|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 27, 2020 10:17:37 GMT
The irony of Labour falling away in these ex mining areas in Nottinghamshire and the surrounding area yet it looks like they could be progressing in Rushcliffe iirc correctly the predecessor seat to Rushcliffe (West Bridgford) had at least one pit (and a very large power station).
The current seat includes Cotgrave, which certainly had a pit nearby - not sure what seat it was in when it was open (60s onwards..). Labour won West Bridgford in both 1945 and 1966. There has never been a West Bridgford seat. The Rushcliffe seat which voted Labour in 1966 didn't include West Bridgford (which was then in Nottingham South) but did include Cotgrave - the main reason it voted Labour then is that it included the whole of what is now Broxtowe district |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 27, 2020 10:27:31 GMT
iirc correctly the predecessor seat to Rushcliffe (West Bridgford) had at least one pit (and a very large power station).
The current seat includes Cotgrave, which certainly had a pit nearby - not sure what seat it was in when it was open (60s onwards..). Labour won West Bridgford in both 1945 and 1966. There has never been a West Bridgford seat. The Rushcliffe seat which voted Labour in 1966 didn't include West Bridgford (which was then in Nottingham South) but did include Cotgrave - the main reason it voted Labour then is that it included the whole of what is now Broxtowe district thanks pete. confusing name of seat with name of major settlement. brain fade. thanks for answering my question. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 27, 2020 10:35:47 GMT
There has never been a West Bridgford seat. The Rushcliffe seat which voted Labour in 1966 didn't include West Bridgford (which was then in Nottingham South) but did include Cotgrave - the main reason it voted Labour then is that it included the whole of what is now Broxtowe district thanks pete. confusing name of seat with name of major settlement. brain fade. thanks for answering my question. Rushcliffe also excluded the Bingham rural district. This is the only part of Nottinghamshire never to have had a Labour MP as it was part of Carlton in 1966 which was the only Conservative held seat that year and Newark in 1945 which was likewise.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2020 10:45:33 GMT
The post-2019 map of Nottinghamshire is very satisfying.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 27, 2020 10:48:35 GMT
thanks pete. confusing name of seat with name of major settlement. brain fade. thanks for answering my question. Rushcliffe also excluded the Bingham rural district. This is the only part of Nottinghamshire never to have had a Labour MP as it was part of Carlton in 1966 which was the only Conservative held seat that year and Newark in 1945 which was likewise.. presumably the removal of Bingham for the 1950 election goes someway to explain Labour gaining the seat then rather than in the '45 landslide? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 27, 2020 11:00:10 GMT
Rushcliffe also excluded the Bingham rural district. This is the only part of Nottinghamshire never to have had a Labour MP as it was part of Carlton in 1966 which was the only Conservative held seat that year and Newark in 1945 which was likewise.. presumably the removal of Bingham for the 1950 election goes someway to explain Labour gaining the seat then rather than in the '45 landslide? Indeed and in addition Blidworth was added from Mansfield. However the Labour vote increased by over 10,000 between 1945 and 1950 and that can't be accounted for by Blidworth alone (especially as there will have been some Labour voters in Bingham RD. So I would guess that alot of development of new pit villages which Robert refers to must have occurred between 1945 and 1950 ? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 27, 2020 11:06:32 GMT
iirc correctly the predecessor seat to Rushcliffe (West Bridgford) had at least one pit (and a very large power station).
The current seat includes Cotgrave, which certainly had a pit nearby - not sure what seat it was in when it was open (60s onwards..). Labour won West Bridgford in both 1945 and 1966. There has never been a West Bridgford seat. The Rushcliffe seat which voted Labour in 1966 didn't include West Bridgford (which was then in Nottingham South) but did include Cotgrave - the main reason it voted Labour then is that it included the whole of what is now Broxtowe district Apologies - I have contradicted myself here. Cotgrave was part of the old Bingham Rural District and as such it was in the Carlton seat in 1966 (added to Rushcliffe in 1974). Also it didn't include the whole of (now) Broxtowe district as Eastwood (as now) was in the Ashfield seat, but it included the whole of what is now Broxtowe constituency (more or less) |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Nov 27, 2020 11:55:29 GMT
presumably the removal of Bingham for the 1950 election goes someway to explain Labour gaining the seat then rather than in the '45 landslide? Indeed and in addition Blidworth was added from Mansfield. However the Labour vote increased by over 10,000 between 1945 and 1950 and that can't be accounted for by Blidworth alone (especially as there will have been some Labour voters in Bingham RD. So I would guess that alot of development of new pit villages which Robert refers to must have occurred between 1945 and 1950 ? Actually, Pete, it's more complicated and perhaps more interesting than that. The growth of population in the new mining villages was mainly n the 1920s with some in the 1930s. Of course I had to cut down my explanation of the impact of the new Dukeries coalfield from a 100,000 word thesis and book ...! The main theoretical point of my study was the concentration of power in the new pit villages in the hands of the private coal companies that built them. Not only did they use their monopoly of power (for example owning all the housing, shops, even employing the GP and building the churches and chapels) to stymie the organisation of the official trade union, but they effectively banned the Labour party from those villages despite the preponderance of miners - the local councillors were usually from management or ownership, and sometimes still shared with representatives of the old Dukeries aristocracy. The Labour party was not organised in 'my' pit villages until 1946, when they swept the board in the Newark Rural District council elections in the relevant wards. The war then the imminence of nationalisation were key factor in the end of the company hegemony. The boundary changes between 1945 and 1950 were important, as you say. I know the ballot is secret, but the old miners and their families I interviewed reckoned the power of the coal companies strongly influenced voting before they were removed from ownership, and the lack of an organised Labour party was also a factor. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 27, 2020 12:35:59 GMT
Indeed and in addition Blidworth was added from Mansfield. However the Labour vote increased by over 10,000 between 1945 and 1950 and that can't be accounted for by Blidworth alone (especially as there will have been some Labour voters in Bingham RD. So I would guess that alot of development of new pit villages which Robert refers to must have occurred between 1945 and 1950 ? Actually, Pete, it's more complicated and perhaps more interesting than that. The growth of population in the new mining villages was mainly n the 1920s with some in the 1930s. Of course I had to cut down my explanation of the impact of the new Dukeries coalfield from a 100,000 word thesis and book ...! The main theoretical point of my study was the concentration of power in the new pit villages in the hands of the private coal companies that built them. Not only did they use their monopoly of power (for example owning all the housing, shops, even employing the GP and building the churches and chapels) to stymie the organisation of the official trade union, but they effectively banned the Labour party from those villages despite the preponderance of miners - the local councillors were usually from management or ownership, and sometimes still shared with representatives of the old Dukeries aristocracy. The Labour party was not organised in 'my' pit villages until 1946, when they swept the board in the Newark Rural District council elections in the relevant wards. The war then the imminence of nationalisation were key factor in the end of the company hegemony. The boundary changes between 1945 and 1950 were important, as you say. I know the ballot is secret, but the old miners and their families I interviewed reckoned the power of the coal companies strongly influenced voting before they were removed from ownership, and the lack of an organised Labour party was also a factor. This is very interesting and no doubt true but I was struck by the large increase in the overall vote between 1945 and 1950 (the Conservative vote was also higher) which led me to believe there may have been population growth as the addition of Blidworth was not enough to compensate for the loss of Bingham. I now see I was looking at the 1955- boundaries and there had been major boundary changes in Notts that year. From 1950-55 the Newark seat also included Mansfield Woodhouse, a far more substantial (in population terms) area so this will be the major driver in translating it from a safe Conservative to a safe Labour seat. It became quite a bit closer in 1955 with the removal of that area www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/bc_reports_1900s/Nottinghamshire_1949www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/sheet/bc_reports_1900s/Nottinghamshire_1967 |
|
Clark
Forum Regular
Posts: 744
|
Post by Clark on Nov 27, 2020 16:06:16 GMT
The irony of Labour falling away in these ex mining areas in Nottinghamshire and the surrounding area yet it looks like they could be progressing in Rushcliffe I mean I wouldn't exaggerate that for the reasons already mentioned. There's also the fact - and I know the area very well! - that there's a certain ceiling on the Labour vote there imposed by geography. It's hard to imagine how Labour could gain the votes needed to genuinely contest there and not recover strongly elsewhere in the county at the same time. Yeah but i thinking that whilst demographic change isn't helping them in Bolsover and Sherwood etc, it maybe is in place like West Bridgeford and Gedling... but of course you'll know better than me as I don't know the area that well |
|
Clark
Forum Regular
Posts: 744
|
Post by Clark on Nov 27, 2020 16:17:12 GMT
Also, Labour have achieved a 9% swing against the Tories since 2010 albeit losing Ken Clarke's personal vote. Con majority was more in 2017 compared to 2019. The Lib Dems are also on a now squeezable 16% of the vote. I wouldn't rule out Labour nicking the seat in 2024
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Nov 27, 2020 16:29:03 GMT
That's because Corbynism appeals to a tiny subset of voters, and they're almost all living in seats that are safe Labour already. Which is why choosing Corbyn as leader was always nuts. Ah,yeah, Reading East is "safe Labour". |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 27, 2020 16:43:18 GMT
Must be questioned whether Reading East was won by 'Corbynism' as its Labour standard-bearer is hardly a strong Corbynite - in the Labour leadership election he endorsed Lisa Nandy, who was the choice of diehard anti-Corbyn members. Reading has been on a trend to Labour in recent years unconnected to the identity of the Labour leader.
And in any case did you miss the "almost all"?
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 28, 2020 16:47:07 GMT
Must be questioned whether Reading East was won by 'Corbynism' as its Labour standard-bearer is hardly a strong Corbynite - in the Labour leadership election he endorsed Lisa Nandy, who was the choice of diehard anti-Corbyn members. Reading has been on a trend to Labour in recent years unconnected to the identity of the Labour leader. And in any case did you miss the "almost all"? How different is Reading West compared to East for slippery Sharma to have held on for so long? Or does he have a significant personal vote. It's just that I find him to be one of the weakest performers at the No. 10 briefings and interviews, elusive and evasive. Also is there any talk (a bit early I know) of a more concerted Labour effort in West Suffolk for the next election, like the Lib Dems tried (and failed) in Esher last time. Uxbridge goes without saying... could Johnson do a chicken run? Back to Sherwood - despite being a student at UoN I have only been here once, to the forest itself. Hucknall is simply known as 'where the tram goes' and nothing else - is it gentrifying or generally significantly more well-off than the deprived Nottingham City wards next to it? (e.g. Bulwell...). The result here is quite remarkable, where would Labour even start to win it back (then again the Tories must have felt the same in '97 but they got there in the end). The MP here is also totally unknown to me, which must be a good thing as the members for Mansfield, and Bassetlaw, on the other hand, I feel have had many foot-in-mouth moments during their appearances particularly on the FSM saga - do they really think their comments on 'nationalising children' would endear to some of the more deprived areas there, which could just as easily swing against them next time? Or are they strongly skilled working class areas that despise people on benefits and where such comments might have gone down well? It would also be interesting to see how much of the new 2019 Tory vote was simply 'lent' to them to Get Brexit Done, and how much of it is a real shift. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 28, 2020 16:59:54 GMT
Must be questioned whether Reading East was won by 'Corbynism' as its Labour standard-bearer is hardly a strong Corbynite - in the Labour leadership election he endorsed Lisa Nandy, who was the choice of diehard anti-Corbyn members. Reading has been on a trend to Labour in recent years unconnected to the identity of the Labour leader. And in any case did you miss the "almost all"? Or does he have a significant personal vote. It's just that I find him to be one of the weakest performers at the No. 10 briefings and interviews, elusive and evasive. Also is there any talk (a bit early I know) of a more concerted Labour effort in West Suffolk for the next election, like the Lib Dems tried (and failed) in Esher last time. Uxbridge goes without saying... could Johnson do a chicken run? Back to Sherwood - despite being a student at UoN I have only been here once, to the forest itself. Hucknall is simply known as 'where the tram goes' and nothing else - is it gentrifying or generally significantly more well-off than the deprived Nottingham City wards next to it? (e.g. Bulwell...). The result here is quite remarkable, where would Labour even start to win it back (then again the Tories must have felt the same in '97 but they got there in the end). The MP here is also totally unknown to me, which must be a good thing as the members for Mansfield, and Bassetlaw, on the other hand, I feel have had many foot-in-mouth moments during their appearances particularly on the FSM saga - do they really think their comments on 'nationalising children' would endear to some of the more deprived areas there, which could just as easily swing against them next time? Or are they strongly skilled working class areas that despise people on benefits and where such comments might have gone down well? It would also be interesting to see how much of the new 2019 Tory vote was simply 'lent' to them to Get Brexit Done, and how much of it is a real shift. Reading West is not as affluent as Reading East nor does it contain a significant student population, which is why the Conservatives won it in 2010 but not 2005. It also has fewer graduates, although Reading West is slowly heading in the same direction which is why the pro-Conservative swing in Reading West was only 1.3%, and the Conservative vote actually fell by 0.5%. Like Wycombe, Reading West is becoming more ethnically diverse and more mixed over time. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 28, 2020 17:09:50 GMT
How different is Reading West compared to East for slippery Sharma to have held on for so long? Or does he have a significant personal vote. It's just that I find him to be one of the weakest performers at the No. 10 briefings and interviews, elusive and evasive. Also is there any talk (a bit early I know) of a more concerted Labour effort in West Suffolk for the next election, like the Lib Dems tried (and failed) in Esher last time. Uxbridge goes without saying... could Johnson do a chicken run? Back to Sherwood - despite being a student at UoN I have only been here once, to the forest itself. Hucknall is simply known as 'where the tram goes' and nothing else - is it gentrifying or generally significantly more well-off than the deprived Nottingham City wards next to it? (e.g. Bulwell...). The result here is quite remarkable, where would Labour even start to win it back (then again the Tories must have felt the same in '97 but they got there in the end). The MP here is also totally unknown to me, which must be a good thing as the members for Mansfield, and Bassetlaw, on the other hand, I feel have had many foot-in-mouth moments during their appearances particularly on the FSM saga - do they really think their comments on 'nationalising children' would endear to some of the more deprived areas there, which could just as easily swing against them next time? Or are they strongly skilled working class areas that despise people on benefits and where such comments might have gone down well? It would also be interesting to see how much of the new 2019 Tory vote was simply 'lent' to them to Get Brexit Done, and how much of it is a real shift. nor does it contain a significant student population, which is why the Conservatives won it in 2010 but not 2005. It also has fewer graduates, although Reading West is slowly heading in the same direction which is why the pro-Conservative swing in Reading West was only 1.3%, and the Conservative vote actually fell by 0.5%. Like Wycombe, Reading West is becoming more ethnically diverse and more mixed over time. It really is a sign of our times, when 'not as affluent' is now a reason for a place being more Conservative. Amazing, thanks for the succinct summary! I could wax lyrical about the same that is going on in Greater Manchester - many would be surprised that Altrincham and Sale West is no longer the safest Tory seat in GM but Bolton West (the latter is reasonably comfortable though to be fair). One could also say that Leigh is not as affluent as Bury North, so the Tory majority there is almost 2,000 as opposed to just 105 in Bury. While Manchester Withington is one of the most affluent seats in GM and one of the safest Labour seats in the country. To bring it back to topic, wasn't Nottingham South a Tory target seat once upon a time? They came close in 2010. Yet now North is now a more reasonable prospect. Probably the only way they could ever win back South is by promising to abolish tuition fees  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 28, 2020 17:15:11 GMT
Reading West is not as affluent as Reading East nor does it contain a significant student population, which is why the Conservatives won it in 2010 but not 2005. It also has fewer graduates, although Reading West is slowly heading in the same direction which is why the pro-Conservative swing in Reading West was only 1.3%, and the Conservative vote actually fell by 0.5%. Like Wycombe, Reading West is becoming more ethnically diverse and more mixed over time. It really is a sign of our times, when 'not as affluent' is now a reason for a place being more Conservative. Amazing, thanks for the succinct summary! I could wax lyrical about the same that is going on in Greater Manchester - many would be surprised that Altrincham and Sale West is no longer the safest Tory seat in GM but Bolton West (the latter is reasonably comfortable though to be fair). One could also say that Leigh is not as affluent as Bury North, so the Tory majority there is almost 2,000 as opposed to just 105 in Bury. While Manchester Withington is one of the most affluent seats in GM and one of the safest Labour seats in the country. To bring it back to topic, wasn't Nottingham South a Tory target seat once upon a time? They came close in 2010. Yet now North is now a more reasonable prospect. Probably the only way they could ever win back South is by promising to abolish tuition fees The Conservatives won Nottingham South in 1983 and 1987, and in 2010 the Labour majority was reduced to just over 1,700. |
|
|
|
Sherwood
Nov 28, 2020 17:23:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by pragmaticidealist on Nov 28, 2020 17:23:05 GMT
It really is a sign of our times, when 'not as affluent' is now a reason for a place being more Conservative. Amazing, thanks for the succinct summary! I could wax lyrical about the same that is going on in Greater Manchester - many would be surprised that Altrincham and Sale West is no longer the safest Tory seat in GM but Bolton West (the latter is reasonably comfortable though to be fair). One could also say that Leigh is not as affluent as Bury North, so the Tory majority there is almost 2,000 as opposed to just 105 in Bury. While Manchester Withington is one of the most affluent seats in GM and one of the safest Labour seats in the country. To bring it back to topic, wasn't Nottingham South a Tory target seat once upon a time? They came close in 2010. Yet now North is now a more reasonable prospect. Probably the only way they could ever win back South is by promising to abolish tuition fees The Conservatives won Nottingham South in 1983 and 1987, and in 2010 the Labour majority was reduced to just over 1,700. And (wrongly) projected to go blue in the 2015 exit poll IIRC. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Nov 28, 2020 17:29:10 GMT
Must be questioned whether Reading East was won by 'Corbynism' as its Labour standard-bearer is hardly a strong Corbynite - in the Labour leadership election he endorsed Lisa Nandy, who was the choice of diehard anti-Corbyn members. Reading has been on a trend to Labour in recent years unconnected to the identity of the Labour leader. And in any case did you miss the "almost all"? How different is Reading West compared to East for slippery Sharma to have held on for so long? Or does he have a significant personal vote. It's just that I find him to be one of the weakest performers at the No. 10 briefings and interviews, elusive and evasive. Also is there any talk (a bit early I know) of a more concerted Labour effort in West Suffolk for the next election, like the Lib Dems tried (and failed) in Esher last time. Uxbridge goes without saying... could Johnson do a chicken run? Back to Sherwood - despite being a student at UoN I have only been here once, to the forest itself. Hucknall is simply known as 'where the tram goes' and nothing else - is it gentrifying or generally significantly more well-off than the deprived Nottingham City wards next to it? (e.g. Bulwell...). The result here is quite remarkable, where would Labour even start to win it back (then again the Tories must have felt the same in '97 but they got there in the end). The MP here is also totally unknown to me, which must be a good thing as the members for Mansfield, and Bassetlaw, on the other hand, I feel have had many foot-in-mouth moments during their appearances particularly on the FSM saga - do they really think their comments on 'nationalising children' would endear to some of the more deprived areas there, which could just as easily swing against them next time? Or are they strongly skilled working class areas that despise people on benefits and where such comments might have gone down well? It would also be interesting to see how much of the new 2019 Tory vote was simply 'lent' to them to Get Brexit Done, and how much of it is a real shift. I don’t think a concerted Labour effort in West Suffolk would be a great use of their resources. A Johnson chicken run was mentioned before the last election but was never going to happen. Labour could well get closer in Uxbridge and S Ruislip next time but the odds must be that Boris Johnson will not be a candidate in any constituency. |
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Nov 28, 2020 17:38:48 GMT
I don’t think a concerted Labour effort in West Suffolk would be a great use of their resources.A Johnson chicken run was mentioned before the last election but was never going to happen. Labour could well get closer in Uxbridge and S Ruislip next time but the odds must be that Boris Johnson will not be a candidate in any constituency. They did come close in 1997? (<2,000). Though it is hard to tell what the majority was in '92 as it looks like it was then part of Bury St E, where they came even closer. They are of course now a very distant second like in Sherwood, but it would be interesting to see. |
|
