|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 21, 2021 15:07:04 GMT
Yes Torys would need Lab to Con switchers to win here rather than BXP voters which will be a lot harder Eh? The Brexit party vote was way higher than the Labour majority last time |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2021 15:31:31 GMT
Yes Torys would need Lab to Con switchers to win here rather than BXP voters which will be a lot harder Eh? The Brexit party vote was way higher than the Labour majority last time I think he’s thinking those who voted Brexit are people who could never vote Tory. I don’t doubt some of them, perhaps even a majority of them, are. However I would expect some voted Brexit because they genuinely thought they were more likely to be able to threaten Labour here than the Conservatives. There’s also the idea that voting UKIP / Brexit has acted as an entry to voting Tory, for some people at least. Then there’s the issue of differential turnout. Who’s supporters are motivated? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2021 15:40:28 GMT
I would currently predict a Labour hold. It’s just so rare, so difficult, for governments to gain seats in by-elections.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593 
|
Post by bsjmcr on Mar 21, 2021 16:23:39 GMT
Eh? The Brexit party vote was way higher than the Labour majority last time There’s also the idea that voting UKIP / Brexit has acted as an entry to voting Tory, for some people at least. Then there’s the issue of differential turnout. Who’s supporters are motivated? This. I wonder how many Brexit voters now 'regret' not voting Tory because they felt they ended up splitting the Leave vote and letting Labour win, and may even feel fooled by Tice et al who made them feel like they had a chance of winning? Of course the LD's are also guilty of this on the remain side through their dodgy polls and extrapolation of EU election results. See also: Doncaster North/Central, N'ton,Pontefract&Castleford, Sunderland, etc - all could have been high profile Labour losses if it wasn't for Brexit party. There could have been a 'Cooper moment' (or Balls part 2), a Miliband moment, etc... That being said, it also stands that the Tories that did win may also wish to thank Brexit for helping to drain a significant chunk of Labour votes away, as many were elected with actually very little increase in vote share at all, or even a decrease. That's probably why so many of their new intake are so young/inexperienced/not local, I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely didn't think they would win and were hoping to do it 'for the experience' and bag a safe seat next time. Who knows if some particularly talented ones (if any) may do a chicken run next time. I'm sure much of Labour's 97 intake also falls into this category of 'unexpected' MPs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2021 16:30:25 GMT
I think he’s thinking those who voted Brexit are people who could never vote Tory. I don’t doubt some of them, perhaps even a majority of them, are. However I would expect some voted Brexit because they genuinely thought they were more likely to be able to threaten Labour here than the Conservatives. There’s also the idea that voting UKIP / Brexit has acted as an entry to voting Tory, for some people at least. Then there’s the issue of differential turnout. Who’s supporters are motivated? This. I wonder how many Brexit voters now 'regret' not voting Tory because they felt they ended up splitting the Leave vote and letting Labour win, and may even feel fooled by Tice et al who made them feel like they had a chance of winning? Of course the LD's are also guilty of this on the remain side through their dodgy polls and extrapolation of EU election results. See also: Doncaster North/Central, Pontefract&Castleford, Sunderland, etc - all could have been high profile Labour losses if it wasn't for Brexit party. There could have been a 'Cooper moment' (or Balls part 2), a Miliband moment, etc... That being said, it also stands that the Tories that did win may also wish to thank Brexit for helping to drain a significant chunk of Labour votes away, as many were elected with actually very little increase in vote share at all, or even a decrease. That's probably why so many of their new intake are so young/inexperienced/not local, I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely didn't think they would win and were hoping to do it 'for the experience' and bag a safe seat next time. Who knows if some particularly talented ones (if any) may do a chicken run next time. I'm sure much of Labour's 97 intake also falls into this category of 'unexpected' MPs. Of course if those voters really do feel that let down by the protest party they turned to it might depress turnout more than usual for a by-election. If it's a case of ambiguity over who to vote for tactically, COVID depressing turnout, and disenchantment depressing turnout we could end up with an insanely low-turnout election. That might well get Labour over the line with a larger activist base and better local organisation than anyone else |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 21, 2021 16:36:24 GMT
I think he’s thinking those who voted Brexit are people who could never vote Tory. I don’t doubt some of them, perhaps even a majority of them, are. However I would expect some voted Brexit because they genuinely thought they were more likely to be able to threaten Labour here than the Conservatives. There’s also the idea that voting UKIP / Brexit has acted as an entry to voting Tory, for some people at least. Then there’s the issue of differential turnout. Who’s supporters are motivated? This. I wonder how many Brexit voters now 'regret' not voting Tory because they felt they ended up splitting the Leave vote and letting Labour win, and may even feel fooled by Tice et al who made them feel like they had a chance of winning? Of course the LD's are also guilty of this on the remain side through their dodgy polls and extrapolation of EU election results. See also: Doncaster North/Central, Pontefract&Castleford, Sunderland, etc - all could have been high profile Labour losses if it wasn't for Brexit party. There could have been a 'Cooper moment' (or Balls part 2), a Miliband moment, etc... That being said, it also stands that the Tories that did win may also wish to thank Brexit for helping to drain a significant chunk of Labour votes away, as many were elected with actually very little increase in vote share at all, or even a decrease. That's probably why so many of their new intake are so young/inexperienced/not local, I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely didn't think they would win and were hoping to do it 'for the experience' and bag a safe seat next time . Who knows if some particularly talented ones (if any) may do a chicken run next time. I'm sure much of Labour's 97 intake also falls into this category of 'unexpected' MPs. Due to upcoming boundary changes some of them will have no choice in the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Mar 21, 2021 17:55:57 GMT
I think he’s thinking those who voted Brexit are people who could never vote Tory. I don’t doubt some of them, perhaps even a majority of them, are. However I would expect some voted Brexit because they genuinely thought they were more likely to be able to threaten Labour here than the Conservatives. There’s also the idea that voting UKIP / Brexit has acted as an entry to voting Tory, for some people at least. Then there’s the issue of differential turnout. Who’s supporters are motivated? This. I wonder how many Brexit voters now 'regret' not voting Tory because they felt they ended up splitting the Leave vote and letting Labour win, and may even feel fooled by Tice et al who made them feel like they had a chance of winning? Of course the LD's are also guilty of this on the remain side through their dodgy polls and extrapolation of EU election results. See also: Doncaster North/Central, Pontefract&Castleford, Sunderland, etc - all could have been high profile Labour losses if it wasn't for Brexit party. There could have been a 'Cooper moment' (or Balls part 2), a Miliband moment, etc... That being said, it also stands that the Tories that did win may also wish to thank Brexit for helping to drain a significant chunk of Labour votes away, as many were elected with actually very little increase in vote share at all, or even a decrease. That's probably why so many of their new intake are so young/inexperienced/not local, I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely didn't think they would win and were hoping to do it 'for the experience' and bag a safe seat next time. Who knows if some particularly talented ones (if any) may do a chicken run next time. I'm sure much of Labour's 97 intake also falls into this category of 'unexpected' MPs. The idea of Ponty & Cas being a Tory gain is pure fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 21, 2021 18:22:50 GMT
As it was abolished in 2010.
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford though was very close...
Labour Yvette Cooper 18,297 37.9
Conservative Andrew Lee 17,021 35.3
Brexit Party Deneice Florence-Jukes 8,032 16.6
Liberal Democrats Tom Gordon 3,147 6.5 <-- CAN'T WIN HERE
Yorkshire Laura Walker 1,762 3.7
Majority 1,276 2.6 Decrease 26.9
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,593
|
Post by bsjmcr on Mar 21, 2021 18:31:13 GMT
The idea of Ponty & Cas being a Tory gain is pure fantasy. Don't wish to change the topic or start a long list of these but a lot of people said that about Leigh, Blyth Valley, etc... The same of course could be said in reverse for Canterbury, and I'm sure for many LD gains over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Mar 21, 2021 18:45:00 GMT
As it was abolished in 2010. Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford though was very close... Labour Yvette Cooper 18,297 37.9 Conservative Andrew Lee 17,021 35.3 Brexit Party Deneice Florence-Jukes 8,032 16.6 Liberal Democrats Tom Gordon 3,147 6.5 <-- CAN'T WIN HEREYorkshire Laura Walker 1,762 3.7 Majority 1,276 2.6 Decrease 26.9 Normy is as Labour as Cas. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 21, 2021 19:28:24 GMT
The idea of Ponty & Cas being a Tory gain is pure fantasy. Don't wish to change the topic or start a long list of these but a lot of people said that about Leigh, Blyth Valley, etc... The same of course could be said in reverse for Canterbury, and I'm sure for many LD gains over the years. Quite.
In another thread I posted the following back in October 2018:
"Well, yes. Changing demography is a factor, as is differential turnout. There's certainly more to it than simple vote-switching.
"But even so ....
"I could have added NE Derbyshire, Middlesbrough S and Copeland to the three I mentioned (the comparison in the last-named being with the 2015 GE, not the intervening byelection).
"And I'm also looking at the Tory near-misses in 2017: that is, the Labour seats that they came closest to capturing. If we confine ourselves only to the ones they missed by 2500 or fewer, we have (in ascending order): Dudley N, Newcastle-u-L, Barrow, Ashfield, Bishop Auckland, Penistone, Wrexham, Wakefield, Wolverhampton SW, Stoke N.
"All I'm saying is that there's a pattern here."
(The 'three I mentioned' in an earlier post were Mansfield, Stoke S and Walsall N, all very traditional Labour seats won by the Tories in 2017.)
Of the ten near-misses I listed back in October 2018, all Labour seats at that time, every one fell to the Tories fourteen months later - and most of these (not W'ton SW) were very long-established Labour seats where electing a Tory was as unthinkable as it would be in Normanton, Ponty & Cas - until it happened.
(It's not all one-way traffic of course. On could make similar comments about Canterbury, say, or most notably Hove - the latter not so long ago the very epitome of genteel south coast Toryism and now a rock-solid Labour seat.)
There are two schools of thought about the 2019 election. One is that it was essentially an outlier, as pro-Brexit Labour voters lent their support to the Tories (or the Brexit Party), for one election only, in order to 'get Brexit done'; and now, that mission accomplished, they will return to their long-term allegiance. The other view is that the particular circumstances of the 2019 election greatly accelerated a trend that was already in evidence of a realignment of the two main parties as they shift their appeal to different sections of the electorate.
It's a mug's game, asking for trouble, to make political predictions: but I'm going to line up with the 'trend' interpretation. And I'm going to stick my neck out even further and say that if the 'trend' theory is correct, there's no reason to think that the process reached its culmination in 2019. Someone calculated that of the 203 seats won by Labour in 2019, as many as 109 - well over half - supported Brexit in the 2016 referendum. And if that's true, it suggests that Labour has far more seats to lose unless it finds a way to reconnect with what Labour people sometimes describe as their 'lost electors'. (This is a telling piece of terminology in my view because these electors know precisely where they are: it's not they that are lost, it's the Labour Party.)
The reason the Hartlepool byelection is so interesting is that it will, along with the huge number of other elections taking place the same day, give us the best indication since 2019 of how the electoral sands are shifting. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 21, 2021 20:18:46 GMT
Don't wish to change the topic or start a long list of these but a lot of people said that about Leigh, Blyth Valley, etc... The same of course could be said in reverse for Canterbury, and I'm sure for many LD gains over the years. Quite. In another thread I posted the following back in October 2018: "Well, yes. Changing demography is a factor, as is differential turnout. There's certainly more to it than simple vote-switching.
"But even so ....
"I could have added NE Derbyshire, Middlesbrough S and Copeland to the three I mentioned (the comparison in the last-named being with the 2015 GE, not the intervening byelection).
"And I'm also looking at the Tory near-misses in 2017: that is, the Labour seats that they came closest to capturing. If we confine ourselves only to the ones they missed by 2500 or fewer, we have (in ascending order): Dudley N, Newcastle-u-L, Barrow, Ashfield, Bishop Auckland, Penistone, Wrexham, Wakefield, Wolverhampton SW, Stoke N.
"All I'm saying is that there's a pattern here." (The 'three I mentioned' in an earlier post were Mansfield, Stoke S and Walsall N, all very traditional Labour seats won by the Tories in 2017.) Of the ten near-misses I listed back in October 2018, all Labour seats at that time, every one fell to the Tories fourteen months later - and most of these (not W'ton SW) were very long-established Labour seats where electing a Tory was as unthinkable as it would be in Normanton, Ponty & Cas - until it happened. (It's not all one-way traffic of course. On could make similar comments about Canterbury, say, or most notably Hove - the latter not so long ago the very epitome of genteel south coast Toryism and now a rock-solid Labour seat.) There are two schools of thought about the 2019 election. One is that it was essentially an outlier, as pro-Brexit Labour voters lent their support to the Tories (or the Brexit Party), for one election only, in order to 'get Brexit done'; and now, that mission accomplished, they will return to their long-term allegiance. The other view is that the particular circumstances of the 2019 election greatly accelerated a trend that was already in evidence of a realignment of the two main parties as they shift their appeal to different sections of the electorate. It's a mug's game, asking for trouble, to make political predictions: but I'm going to line up with the 'trend' interpretation. And I'm going to stick my neck out even further and say that if the 'trend' theory is correct, there's no reason to think that the process reached its culmination in 2019. Someone calculated that of the 203 seats won by Labour in 2019, as many as 109 - well over half - supported Brexit in the 2016 referendum. And if that's true, it suggests that Labour has far more seats to lose unless it finds a way to reconnect with what Labour people sometimes describe as their 'lost electors'. (This is a telling piece of terminology in my view because these electors know precisely where they are: it's not they that are lost, it's the Labour Party.)
The reason the Hartlepool byelection is so interesting is that it will, along with the huge number of other elections taking place the same day, give us the best indication since 2019 of how the electoral sands are shifting. Which is why Labour should give up its majoritarian aims and support electoral reform. It can then be - as it should be - the party of the left, and their job should be to promote and win support for the politics of the left. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 21, 2021 20:24:31 GMT
Can't see Andrea Jenkyns keeping her seat. |
|
|
|
Post by elinorhelyn on Mar 21, 2021 21:03:26 GMT
Don't wish to change the topic or start a long list of these but a lot of people said that about Leigh, Blyth Valley, etc... The same of course could be said in reverse for Canterbury, and I'm sure for many LD gains over the years. Quite.
In another thread I posted the following back in October 2018:
"Well, yes. Changing demography is a factor, as is differential turnout. There's certainly more to it than simple vote-switching.
"But even so ....
"I could have added NE Derbyshire, Middlesbrough S and Copeland to the three I mentioned (the comparison in the last-named being with the 2015 GE, not the intervening byelection).
"And I'm also looking at the Tory near-misses in 2017: that is, the Labour seats that they came closest to capturing. If we confine ourselves only to the ones they missed by 2500 or fewer, we have (in ascending order): Dudley N, Newcastle-u-L, Barrow, Ashfield, Bishop Auckland, Penistone, Wrexham, Wakefield, Wolverhampton SW, Stoke N.
"All I'm saying is that there's a pattern here."
(The 'three I mentioned' in an earlier post were Mansfield, Stoke S and Walsall N, all very traditional Labour seats won by the Tories in 2017.)
Of the ten near-misses I listed back in October 2018, all Labour seats at that time, every one fell to the Tories fourteen months later - and most of these (not W'ton SW) were very long-established Labour seats where electing a Tory was as unthinkable as it would be in Normanton, Ponty & Cas - until it happened.
(It's not all one-way traffic of course. On could make similar comments about Canterbury, say, or most notably Hove - the latter not so long ago the very epitome of genteel south coast Toryism and now a rock-solid Labour seat.)
There are two schools of thought about the 2019 election. One is that it was essentially an outlier, as pro-Brexit Labour voters lent their support to the Tories (or the Brexit Party), for one election only, in order to 'get Brexit done'; and now, that mission accomplished, they will return to their long-term allegiance. The other view is that the particular circumstances of the 2019 election greatly accelerated a trend that was already in evidence of a realignment of the two main parties as they shift their appeal to different sections of the electorate.
It's a mug's game, asking for trouble, to make political predictions: but I'm going to line up with the 'trend' interpretation. And I'm going to stick my neck out even further and say that if the 'trend' theory is correct, there's no reason to think that the process reached its culmination in 2019. Someone calculated that of the 203 seats won by Labour in 2019, as many as 109 - well over half - supported Brexit in the 2016 referendum. And if that's true, it suggests that Labour has far more seats to lose unless it finds a way to reconnect with what Labour people sometimes describe as their 'lost electors'. (This is a telling piece of terminology in my view because these electors know precisely where they are: it's not they that are lost, it's the Labour Party.)
The reason the Hartlepool byelection is so interesting is that it will, along with the huge number of other elections taking place the same day, give us the best indication since 2019 of how the electoral sands are shifting. I feel like Labour are where the US Democrats were from '68 to '92 when they only won one election after their electoral colaition was torn apart by the Civil Rights Movement. You can replace the Civil Rights Movement with Brexit for the UK Labour Party. Their in a situation where their old coalition is dying, their new one is yet to be born. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 21, 2021 21:09:09 GMT
I feel like Labour are where the US Democrats were from '68 to '92 when they only won one election after their electoral colaition was torn apart by the CRM. You can replace the CRM with Brexit for the UK Labour Party. Their in a situation where their old coalition is dying, their new one is yet to be born. Customer Relationship Management? |
|
|
|
Post by elinorhelyn on Mar 21, 2021 21:11:22 GMT
I feel like Labour are where the US Democrats were from '68 to '92 when they only won one election after their electoral colaition was torn apart by the CRM. You can replace the CRM with Brexit for the UK Labour Party. Their in a situation where their old coalition is dying, their new one is yet to be born. Customer Relationship Management? Civil Rights movement, lol. I'll edit the initial post for clarification |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Mar 21, 2021 21:13:43 GMT
Customer Relationship Management? Civil Rights movement, lol. I'll edit the initial post for clarification D'oh! Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 21, 2021 21:26:31 GMT
Quite. In another thread I posted the following back in October 2018: "Well, yes. Changing demography is a factor, as is differential turnout. There's certainly more to it than simple vote-switching.
"But even so ....
"I could have added NE Derbyshire, Middlesbrough S and Copeland to the three I mentioned (the comparison in the last-named being with the 2015 GE, not the intervening byelection).
"And I'm also looking at the Tory near-misses in 2017: that is, the Labour seats that they came closest to capturing. If we confine ourselves only to the ones they missed by 2500 or fewer, we have (in ascending order): Dudley N, Newcastle-u-L, Barrow, Ashfield, Bishop Auckland, Penistone, Wrexham, Wakefield, Wolverhampton SW, Stoke N.
"All I'm saying is that there's a pattern here." (The 'three I mentioned' in an earlier post were Mansfield, Stoke S and Walsall N, all very traditional Labour seats won by the Tories in 2017.) Of the ten near-misses I listed back in October 2018, all Labour seats at that time, every one fell to the Tories fourteen months later - and most of these (not W'ton SW) were very long-established Labour seats where electing a Tory was as unthinkable as it would be in Normanton, Ponty & Cas - until it happened. (It's not all one-way traffic of course. On could make similar comments about Canterbury, say, or most notably Hove - the latter not so long ago the very epitome of genteel south coast Toryism and now a rock-solid Labour seat.) There are two schools of thought about the 2019 election. One is that it was essentially an outlier, as pro-Brexit Labour voters lent their support to the Tories (or the Brexit Party), for one election only, in order to 'get Brexit done'; and now, that mission accomplished, they will return to their long-term allegiance. The other view is that the particular circumstances of the 2019 election greatly accelerated a trend that was already in evidence of a realignment of the two main parties as they shift their appeal to different sections of the electorate. It's a mug's game, asking for trouble, to make political predictions: but I'm going to line up with the 'trend' interpretation. And I'm going to stick my neck out even further and say that if the 'trend' theory is correct, there's no reason to think that the process reached its culmination in 2019. Someone calculated that of the 203 seats won by Labour in 2019, as many as 109 - well over half - supported Brexit in the 2016 referendum. And if that's true, it suggests that Labour has far more seats to lose unless it finds a way to reconnect with what Labour people sometimes describe as their 'lost electors'. (This is a telling piece of terminology in my view because these electors know precisely where they are: it's not they that are lost, it's the Labour Party.)
The reason the Hartlepool byelection is so interesting is that it will, along with the huge number of other elections taking place the same day, give us the best indication since 2019 of how the electoral sands are shifting. Which is why Labour should give up its majoritarian aims and support electoral reform. It can then be - as it should be - the party of the left, and their job should be to promote and win support for the politics of the left. Mike, I don't want to put words in your mouth but is your implication here that being 'a party of the left' is inconsistent with appealing to sufficient voters to win seats like the ones I mentioned in my post? If so, why? The Labour Party of Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson achieved it. Or was Labour not left wing in their day?
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Mar 21, 2021 21:43:23 GMT
If the Tories don't win Hartlepool it'll be because of a successful focus on the NHS by the Labour candidate. So they need to make sure the agenda isn't only on that subject. How many impossible things before breakfast? |
|
|
|
Post by elinorhelyn on Mar 21, 2021 21:49:21 GMT
All this talk of a progressive alliance forgets that any progressive alliance will have to go through the Lib Dems, which will inevitably shift a Labour government supported by them to the right. Probably not what MerseyMike thinks he can get from a progressive alliance.
|
|
