both occasions Les Byrom's he comes up as a Labour councillor in Sefton. Swings and roundabouts...

[Deleted]

Bermondsey and Ceredigion were 2 Labour targets the BBC identified in 1997 that didn't fall - arguably underperformances.

It was thought Labour might've won Bermondsey back in 1992 but unlike Greenwich and Woolwich this didn't happen.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Southwark and Bermondsey in 1992 saw a strong improvement in Hughes's majority, much against the general tide of things - especially given that the Labour candidate was a relative moderate (Richard Balfe MEP). In 1987 the Militant tendency had been able to stand one its candidates sub nom Labour.

There was an active Labour campaign in 1997 but the choice of the leader of the local council may have cost a few votes - the vast majority of the electorate were still council tenants, lots of them had minor grievances against the council, and it was easy for the Lib Dems to suggest they take revenge by denying Labour their vote.

[WJ]

Jan 19, 2019 20:26:57 GMT heslingtonian said:

I’d put Colchester in the same category as a seat that is moving in Labour’s direction having not been competitive for a long time.

Any seat that contains Falmouth is another.

[Deleted]

Chipping Barnet. Given the swings in Harrow West and Southgate, that one stands out.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

In the same line, Uxbridge - plus rubbing it in at the byelection two months later.

[heslingtonian]

Jan 22, 2019 20:11:54 GMT bsjmcr said:

Jan 22, 2019 16:18:43 GMT Andrew_S said:

It's usually best not to compare by-elections with general elections unless there's a good reason.

I agree, but the B-E turnout was higher than the GE turnout of many, many seats which is why I was comparing. Perhaps need to see it from the point of view that oppositions often do very well in BE's which they did but going into the GE they were the incumbents? The Conservatives as challengers in the GE had time to manageto get a few more votes out? Interestingly looking up their candidate on both occasions Les Byrom's he comes up as a Labour councillor in Sefton. Swings and roundabouts...

It’s a bit like how the Conservative candidate in Birmingham Edgbaston in 1997 (Andrew Marshall) is now a Liberal Democrat arch Remainer and Gisela Stuart is now almost an honorary Conservative Brexiteer.

[timmullen1]

Jan 20, 2019 12:31:06 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

Batley & Spen, very much a Lab-Con marginal, had a swing of under 8%, likely due to Elizabeth Peacock's personal vote. It tends to be quite a stubborn seat in general as far as swing goes. Of course it's a seat that has gained notoriety for far more tragic reasons recently.

Chesterfield saw Tony Benn returned with a reduced majority, albeit the Liberal Democrats were his main challenger. IIRC he noted in his diaries that someone he canvassed told him of their intention to vote Tory on the basis that neither he nor Dennis Skinner were leading Labour.

Birmingham Edgbaston had a swing of 'only' 10%, somewhat on the low side for a marginal seat. Quite a few seats in the West Midlands didn't swing anywhere near as dramatically as much of London (for example) did. 

IIRC Dimbleby made quite a lot of a Tory leaflet in Edgbaston making an issue of Gisela’s German background. Maybe relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things but enough to shave a percentage point or two off her total?

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 23, 2019 1:42:38 GMT timmullen1 said:

Jan 20, 2019 12:31:06 GMT pragmaticidealist said:

Batley & Spen, very much a Lab-Con marginal, had a swing of under 8%, likely due to Elizabeth Peacock's personal vote. It tends to be quite a stubborn seat in general as far as swing goes. Of course it's a seat that has gained notoriety for far more tragic reasons recently.

Chesterfield saw Tony Benn returned with a reduced majority, albeit the Liberal Democrats were his main challenger. IIRC he noted in his diaries that someone he canvassed told him of their intention to vote Tory on the basis that neither he nor Dennis Skinner were leading Labour.

Birmingham Edgbaston had a swing of 'only' 10%, somewhat on the low side for a marginal seat. Quite a few seats in the West Midlands didn't swing anywhere near as dramatically as much of London (for example) did. 

IIRC Dimbleby made quite a lot of a Tory leaflet in Edgbaston making an issue of Gisela’s German background. Maybe relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things but enough to shave a percentage point or two off her total?

She notably failed to win the Worcestershire and South Warwickshire in the 1994 European elections (when she was Gisela Gschaider) - it's not really possible to say if the swing was lower than comparable or neighbouring seats as they were new boundaries, but it seems like the kind of seat Labour 'should' have been able to win in that landslide (and of course was very close so probably the German name made the difference - it was reckoned so at the time)

[Pete Whitehead]

Jan 22, 2019 21:47:45 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Chipping Barnet. Given the swings in Harrow West and Southgate, that one stands out.

I think Harrow West had one of the largest pro-Labour swings in the country in 1997, Southgate likewise. So Labour 'underperformed' in most of the country if that is your benchmark. I'm pretty sure in fact that the swing in Chipping Barnet was also significantly higher than average that year, just not quite as high as in those seats

[heslingtonian]

Jan 23, 2019 9:29:10 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 23, 2019 1:42:38 GMT timmullen1 said:

IIRC Dimbleby made quite a lot of a Tory leaflet in Edgbaston making an issue of Gisela’s German background. Maybe relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things but enough to shave a percentage point or two off her total?

She notably failed to win the Worcestershire and South Warwickshire in the 1994 European elections (when she was Gisela Gschaider) - it's not really possible to say if the swing was lower than comparable or neighbouring seats as they were new boundaries, but it seems like the kind of seat Labour 'should' have been able to win in that landslide (and of course was very close so probably the German name made the difference - it was reckoned so at the time)

I once directly asked John Corrie (the Conservative MEP who defeated her) whether he would have held onto the seat if her name had read “Stuart” on the ballot paper rather than “Gschaider”. Let’s just say he considered it quite possible he would have lost in those circumstances. Wouldn’t normally report private conversations such as this but as both candidates are now retired from politics, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to do so.

[The Bishop]

Jan 23, 2019 9:33:19 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jan 22, 2019 21:47:45 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Chipping Barnet. Given the swings in Harrow West and Southgate, that one stands out.

I think Harrow West had one of the largest pro-Labour swings in the country in 1997, Southgate likewise. So Labour 'underperformed' in most of the country if that is your benchmark. I'm pretty sure in fact that the swing in Chipping Barnet was also significantly higher than average that year, just not quite as high as in those seats

It was also reported that Chipping Barnet was almost totally neglected by Labour HQ even as resources started to be directed to neighbouring seats (including the supposedly "unwinnable" Enfield Southgate) and apparently our candidate there was a bit sore about this in retrospect.