Wimbledon

[graham]

May 29, 2023 16:30:37 GMT anthony said:

May 28, 2023 12:37:55 GMT graham said:

The LDs appeared to be in prime position in Conway prior to the 1997 election yet Labour won from 3rd place. Ditto Hastings & Rye. A leaflet from the former Labour MP for the seat 1997 - 2005 might prove helpful to the party's cause - though I see he eventually joined ChangeUK.

They might need to decide who their candidate is first. A former leader of the Council is still telling people he's going to be the MP and the current deputy leader of the Council is still telling people she will be the candidate. Indeed one resident I know is under the impression she was told last week when canvassed that the deputy leader *is* the candidate, but I think that is a mistake/misunderstanding - although who's mistake is unclear. There are a couple of activists knocking round who want to be the candidate too.

That all sounds very presumptious on the part of the individuals concerned - but also implies a clear intent to fight the seat seriously.

[anthony]

May 29, 2023 17:41:05 GMT batman said:

there is, of course, a timetable for this - your tone implies that the CLP doesn't have a clue what is happening - and it will all be resolved.

I'm sure there is a timetable - a timetable that indicates the seat's priority to the national party. The various candidates have said various things: first it was early this year, then May, now... ? My tone was more the certainty of the two leading contenders that it will be them. I know who I think it's likely to be, and I don't think that will go down very well with the individual it's not.

[anthony]

May 29, 2023 18:51:30 GMT graham said:

That all sounds very presumptious on the part of the individuals concerned - but also implies a clear intent to fight the seat seriously.

Well, they aren't doing that yet - but yes, I've no doubt that they will fight the seat "seriously" - they would prefer a Tory MP - we know this is true.

[graham]

May 29, 2023 19:14:11 GMT anthony said:

May 29, 2023 18:51:30 GMT graham said:

That all sounds very presumptious on the part of the individuals concerned - but also implies a clear intent to fight the seat seriously.

Well, they aren't doing that yet - but yes, I've no doubt that they will fight the seat "seriously" - they would prefer a Tory MP - we know this is true.

From their strategic perspective I can understand such a Labour attitude. Were the LDs to take the seat , Labour would be threatened with a repeat of what happened in Carshalton & Wallington post 1997  when their voters switched to the LDs in droves to keep the Tories out. It is natural that the party would wish to avoid that in a seat it has won in fairly recent years - even at risk of the Tories winning there again.

[batman]

May 29, 2023 19:14:11 GMT anthony said:

May 29, 2023 18:51:30 GMT graham said:

That all sounds very presumptious on the part of the individuals concerned - but also implies a clear intent to fight the seat seriously.

Well, they aren't doing that yet - but yes, I've no doubt that they will fight the seat "seriously" - they would prefer a Tory MP - we know this is true.

we know nothing of the kind. We don't need Focus-leaflet-style slogans here. Labour would very obviously prefer to win the seat themselves, as they have done in the past albeit on different boundaries from the ones they will have to work with now. I tend to think that the Lib Dems are likelier to win than Labour, but talk that Labour want the Tories to win is obviously silly as we are trying to defeat the Tories to form a Labour government. The possibility of the Tories finishing in 3rd place here is very definite. The possibility of them finishing first is extremely remote even if Labour polls a strongly increased share of the vote.

[anthony]

May 29, 2023 19:43:02 GMT batman said:

we know nothing of the kind. We don't need Focus-leaflet-style slogans here. Labour would very obviously prefer to win the seat themselves, as they have done in the past albeit on different boundaries from the ones they will have to work with now. I tend to think that the Lib Dems are likelier to win than Labour, but talk that Labour want the Tories to win is obviously silly as we are trying to defeat the Tories to form a Labour government. The possibility of the Tories finishing in 3rd place here is very definite. The possibility of them finishing first is extremely remote even if Labour polls a strongly increased share of the vote.

We know it because we've been told it by various Labour sources in London - that the local party wants Wimbledon as a target to try to prevent us taking control of Merton council in the future.

[anthony]

May 29, 2023 19:31:33 GMT graham said:

From their strategic perspective I can understand such a Labour attitude. Were the LDs to take the seat , Labour would be threatened with a repeat of what happened in Carshalton & Wallington post 1997  when their voters switched to the LDs in droves to keep the Tories out. It is natural that the party would wish to avoid that in a seat it has won in fairly recent years - even at risk of the Tories winning there again.

Well quite, but if you think this you agree with me not Batman.

Also, they're not (necessarily) "their voters". If Labour hadn't been narrowly ahead of the LDs here in 1992, 1997 might have looked very different

[graham]

May 30, 2023 17:22:35 GMT anthony said:

May 29, 2023 19:31:33 GMT graham said:

From their strategic perspective I can understand such a Labour attitude. Were the LDs to take the seat , Labour would be threatened with a repeat of what happened in Carshalton & Wallington post 1997  when their voters switched to the LDs in droves to keep the Tories out. It is natural that the party would wish to avoid that in a seat it has won in fairly recent years - even at risk of the Tories winning there again.

Well quite, but if you think this you agree with me not Batman.

Also, they're not (necessarily) "their voters". If Labour hadn't been narrowly ahead of the LDs here in 1992, 1997 might have looked very different

But Wimbledon is a seat where Labour and the LDs have swapped places on a regular basis since 1983. Neither party can really claim to have emerged in a position of dominance v the other.2019 on its own is not sufficient in that the factors salient at the time - Brexit and Corbyn - may well have made it an aberration.It may be of some significance that the Labour vote here actually fell more sharply in 2010 than it did in 2019 - yet that did not prevent a strong recovery in 2015 and particularly 2017. The LD vote has been very volatile.

[olympian95]

One thing of note here - if you look back at the 1994 local election results in Wimbledon, Labour had built a decent base of councillors in the constituency, with the LDs on just 3 seats. Now, ahead of the next GE we have Labour down to just 2 seats in the constituency - could we potentially see a 1997 result, but with the roles of Lab and the LDs reversed?

[batman]

Labour had half the wards at that time (and held all their seats in 1998), holding Abbey, Dundonald, Cannon Hill, Trinity & Durnsford. The Tories held Village, Hillside & Raynes Park, the Lib Dems West Barnes, and the Independent Residents Merton Park. Indeed, none of the wards held by Labour had even slightly narrow majorities.

[olympian95]

1994 and 98 were really impressive performances from Labour in Wimbledon, really set the scene for Roger Casale's success

[graham]

How did Labour manage to massively outpoll the LDs here in both 2015 and 2017?

[stb12]

May 31, 2023 13:25:35 GMT graham said:

How did Labour manage to massively outpoll the LDs here in both 2015 and 2017?

I can’t speak to any local factors for here but there was a big coalition drop in 2015 and there was very limited recovery from this in 2017. In 2019 the Lib Dem remain message really cut through in constituencies like this which will have made the difference

[graham]

May 31, 2023 14:42:21 GMT stb12 said:

May 31, 2023 13:25:35 GMT graham said:

How did Labour manage to massively outpoll the LDs here in both 2015 and 2017?

I can’t speak to any local factors for here but there was a big coalition drop in 2015 and there was very limited recovery from this in 2017. In 2019 the Lib Dem remain message really cut through in constituencies like this which will have made the difference

If that is correct, I suspect that the Remain or Rejoin message will be much less salient in 2024.

[stb12]

May 31, 2023 16:18:07 GMT graham said:

May 31, 2023 14:42:21 GMT stb12 said:

I can’t speak to any local factors for here but there was a big coalition drop in 2015 and there was very limited recovery from this in 2017. In 2019 the Lib Dem remain message really cut through in constituencies like this which will have made the difference

If that is correct, I suspect that the Remain or Rejoin message will be much less salient in 2024.

Yes but the Lib Dems might be detoxified from the coalition now to some extent?

[graham]

May 31, 2023 16:31:28 GMT stb12 said:

May 31, 2023 16:18:07 GMT graham said:

If that is correct, I suspect that the Remain or Rejoin message will be much less salient in 2024.

Yes but the Lib Dems might be detoxified from the coalition now to some extent?

That is quite likely so - though this is very much the type of seat where Labour might push the 'Tory Little Helper' message and seek to blame collapse of public services due to Austerity on the LDs to the extent they facilitated those policies. Beyond that Labour's vote should be much less depressed by the Brexit and Corbyn factors when compared with 2019.

[graham]

May 31, 2023 12:10:27 GMT batman said:

Labour had half the wards at that time (and held all their seats in 1998), holding Abbey, Dundonald, Cannon Hill, Trinity & Durnsford. The Tories held Village, Hillside & Raynes Park, the Lib Dems West Barnes, and the Independent Residents Merton Park. Indeed, none of the wards held by Labour had even slightly narrow majorities.

It is pretty common though for the LDs - and indeed the Greens - to win support at Local Elections by focussing on issues in a similar way to Local Residents' Associations.  Much of that support is likely to be soft and often does not transfer to Parliamentary Elections.

[Pete Whitehead]

May 31, 2023 17:51:20 GMT graham said:

May 31, 2023 12:10:27 GMT batman said:

Labour had half the wards at that time (and held all their seats in 1998), holding Abbey, Dundonald, Cannon Hill, Trinity & Durnsford. The Tories held Village, Hillside & Raynes Park, the Lib Dems West Barnes, and the Independent Residents Merton Park. Indeed, none of the wards held by Labour had even slightly narrow majorities.

It is pretty common though for the LDs - and indeed the Greens - to win support at Local Elections by focussing on issues in a similar way to Local Residents' Associations.  Much of that support is likely to be soft and often does not transfer to Parliamentary Elections.

It is common but the process is kind of reversed here. You can see examples nearby such as in Kingston and Richmond where local strength did ultimately transfer to parliamentary success (though in Kingston there is an element of the reverse process, in that the Lib Dems only became really dominant locally after winning the parliamentary seat(s)). Here though its clear that the surge in local election strength which occurred in 2022 was largely on the back of the strong performance in the parliamentary election. Of course were they to win the seat this process would be exacerbated and this is why Labour are rightly reluctant to let them get in this position as it will be increasingly difficult for them to win any councillors in the Wimbledon wards and this threatens their majority on Merton council (should they fall short in Lower Morden). There are relatively few constituencies where local election success has followed parliamentary success compared with those where parliamentary success has followed local success (and there are more indeed where parliamentary success has not followed local success). Portsmouth South is an example I think and of course the Lib Dem strength in Sutton has its genesis in the Sutton & Cheam by-election.

[graham]

May 31, 2023 18:05:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

May 31, 2023 17:51:20 GMT graham said:

It is pretty common though for the LDs - and indeed the Greens - to win support at Local Elections by focussing on issues in a similar way to Local Residents' Associations.  Much of that support is likely to be soft and often does not transfer to Parliamentary Elections.

It is common but the process is kind of reversed here. You can see examples nearby such as in Kingston and Richmond where local strength did ultimately transfer to parliamentary success (though in Kingston there is an element of the reverse process, in that the Lib Dems only became really dominant locally after winning the parliamentary seat(s)). Here though its clear that the surge in local election strength which occurred in 2022 was largely on the back of the strong performance in the parliamentary election. Of course were they to win the seat this process would be exacerbated and this is why Labour are rightly reluctant to let them get in this position as it will be increasingly difficult for them to win any councillors in the Wimbledon wards and this threatens their majority on Merton council (should they fall short in Lower Morden). There are relatively few constituencies where local election success has followed parliamentary success compared with those where parliamentary success has followed local success (and there are more indeed where parliamentary success has not followed local success). Portsmouth South is an example I think and of course the Lib Dem strength in Sutton has its genesis in the Sutton & Cheam by-election.

Very interesting and I agree with pretty well everything. I was unaware that the LDs had not made progress in the Wimbledon wards ar local elections until 2022 I also had not realised that the Liberal success at the December 1972 Sutton & Cheam by election was crucial to their later advances in Sutton.

Portsmouth South is interesting in that Labour is now pretty firmly established despite continued LD dominance at local elections. Admiitedly there were unhelpful factors re - Mike Hancock which doubtless helped Labour jump from third to first place 2015 - 2017. Labour had effectively been eclipsed in the seat since 1983  and particularly the 1984 Alliance by election win . I have cited the seat  as a possible precedent for Labour to mount a recovery - not so much in Wimbledon but rather in Carshalton & Wallington which in the mid-1970s had been a Tory/Labour marginal . I do wonder whether the loss of Tom Brake's personal vote will provide Labour with an opportunity to recover lost ground.

[Pete Whitehead]

May 31, 2023 18:47:31 GMT graham said:

May 31, 2023 18:05:28 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

It is common but the process is kind of reversed here. You can see examples nearby such as in Kingston and Richmond where local strength did ultimately transfer to parliamentary success (though in Kingston there is an element of the reverse process, in that the Lib Dems only became really dominant locally after winning the parliamentary seat(s)). Here though its clear that the surge in local election strength which occurred in 2022 was largely on the back of the strong performance in the parliamentary election. Of course were they to win the seat this process would be exacerbated and this is why Labour are rightly reluctant to let them get in this position as it will be increasingly difficult for them to win any councillors in the Wimbledon wards and this threatens their majority on Merton council (should they fall short in Lower Morden). There are relatively few constituencies where local election success has followed parliamentary success compared with those where parliamentary success has followed local success (and there are more indeed where parliamentary success has not followed local success). Portsmouth South is an example I think and of course the Lib Dem strength in Sutton has its genesis in the Sutton & Cheam by-election.

Very interesting and I agree with pretty well everything. I was unaware that the LDs had not made progress in the Wimbledon wards ar local elections until 2022 I also had not realised that the Liberal success at the December 1972 Sutton & Cheam by election was crucial to their later advances in Sutton.

Portsmouth South is interesting in that Labour is now pretty firmly established despite continued LD dominance at local elections. Admiitedly there were unhelpful factors re - Mike Hancock which doubtless helped Labour jump from third to first place 2015 - 2017. Labour had effectively been eclipsed in the seat since 1983  and particularly the 1984 Alliance by election win . I have cited the seat  as a possible precedent for Labour to mount a recovery - not so much in Wimbledon but rather in Carshalton & Wallington which in the mid-1970s had been a Tory/Labour marginal . I do wonder whether the loss of Tom Brake's personal vote will provide Labour with an opportunity to recover lost ground.

They made some advances in 2018 but the major advance was in 2022.  Prior to 2018 they had only occasionally won seats in West Barnes (not necessarily one of their better wards in general elections). The Lib dem weakness here was always quite striking in comparison with the the boroughs to the south and west.  I remember even as far back as 1987 Wimbledon was talked up as a vague Alliance target (Adrian Slade was the candidate) and they had no councillors at all at that time.