|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 18, 2021 17:19:22 GMT
Refuk! Brilliant! Once was not enough Haven't you seen that before? It's been in use for over six months - this seems to be the earliest use on Twitter: It's been given more attention by polls posted on Twitter following this vote: Life is too short to be looking at Twitter.. |
|
|
|
Post by November_Rain on May 18, 2021 17:53:31 GMT
It's a Con Hold. The Lib Dems might give it a good fight, but this is one of the Tories safer seats.
Good luck to Natasa representing Labour - 12-15% of the vote would be a good result for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 18, 2021 17:55:27 GMT
Being the Labour candidate in a no-hope byelection in Buckinghamshire has in the past been a springboard on which to make a highly successful career in Labour politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 18, 2021 17:59:52 GMT
Well that explains his scepticism about ricmk's suggestion  LOL. And I like the way that 3 people have voted for a Green gain here, and 2 for a Labour one. And. no, I'm definitely not on of those voters, I think it is pretty nailed on for the Conservatives. I mentioned that I had voted Labour in the poll as my doing so resulted in the percentages for all four parties (at the time) appearing quite close to their likely respective shares in the by-election. The very presence of Labour and Green gains as options meant that I do not consider it to be a serious poll. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 18, 2021 18:09:47 GMT
Being the Labour candidate in a no-hope byelection in Buckinghamshire has in the past been a springboard on which to make a highly successful career in Labour politics. Especially if you lose your deposit. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 18, 2021 18:26:24 GMT
Rupa Huq, Paul Farrelly and Candy Atherton have all been Labour candidates here before and all made it to the Commons.
Labour have always come third here - except in 2017!
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 18, 2021 18:31:20 GMT
Being the Labour candidate in a no-hope byelection in Buckinghamshire has in the past been a springboard on which to make a highly successful career in Labour politics. The last by-election to occur in Buckinghamshire before this one was in 1982, though. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on May 18, 2021 18:49:31 GMT
LOL. And I like the way that 3 people have voted for a Green gain here, and 2 for a Labour one. And. no, I'm definitely not on of those voters, I think it is pretty nailed on for the Conservatives. Well those 5 people were clearly taking the piss, the 20 who have voted for a Lib Dem gain however... I think even if it was just Con versus Lib Dem, the Lib Dem chances would be very slim at best. The one hope they do have is, of course, events, which as has been said can always swing any election. And the one event which is predictable is a loosening of the vaccine boost, should the Indian variant become a real concern. In that situation the government will find itself between a rock and a hard place, with half the country clamouring for a tightening of the lockdown and the other half clamouring for the last vestiges of it to be removed immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on May 18, 2021 19:18:16 GMT
It's a Con Hold. The Lib Dems might give it a good fight, but this is one of the Tories safer seats.Good luck to Natasa representing Labour - 12-15% of the vote would be a good result for us. um... not sure - actually the Lib Dems did well in 2019 and its actually their 51st most winnable seat - having said that it still makes it a fairly safe Tory seat! But the Lib Dems were up 17% over their 2015 result in 2019 and it was actually one of the smallest majorities the Conservatives have had over the Lib Dems in the seat ever - comparable with the pre-coalition years. And for the Lib Dems to start in a very clear second place over Labour and the Greens is useful for the old tactical vote argument. And there is beginning to develop a cluster of strong Lib Dem performance in that part of the world - St Albans is not far away and they have always had a strong *local* election result in Watford. Obviously it depends on how the issues such as Brexit and HS2 and Covid play out but you'd have to say that the Lib Dems would prefer a by-election there to pretty much anyway else. Pre-2010 if the Tories were in Government on these figures you would say even if it needed a hard campaign, it would be something of a walk in the park for the Lib Dems - this time.... |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 18, 2021 19:36:20 GMT
It's a Con Hold. The Lib Dems might give it a good fight, but this is one of the Tories safer seats. Good luck to Natasa representing Labour - 12-15% of the vote would be a good result for us. Though not as good a result for Labour as 5% here, a Lib Dem gain, and a Labour hold in Batley & Spen. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 18, 2021 20:25:08 GMT
It's a Con Hold. The Lib Dems might give it a good fight, but this is one of the Tories safer seats.Good luck to Natasa representing Labour - 12-15% of the vote would be a good result for us. um... not sure - actually the Lib Dems did well in 2019 and its actually their 51st most winnable seat - having said that it still makes it a fairly safe Tory seat! But the Lib Dems were up 17% over their 2015 result in 2019 and it was actually one of the smallest majorities the Conservatives have had over the Lib Dems in the seat ever - comparable with the pre-coalition years. And for the Lib Dems to start in a very clear second place over Labour and the Greens is useful for the old tactical vote argument. And there is beginning to develop a cluster of strong Lib Dem performance in that part of the world - St Albans is not far away and they have always had a strong *local* election result in Watford. Obviously it depends on how the issues such as Brexit and HS2 and Covid play out but you'd have to say that the Lib Dems would prefer a by-election there to pretty much anyway else. Pre-2010 if the Tories were in Government on these figures you would say even if it needed a hard campaign, it would be something of a walk in the park for the Lib Dems - this time.... It is a seat where the Tories have always got over 50%, unlike St Albans, which even went Labour in 1997. It is perhaps more comparable to Newbury or Ribble Valley, but a tougher nut for the Lib Dems without an established candidate and with no significant local government base, and of course with the Tories on a historic high in the polls. |
|
|
|
Post by michael2019 on May 18, 2021 21:10:32 GMT
um... not sure - actually the Lib Dems did well in 2019 and its actually their 51st most winnable seat - having said that it still makes it a fairly safe Tory seat! But the Lib Dems were up 17% over their 2015 result in 2019 and it was actually one of the smallest majorities the Conservatives have had over the Lib Dems in the seat ever - comparable with the pre-coalition years. And for the Lib Dems to start in a very clear second place over Labour and the Greens is useful for the old tactical vote argument. And there is beginning to develop a cluster of strong Lib Dem performance in that part of the world - St Albans is not far away and they have always had a strong *local* election result in Watford. Obviously it depends on how the issues such as Brexit and HS2 and Covid play out but you'd have to say that the Lib Dems would prefer a by-election there to pretty much anyway else. Pre-2010 if the Tories were in Government on these figures you would say even if it needed a hard campaign, it would be something of a walk in the park for the Lib Dems - this time.... It is a seat where the Tories have always got over 50%, unlike St Albans, which even went Labour in 1997. It is perhaps more comparable to Newbury or Ribble Valley, but a tougher nut for the Lib Dems without an established candidate and with no significant local government base, and of course with the Tories on a historic high in the polls. Yes - I think that's a fair assessment. It is though a seat where they at least recovered to (pretty much) their pre-coalition level and so they do at least start in a very clear second place as a result. It does also seem to be that one of the issues that is bubbling around in the undergrowth is Brexit and indeed Remain especially in the outer ring around London (to the west at least) perhaps along with environmental and green belt issues which I guess - from afar - HS2 adds an extra kick to. There does also seem to be a trend for Lib Dem seats to cluster - obviously neighbouring seats are likely to have demographics and may be share a regional "point of view" (the North, Yorkshire, the West Country etc.) to that end St Albans being won in the General is a (slightly) hopeful sign - and I wouldn't put it pass the Lib Dems holding the seat at the General if they win at the by-election. For example Hazel Grove, Cheadle and Manchester Withington are all pretty much next to each other - and they all fell to the Lib Dems in that order - Withington being a harder nut to crack as being held by Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 18, 2021 21:43:51 GMT
As an aside is there a reason why this seat is called "Chesham and Amersham" rather than the alphabetical order?
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by ilerda on May 18, 2021 21:57:01 GMT
As an aside is there a reason why this seat is called "Chesham and Amersham" rather than the alphabetical order? When the seat was created in 1974 it was comprised of the urban district of Chesham and the rural district of Amersham (which included the town of Amersham itself). It was commonplace at the time to give precedence to urban districts over rural ones in the naming of constituencies. Linked to this is the fact that Chesham was, and remains, a larger town that Amersham in terms of population. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 18, 2021 22:00:49 GMT
When the Boundary Commission first created it, it was just called Chesham CC. There were a lot of representations protesting that it should instead be called Amersham.
"As regards the name of the proposed Chesham C.C., although we recognised the strength of the local case for the use of Amersham, we did not think it would be appropriate to exclude Chesham. We decided to adopt the name 'Chesham and Amersham' in our revised recommendations"
In further representations, some people asked for it to be renamed East Buckinghamshire. But most were happy with the new name.
When first proposed it consisted of the Urban District of Chesham (13,078 electors in 1968) and the Rural District of Amersham (43,503 electors). So possibly it was local authority precedence which dictated that Chesham came first.
|
|
|
|
Post by froome on May 19, 2021 8:37:55 GMT
Also Chesham and Amersham rolls off the tongue far easier than Amersham and Chesham.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on May 19, 2021 8:42:16 GMT
London Underground don't seem to have a problem with saying the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 19, 2021 8:50:23 GMT
London Underground don't seem to have a problem with saying the latter. Two separate stations? |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,755
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 19, 2021 8:54:47 GMT
London Underground don't seem to have a problem with saying the latter. Are you thinking of Chalfont and Latimer? |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 19, 2021 8:58:06 GMT
London Underground don't seem to have a problem with saying the latter. Are you thinking of Chalfont and Latimer? Weren’t they archbishops? |
|
