Wells

[froome]

Jun 8, 2020 19:29:11 GMT nn2019 said:

Something to add re: Wells:

Highbridge did have a Labour councillor as recently as 2003 on Sedgemoor Council! Two of the three Labour seats (and one Tory) were lost in 2007 to the Lib Dems. Throughout the 1970s with the exception of 1987, there was at least one Labour representative (it was a ward with three councillors) as the other two seats were alternated between Lib / SDP / Lib Dem and Conservatives. I think the boundary changes merging with the go-between area for the Tories and Lib Dems of Burnham South ended any hope of this seat being regained by Labour again.

There has been a lot of housing development around Highbridge and south Burnham in the last 20 or 30 years, which will have altered the voting patterns here enormously. Without looking up past votes, I would be surprised if Highbridge wasn't very safely Labour 40 years or so ago.

[andrewp]

Jun 9, 2020 13:23:32 GMT froome said:

Jun 8, 2020 19:29:11 GMT nn2019 said:

Something to add re: Wells:

Highbridge did have a Labour councillor as recently as 2003 on Sedgemoor Council! Two of the three Labour seats (and one Tory) were lost in 2007 to the Lib Dems. Throughout the 1970s with the exception of 1987, there was at least one Labour representative (it was a ward with three councillors) as the other two seats were alternated between Lib / SDP / Lib Dem and Conservatives. I think the boundary changes merging with the go-between area for the Tories and Lib Dems of Burnham South ended any hope of this seat being regained by Labour again.

There has been a lot of housing development around Highbridge and south Burnham in the last 20 or 30 years, which will have altered the voting patterns here enormously. Without looking up past votes, I would be surprised if Highbridge wasn't very safely Labour 40 years or so ago.

I think you are both right. The boundary changes in Highbridge have included more of Burnham which will have been bad for Labour

Highbridge results

1973 Lab 47%, Lib 27%, Con 26%
1976 Lab 41%, Con 35%, Lib 24%
1979 Lab 39%, Con 32% Lib 29%

In 1983 it split 1 Lab, 1 Con, 1 SDP

[Pete Whitehead]

I drove through Highbridge on the same journey in which I visited Bridgwater, the dystopian horror of the latter rather overshadowing any lasting impressions of the former. But it did strike me as a complete dump

[andrewp]

Jun 9, 2020 14:06:38 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

I drove through Highbridge on the same journey in which I visited Bridgwater, the dystopian horror of the latter rather overshadowing any lasting impressions of the former. But it did strike me as a complete dump

Highbridge has a grim town centre, probably worse than Bridgwater. But has some reasonable residential estates.

[nn2019]

In the eight years I have lived down here, I have never visited Highbridge at all. I have heard it is pretty grim. I've only been past the rail station

I did gather that, with the boundary changes and housing developments so thank you for that information. As I said in my opening post, there was an attempt to gain the seat again in 2013, but it fell short due to a strong Lib Dem campaign, a known personality standing as an Indie (who was done for harassing his former wife at the start of 2020!), and from my conclusions a lazy candidate for us if his performance standing along me in 2015 gives me confidence in his abilities!

[froome]

The last time I visited Highbridge, which was some years ago, I think there was quite an interesting docks-type warehouse building right in the centre, which may now, of course, be apartments.

I wouldn't describe it as grim, but unexciting. There are very few shops left in its centre, and most of the housing is now new estates.

[andrew111]

Jun 4, 2020 6:55:41 GMT froome said:

The it's apostrophe confusion is a simple matter that can easily be corrected at proof-reading stage, and presumably just comes from ignorance, which many share. It certainly doesn't need any public shaming.

I'm still waiting for someone to describe this seat as Well's.

Two points:
1) The main purpose of grammar is to reduce ambiguity
2) Grammar is defined by usage, and has evolved in many ways over the years.

The possessive it's was apparently used in the past but died out or was suppressed in the 19th century. This was to make a group with ours, yours etc. English usage almost always evolves towards simplicity, so the alternative of imposing your's and our's was never going to catch on. I presume that yours was once you's, his was once he's etc. You would want an apostrophe in that last one.

Anyway, what I am saying is that it's just convention, and it's meaning is rarely ambiguous as a usage. So usage may in the end define the possessive it's as correct.

For now though, let's follow convention

[Robert Waller]

2011 Census

Age 65+ 21.6% 70/650
Owner-occupied 71.8% 169/650
Private rented 15.1% 275/650
Social rented 10.9% 545/650
White 98.0% 121/650
Black 0.2% 560/650
Asian 0.9% 544/650
Managerial & professional 31.0%
Routine & Semi-routine 27.2%
Degree level 26.5% 296/650
No qualifications 22.8% 333/650
Students 6.8% 322/650


General Election 2019: Wells

Party Candidate Votes % ±%

Conservative James Heappey 33,336 54.1 +4.0
Liberal Democrats Tessa Munt 23,345 37.9 +0.3
Labour Kama McKenzie 4,304 7.0 -4.7
Independent Dave Dobbs 373 0.6 +0.6
Motherworld Party Susie Quatermass 270 0.4 +0.4

C Majority 9,991 16.2 +3.7

Turnout 61,840 73.5 -0.4

Conservative hold

Swing 1.9 LD to C