|
Post by justin124 on Jun 7, 2020 11:21:37 GMT
well you are seriously telling us that they would have held onto them regardless of any political circumstances... people like having MPs from minor parties. Lib Dems held seats like Bermondsey for over 30 years even when Labour were at the hight of popularity On the other hand, Labour did regain Rochdale in 2010 - despite the Duffield incident - and the LibDems failed to make expected gains in places such as Durham and Oldham E.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Survation
Jun 7, 2020 11:53:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 11:53:45 GMT
people like having MPs from minor parties. Lib Dems held seats like Bermondsey for over 30 years even when Labour were at the hight of popularity On the other hand, Labour did regain Rochdale in 2010 - despite the Duffield incident - and the LibDems failed to make expected gains in places such as Durham and Oldham E. 2010 was a huge disappointment for the Lib Dems given tge ramping up and there were a number of places they came up just short. Sheffield Central was another. There will always be the odd seat or two that swings the opposite way ofc
|
|
Rural Radical
Labour
Now living in a Labour held ward at Borough level for the first time in many years
Posts: 1,599
|
Survation
Jun 7, 2020 11:54:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rural Radical on Jun 7, 2020 11:54:22 GMT
I guess the local party (which has always been quite small) didn’t want to work for her Mind you with that result it looks very much as if Tories who don't bother to vote locally did so in numbers for the General. And Brexit, if course. Telford is a Leave area. There always has been a shy Conservative vote in local elections in Telford
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,883
|
Post by jamie on Jun 7, 2020 11:56:07 GMT
Agree with a lot of what has been posted over the past few pages. When you lose by 12% nationally, you are by definition going to be far away from winning many seats you won in better times. However, there is no ‘natural’ state of public opinion for the Tories to be ahead by 12%, they were about even in 2017 and dipped to below 25% in mid 2019! There were 2 clearly identifiable salient issues in 2019 (Brexit and Corbyn) which are to a large extent going to disappear by the next election. On the basis that they generally hurt Labour, particularly the latter, never mind 14 years of Conservative government wearing a bit thin (as all governments do), there is very likely going to be a decent swing to Labour at the next election as long as they don’t completely implode in the meantime. The swing will also be presumably stronger in more Leave voting areas due to the issue of Brexit being much less salient, so Labour could see much bigger swings in seats that swing strongly against them in 2019, though I’d caveat this by adding that Starmer doesn’t seem a particularly great candidate for those voters so it depends on how hard he runs on being a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 7, 2020 12:04:22 GMT
It is a mistake to think of the 2019 vote as a one-off specialist vote by a large grouping making a point over Brexit concerns and a dislike of Corbyn. It was far deeper and wider than that. It was a reflection of a long-term mental change as well as significant amounts of demographic change. We have seen this before in Kent, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Staffordshire towards the Conservatives. And in Cheshire, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh towards Labour. Latterly we have seen more small scale constituency movement in places like Brighton-Hove, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Southampton and Canterbury. These major shifts in the nature of support are there all the time but often don't appear obvious until a trigger event releases the potential from the prior inertia. Some of the gains will be recovered, some will be marginals for a while but I consider way over a third have changed for the long term. Trigger events are only likely to reveal themselves with hindsight in so far as they exist at all. The examples of Kent and Norfolk are both interesting. In 1997 Labour made unexpected gains in places such as Thanet South - Sittingbourne & Sheppey - Medway which were retained until 2010. All have now reverted to being safe Tory seats in a pattern little changed from the 80s and 90s. Much the same can be said about the Labour gains made in Essex in seats such as Harwich - Braintree - Castle Point. Norfolk provides a good example of longterm underlying demographic change. The rural seats there were generally very marginal until the 1970s when rapid population growth and the decline of the former Agricultural Workers' Union made them safe Tory seats - only NW Norfolk being a possibility now for Labour in very good years. On the other hand, some regions have shown great volatility over several generations.In the West Midlands , the Tories did very well in 1959 with only a small swing back to Labour in 1964. 1966 saw a big pro-Labour swing there which was reversed in 1970 . Volatility continued in Feb 1974 which saw a strong Labour performance. Only time will tell which pattern best describes what happened in the Red Wall seats.The massive swings in seats such as Bassetlaw- Grimsby - Sedgefield - Don Valley - Rother Valley - Scunthorpe - Workington etc occurred over a period of just two and a half years , and makes me doubt whether the substantial Tory majorities we now see in some of them are at all solid.I don't pretend to know - but that is far too short a period to explain any underlying demographic shift such as occured in the rural Norfolk seats over decades. I am fairly sure that you are entirely misreading this in many of the examples chosen. Kent is in long-term drift to the right and the change in the Thames-Medway Towns-North Coast corridor are there to stay except for Lab landslides. The underlying core-Conservative element has grown over 5-decades. And your suggestion that the move in the Bassetlaw-Scunthorpe-Sedgefield nexus is just a two-and-a-half-year short term effect is way off. Consider the earlier effect in Newark, Sherwood, Mansfield and NE Derbys. And the earlier effects in much of Staffs. These are long term and will not swing wildly nor often. The South Coast and the Home Counties are another matter. There the Conservatives have LD and Labour problems and not just over Brexit. We are seeing deep-seated trends working themselves through here. Consider Brigg, Goole, Grimsby, Cleethorps, Scunthorpe. The change there is profound and long term. it is not ephemeral. We are living through major change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 12:06:25 GMT
Agree with a lot of what has been posted over the past few pages. When you lose by 12% nationally, you are by definition going to be far away from winning many seats you won in better times. However, there is no ‘natural’ state of public opinion for the Tories to be ahead by 12%, they were about even in 2017 and dipped to below 25% in mid 2019! There were 2 clearly identifiable salient issues in 2019 (Brexit and Corbyn) which are to a large extent going to disappear by the next election. On the basis that they generally hurt Labour, particularly the latter, never mind 14 years of Conservative government wearing a bit thin (as all governments do), there is very likely going to be a decent swing to Labour at the next election as long as they don’t completely implode in the meantime. The swing will also be presumably stronger in more Leave voting areas due to the issue of Brexit being much less salient, so Labour could see much bigger swings in seats that swing strongly against them in 2019, though I’d caveat this by adding that Starmer doesn’t seem a particularly great candidate for those voters so it depends on how hard he runs on being a liberal. it's as you say the individual seats that Labour need to win where they are actually significantly further behind than the already significant deficit that Labour trail nationally. The only argument so far being made is the hope that people will have forgotten about Brexit and plastering Starmers face over cracks will be enough.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jun 7, 2020 13:08:40 GMT
Trigger events are only likely to reveal themselves with hindsight in so far as they exist at all. The examples of Kent and Norfolk are both interesting. In 1997 Labour made unexpected gains in places such as Thanet South - Sittingbourne & Sheppey - Medway which were retained until 2010. All have now reverted to being safe Tory seats in a pattern little changed from the 80s and 90s. Much the same can be said about the Labour gains made in Essex in seats such as Harwich - Braintree - Castle Point. Norfolk provides a good example of longterm underlying demographic change. The rural seats there were generally very marginal until the 1970s when rapid population growth and the decline of the former Agricultural Workers' Union made them safe Tory seats - only NW Norfolk being a possibility now for Labour in very good years. On the other hand, some regions have shown great volatility over several generations.In the West Midlands , the Tories did very well in 1959 with only a small swing back to Labour in 1964. 1966 saw a big pro-Labour swing there which was reversed in 1970 . Volatility continued in Feb 1974 which saw a strong Labour performance. Only time will tell which pattern best describes what happened in the Red Wall seats.The massive swings in seats such as Bassetlaw- Grimsby - Sedgefield - Don Valley - Rother Valley - Scunthorpe - Workington etc occurred over a period of just two and a half years , and makes me doubt whether the substantial Tory majorities we now see in some of them are at all solid.I don't pretend to know - but that is far too short a period to explain any underlying demographic shift such as occured in the rural Norfolk seats over decades. I am fairly sure that you are entirely misreading this in many of the examples chosen. Kent is in long-term drift to the right and the change in the Thames-Medway Towns-North Coast corridor are there to stay except for Lab landslides. The underlying core-Conservative element has grown over 5-decades. And your suggestion that the move in the Bassetlaw-Scunthorpe-Sedgefield nexus is just a two-and-a-half-year short term effect is way off. Consider the earlier effect in Newark, Sherwood, Mansfield and NE Derbys. And the earlier effects in much of Staffs. These are long term and will not swing wildly nor often. The South Coast and the Home Counties are another matter. There the Conservatives have LD and Labour problems and not just over Brexit. We are seeing deep-seated trends working themselves through here. Consider Brigg, Goole, Grimsby, Cleethorps, Scunthorpe. The change there is profound and long term. it is not ephemeral. We are living through major change. Some Kent seats have clearly been shifting Right on a longterm basis - Dartford is an obvious example. The former seat of Faversham was a very marginal Labour seat in the 1950s but actually swung to the Tories in 1966 before falling to them on a permanent basis in 1970. Sittingbourne & Sheppey is the closest to being its successor seat but Labour did very narrowly hold on there in 2005 - not a landslide year given the national 3% vote share lead. Likewise Medway might be viewed as the successor to Rochester & Chatham. Given its small national lead, Labour did well to hold both seats - and Thanet south in 2005.Overall I get the impression that any drift Rightwards in Kent as a whole is less apparent than what has been seen in Essex and the London Boroughs of Havering and Barking since the late 70s. Bassetlaw had not been Tory since World War 2 yet now has a big majority. There was a massive swing there over a two and a half year period even though some shift was apparent earlier.Ditto Sedgefield and Scunthorpe had only very narrowly been Tory in 1983. Newark ceased to be a natural Labour seat following the boundary changes implemented in 1983. Grimsby nearly fell to the Tories in 1959 when Anthony Crosland held on by barely 100 votes.The sudden emergence of a sizeable Tory majority there is hardly evidence of continuation of a longterm trend.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 7, 2020 13:22:17 GMT
I am fairly sure that you are entirely misreading this in many of the examples chosen. Kent is in long-term drift to the right and the change in the Thames-Medway Towns-North Coast corridor are there to stay except for Lab landslides. The underlying core-Conservative element has grown over 5-decades. And your suggestion that the move in the Bassetlaw-Scunthorpe-Sedgefield nexus is just a two-and-a-half-year short term effect is way off. Consider the earlier effect in Newark, Sherwood, Mansfield and NE Derbys. And the earlier effects in much of Staffs. These are long term and will not swing wildly nor often. The South Coast and the Home Counties are another matter. There the Conservatives have LD and Labour problems and not just over Brexit. We are seeing deep-seated trends working themselves through here. Consider Brigg, Goole, Grimsby, Cleethorps, Scunthorpe. The change there is profound and long term. it is not ephemeral. We are living through major change. Some Kent seats have clearly been shifting Right on a longterm basis - Dartford is an obvious example. The former seat of Faversham was a very marginal Labour seat in the 1950s but actually swung to the Tories in 1966 before falling to them on a permanent basis in 1970. Sittingbourne & Sheppey is the closest to being its successor seat but Labour did very narrowly hold on there in 2005 - not a landslide year given the national 3% vote share lead. Likewise Medway might be viewed as the successor to Rochester & Chatham. Given its small national lead, Labour did well to hold both seats - and Thanet south in 2005.Overall I get the impression that any drift Rightwards in Kent as a whole is less apparent than what has been seen in Essex and the London Boroughs of Havering and Barking since the late 70s. Bassetlaw had not been Tory since World War 2 yet now has a big majority. There was a massive swing there over a two and a half year period even though some shift was apparent earlier.Ditto Sedgefield and Scunthorpe had only very narrowly been Tory in 1983. Newark ceased to be a natural Labour seat following the boundary changes implemented in 1983. Grimsby nearly fell to the Tories in 1959 when Anthony Crosland held on by barely 100 votes.The sudden emergence of a sizeable Tory majority there is hardly evidence of continuation of a longterm trend. It is interesting how you are all discussing the rightward drift of these north Kent constituencies from Dartford to Thanet and choosing ignore Canterbury band slap in the middle of the line of seats and trending in the opposite direction!
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 7, 2020 13:24:43 GMT
For justin124We will not agree on this. I am not unhappy about that. I have my reasons and they may be set out in greater detail on a thread for the purpose. I am acquainted with all of those seats and have known most of them for 30-50 years. I have seen the changes in routines, prime industries, commuting, home ownership and habits and culture. These areas don't have the 'same' people with a temporary alteration in voting habits; they have different people thinking different thoughts as they do different jobs and travel from different newer homes. Most of them are now in our camp for the long haul, but when we have a bad year we may lose some! But, in London we are losing the Ilfords, Croydons, Ealings, Putneys, Hornseys, Batterseas, Kensingtons, Chingfords and ~Enfields that were once a core backbone of our HOC strength.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 7, 2020 13:29:39 GMT
Some Kent seats have clearly been shifting Right on a longterm basis - Dartford is an obvious example. The former seat of Faversham was a very marginal Labour seat in the 1950s but actually swung to the Tories in 1966 before falling to them on a permanent basis in 1970. Sittingbourne & Sheppey is the closest to being its successor seat but Labour did very narrowly hold on there in 2005 - not a landslide year given the national 3% vote share lead. Likewise Medway might be viewed as the successor to Rochester & Chatham. Given its small national lead, Labour did well to hold both seats - and Thanet south in 2005.Overall I get the impression that any drift Rightwards in Kent as a whole is less apparent than what has been seen in Essex and the London Boroughs of Havering and Barking since the late 70s. Bassetlaw had not been Tory since World War 2 yet now has a big majority. There was a massive swing there over a two and a half year period even though some shift was apparent earlier.Ditto Sedgefield and Scunthorpe had only very narrowly been Tory in 1983. Newark ceased to be a natural Labour seat following the boundary changes implemented in 1983. Grimsby nearly fell to the Tories in 1959 when Anthony Crosland held on by barely 100 votes.The sudden emergence of a sizeable Tory majority there is hardly evidence of continuation of a longterm trend. It is interesting how you are all discussing the rightward drift of these north Kent constituencies from Dartford to Thanet and choosing ignore Canterbury band slap in the middle of the line of seats and trending in the opposite direction! It isn't at all. That is caused solely by university staff and students and nothing else at all. There is no change, no trend and no drift whatsoever except in the fact that that one constituency in Kent has become dominated by higher education and a mass import of people. It is indicative of nothing other than that one fact.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jun 7, 2020 13:35:51 GMT
For justin124We will not agree on this. I am not unhappy about that. I have my reasons and they may be set out in greater detail on a thread for the purpose. I am acquainted with all of those seats and have known most of them for 30-50 years. I have seen the changes in routines, prime industries, commuting, home ownership and habits and culture. These areas don't have the 'same' people with a temporary alteration in voting habits; they have different people thinking different thoughts as they do different jobs and travel from different newer homes. Most of them are now in our camp for the long haul, but when we have a bad year we may lose some! But, in London we are losing the Ilfords, Croydons, Ealings, Putneys, Hornseys, Batterseas, Kensingtons, Chingfords and ~Enfields that were once a core backbone of our HOC strength. Putney and Battersea were generally assumed to be demographically shifting to the Tories as a result of 'gentrification', and only likely to be won by Labour in a very good year. For some reason, that suddenly changed in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 7, 2020 13:48:00 GMT
It is interesting how you are all discussing the rightward drift of these north Kent constituencies from Dartford to Thanet and choosing ignore Canterbury band slap in the middle of the line of seats and trending in the opposite direction! It isn't at all. That is caused solely by university staff and students and nothing else at all. There is no change, no trend and no drift whatsoever except in the fact that that one constituency in Kent has become dominated by higher education and a mass import of people. It is indicative of nothing other than that one fact. I think that's oversimplistic. Higher education is certainly a substantial factor but it is not a total explanation of the Canterbury phenomenon. Of course you do refer to one other factor- " the mass importation of people". Whatever that's supposed to mean.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 7, 2020 13:59:59 GMT
It isn't at all. That is caused solely by university staff and students and nothing else at all. There is no change, no trend and no drift whatsoever except in the fact that that one constituency in Kent has become dominated by higher education and a mass import of people. It is indicative of nothing other than that one fact. I think that's oversimplistic. Higher education is certainly a substantial factor but it is not a total explanation of the Canterbury phenomenon. Of course you do refer to one other factor- " the mass importation of people". Whatever that's supposed to mean. It means what it says. A mass importation of staff and student numbers from demographics not at all like core Canterbury.
|
|
|
Survation
Jun 7, 2020 14:02:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Jun 7, 2020 14:02:40 GMT
I think that's oversimplistic. Higher education is certainly a substantial factor but it is not a total explanation of the Canterbury phenomenon. Of course you do refer to one other factor- " the mass importation of people". Whatever that's supposed to mean. It means what it says. A mass importation of staff and student numbers from demographics not at all like core Canterbury. But there have been students in Canterbury for a long time - why the sudden shift?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 14:05:52 GMT
For justin124We will not agree on this. I am not unhappy about that. I have my reasons and they may be set out in greater detail on a thread for the purpose. I am acquainted with all of those seats and have known most of them for 30-50 years. I have seen the changes in routines, prime industries, commuting, home ownership and habits and culture. These areas don't have the 'same' people with a temporary alteration in voting habits; they have different people thinking different thoughts as they do different jobs and travel from different newer homes. Most of them are now in our camp for the long haul, but when we have a bad year we may lose some! But, in London we are losing the Ilfords, Croydons, Ealings, Putneys, Hornseys, Batterseas, Kensingtons, Chingfords and ~Enfields that were once a core backbone of our HOC strength. Putney and Battersea were generally assumed to be demographically shifting to the Tories as a result of 'gentrification', and only likely to be won by Labour in a very good year. For some reason, that suddenly changed in 2017. because those people voted Labour. It's always been thought that ABC1 voters break for Tories and C2DE back Labour and therefore the increasing number of people entering ABC1 in places like Battersea would mean its moving to the Tories. However, that divide no longer as definitive. More ABC1 voters now back Labour and more CD2E voters back the Tories. So places like Battersea with increasing numbers of ABC1 voters now have a Labour MP when places that still have a large number of C2DE voters like Scunny have a Tory MP
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,356
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 7, 2020 14:10:38 GMT
The specific issue at Telford was a suspicion that AWS was imposed specifically to prevent Sahota from standing again. Of course there's an interesting parallel with Bassetlaw, which also saw candidate selection funny business, an absolutely foul Labour result at the General Election... but had seen an excellent result in the local elections earlier in the year. But this discussion is going round in circles now.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jun 7, 2020 14:15:11 GMT
Putney and Battersea were generally assumed to be demographically shifting to the Tories as a result of 'gentrification', and only likely to be won by Labour in a very good year. For some reason, that suddenly changed in 2017. because those people voted Labour. It's always been thought that ABC1 voters break for Tories and C2DE back Labour and therefore the increasing number of people entering ABC1 in places like Battersea would mean its moving to the Tories. However, that divide no longer as definitive. More ABC1 voters now back Labour and more CD2E voters back the Tories. So places like Battersea with increasing numbers of ABC1 voters now have a Labour MP when places that still have a large number of C2DE voters like Scunny have a Tory MP But those seats did move pretty sharply away from Labour in the 80s and early 90s. The Tory majority in Putney in 1992 was bigger than in 1983 and Battersea did not fall until 1987 before being much more comfortably retained five years later. Both went Labour in 1997 , but Putney was won back by the Tories in 2005 . By 2015 both seats appeared to be comfortably Tory again confirming the gentrification assumptions. Why did that suddenly change just two years later?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 7, 2020 14:30:30 GMT
It means what it says. A mass importation of staff and student numbers from demographics not at all like core Canterbury. But there have been students in Canterbury for a long time - why the sudden shift? I don't have access to the change in total numbers of staff and students, but I warrant there was a very particular effort at registration and vote drumming for the 2017GE? This is not new. Look at the percentage majority trends 1983 30.6 1987 26.5 1992 18.4 1997 7.3 2001 4.6 2005 15.7 2010 12.3 2015 18.3 2017 (0.3) 2019 (3.1) This is an obvious trend of dimishment in an area not otherwise changing. I would warrant that what we see is to an extent differential turnout in the student body, perhaps dependent on someone doing some derious on campus organization?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 14:33:30 GMT
The electorate responds to the options that it is given. The Labour Party that contested the 2019 election was essentially a different party to the one that contested the 2015 election, at least from the perspective of the electorate.* The Labour Party that contests the next election (whenever it is) will be an essentially different party to the one that contested the 2019 election. I don't know quite how the electorate will respond, but there's no reason to assume it will be the same as the response to the party's previous incarnation. Or the same as any other previous incarnations, obviously. The various party brands themselves are much, much weaker than most people involved in the political process assume. *The version that contested the 2017 election was roughly in between the two, and wasn't that just the whole trick? Pretty much this, do people seriously think Telford or Stoke South won’t be in play for Labour when they next win a majority? There will of course be some which won’t return (NE Derbyshire perhaps?) but 2019 will surely be a ‘freak’ election in many of these areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Survation
Jun 7, 2020 14:43:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2020 14:43:39 GMT
because those people voted Labour. It's always been thought that ABC1 voters break for Tories and C2DE back Labour and therefore the increasing number of people entering ABC1 in places like Battersea would mean its moving to the Tories. However, that divide no longer as definitive. More ABC1 voters now back Labour and more CD2E voters back the Tories. So places like Battersea with increasing numbers of ABC1 voters now have a Labour MP when places that still have a large number of C2DE voters like Scunny have a Tory MP But those seats did move pretty sharply away from Labour in the 80s and early 90s. The Tory majority in Putney in 1992 was bigger than in 1983 and Battersea did not fall until 1987 before being much more comfortably retained five years later. Both went Labour in 1997 , but Putney was won back by the Tories in 2005 . By 2015 both seats appeared to be comfortably Tory again confirming the gentrification assumptions. Why did that suddenly change just two years later? because the change in voting patterns amongst ABC1s took place then
|
|