|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 10, 2021 16:18:22 GMT
I think you have covered most of the ground there: 1. They started the campaign with polls showing them just short of 20%. This was nearly halved through the campaign, this in spite of their having a crippled left-of-centre opposition and pretty close alignment on the core campaign issue with the sentiments of a substantial part of the electorate. 2. They swallowed many of the Change UK MPs, a seeming advantage, but then utilised them poorly. 3. By taking an extreme Brexit position they traded enthusiasm from the strong Remainers for alienation in historical Liberal areas where that played ill. A more nuanced policy would probably have served them better. 4. They gambled on a performance akin to that in the European elections with potential gains almost anywhere. 5. And the campaign attracted little interest. Their focus on the one issue left them short of coverage, something they desperately need in any campaign with their smaller core and lighter infrastructure compared to the other parties. Losing vote share is damning, but when was the last election when they gained vote share during the campaign? There must be an allowable loss of vote share before we say it's a poor campaign. However halving the vote share doesn't look good. From my perspective in a Tory\Labour marginal we saw quite a few loyal Tory voters, sometimes lifetime voters, go Lib Dem. To no affect admittedly, but I was expecting to see a clutch of surprising "blue wall" Lib Dem gains being one of the secondary stories of the night. Yes, I'd expected more St Albans results. Of course (misplaced, and anyway ridiculous in the context of what a government could actually do) fear of a Corbyn Labour win must have led quite a few Remain Tories to hold their nose and stick with a Johnson Tory party. One of the (fairly limited so far) positives of a Starmer Labour is that that anxiety will be less (although the actual outcomes of a change of government wouldn't be wildly different!). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 10, 2021 18:35:20 GMT
A necessary condition for a seat to be "Blue Wall" would probably be higher than average number of graduates. Incidentally that makes me wonder which seat that voted Leave had the highest percentage of graduates. Maybe somewhere like Christchurch which is both elderly and well-off. It's probably a lower Leave percentage than is obvious and is closer to the 50/50 split. Orpington and Sevenoaks could be up there. And maybe Solihull, Sutton Coldfield, Warrington South, Bromsgrove, Stratford-on-Avon, Hazel Grove... Places of that ilk. Interesting question though. Based on Hanretty's data and the 2011 census proportion of graduates the correct answer is Sutton Coldfield (34.9% graduates). However, Hanretty's actual estimates showed it as voting narrowly Remain -- it's only the Birmingham ward data that shows it was actually narrowly Leave -- and Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner, which is quite a bit more educated than Sutton Coldfield (39.3%), is estimated as being close enough that it might have also been Leave. The next few are Derbyshire Dales, West Worcestershire, Stratford on Avon, Surrey Heath, Sutton & Cheam and Sevenoaks. Among 55% or higher Leave constituencies the most educated appears to be Haltemprice & Howden; Bromsgrove and Stone are close behind. Among 60% or higher Leave constituencies it appears to be Brentwood & Ongar, and among 65% or higher Leave constituencies South Staffordshire. This is all assuming Hanretty's figures, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Nov 10, 2021 21:02:02 GMT
It's probably a lower Leave percentage than is obvious and is closer to the 50/50 split. Orpington and Sevenoaks could be up there. And maybe Solihull, Sutton Coldfield, Warrington South, Bromsgrove, Stratford-on-Avon, Hazel Grove... Places of that ilk. Interesting question though. Based on Hanretty's data and the 2011 census proportion of graduates the correct answer is Sutton Coldfield (34.9% graduates). However, Hanretty's actual estimates showed it as voting narrowly Remain -- it's only the Birmingham ward data that shows it was actually narrowly Leave -- and Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner, which is quite a bit more educated than Sutton Coldfield (39.3%), is estimated as being close enough that it might have also been Leave. The next few are Derbyshire Dales, West Worcestershire, Stratford on Avon, Surrey Heath, Sutton & Cheam and Sevenoaks. Among 55% or higher Leave constituencies the most educated appears to be Haltemprice & Howden; Bromsgrove and Stone are close behind. Among 60% or higher Leave constituencies it appears to be Brentwood & Ongar, and among 65% or higher Leave constituencies South Staffordshire. This is all assuming Hanretty's figures, of course. Hanretty bases his figures on a higher Remain vote amongst the educated, amongst other things. So these constituencies must have balancing factors to be given a high Leave vote estimate, like large numbers of older social renters etc |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Nov 10, 2021 21:18:38 GMT
How lacklustre was the Lib Dem campaign really? It was certainly poorly targeted and they played the expectations game very poorly, but they got a big increase in their vote. So what metric do we measure "lacklustre" apart from that they underperformed expectations? I think you have covered most of the ground there: 1. They started the campaign with polls showing them just short of 20%. This was nearly halved through the campaign, this in spite of their having a crippled left-of-centre opposition and pretty close alignment on the core campaign issue with the sentiments of a substantial part of the electorate. 2. They swallowed many of the Change UK MPs, a seeming advantage, but then utilised them poorly. 3. By taking an extreme Brexit position they traded enthusiasm from the strong Remainers for alienation in historical Liberal areas where that played ill. A more nuanced policy would probably have served them better. 4. They gambled on a performance akin to that in the European elections with potential gains almost anywhere. 5. And the campaign attracted little interest. Their focus on the one issue left them short of coverage, something they desperately need in any campaign with their smaller core and lighter infrastructure compared to the other parties. It is certainly true that the Revoke policy was disastrous. It was of course provoked by Labour committing to the People's Vote, and I suspect was strongly influenced by the Change UK Labour deserters. A deeply illiberal policy. We led on the People's Vote and should have stuck with it. On campaign visibility, it is very difficult when the mainstream media insist on keeping the attention given to each Party in proportion to the number of seats held. The most ridiculous example was the BBC question time packed with picked Party activists and with only 2 Lib Dems in the entire audience. (even worse for the Greens of course) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 10, 2021 21:25:34 GMT
Losing vote share is damning, but when was the last election when they gained vote share during the campaign? There must be an allowable loss of vote share before we say it's a poor campaign. However halving the vote share doesn't look good. From my perspective in a Tory\Labour marginal we saw quite a few loyal Tory voters, sometimes lifetime voters, go Lib Dem. To no affect admittedly, but I was expecting to see a clutch of surprising "blue wall" Lib Dem gains being one of the secondary stories of the night. Yes, I'd expected more St Albans results. Of course (misplaced, and anyway ridiculous in the context of what a government could actually do) fear of a Corbyn Labour win must have led quite a few Remain Tories to hold their nose and stick with a Johnson Tory party. One of the (fairly limited so far) positives of a Starmer Labour is that that anxiety will be less (although the actual outcomes of a change of government wouldn't be wildly different!). I think there is a deep misunderstanding among a lot of Lib Dem activists that if the other two parties move to more extreme positions then it leaves a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems in the middle ground. What they fail to recognise is that a left-wing Labour Party is a recruiting tool for the Tories and vice versa (it's slightly more nuanced in reality, but broadly the case). I was an Agent in the 2019 GE and I'd rate the national party's campaign as E- on a scale of A to D. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,033
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 10, 2021 21:53:04 GMT
I think you have covered most of the ground there: 1. They started the campaign with polls showing them just short of 20%. This was nearly halved through the campaign, this in spite of their having a crippled left-of-centre opposition and pretty close alignment on the core campaign issue with the sentiments of a substantial part of the electorate. 2. They swallowed many of the Change UK MPs, a seeming advantage, but then utilised them poorly. 3. By taking an extreme Brexit position they traded enthusiasm from the strong Remainers for alienation in historical Liberal areas where that played ill. A more nuanced policy would probably have served them better. 4. They gambled on a performance akin to that in the European elections with potential gains almost anywhere. 5. And the campaign attracted little interest. Their focus on the one issue left them short of coverage, something they desperately need in any campaign with their smaller core and lighter infrastructure compared to the other parties. It is certainly true that the Revoke policy was disastrous. It was of course provoked by Labour committing to the People's Vote, and I suspect was strongly influenced by the Change UK Labour deserters. A deeply illiberal policy. We led on the People's Vote and should have stuck with it. On campaign visibility, it is very difficult when the mainstream media insist on keeping the attention given to each Party in proportion to the number of seats held. The most ridiculous example was the BBC question time packed with picked Party activists and with only 2 Lib Dems in the entire audience. (even worse for the Greens of course) And we had no plan b for our campaign. Once it was obvious it was back to the old binary choice as far as the media was concerned (and the Scottish media did the same between the SNP & the Tories) we didn't change anything. Our polling slid, and we were still given the same messages which didn't work where it mattered (yet, bizarre though it may seem, did where it was irrelevant...). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 10, 2021 22:36:50 GMT
It's probably a lower Leave percentage than is obvious and is closer to the 50/50 split. Orpington and Sevenoaks could be up there. And maybe Solihull, Sutton Coldfield, Warrington South, Bromsgrove, Stratford-on-Avon, Hazel Grove... Places of that ilk. Interesting question though. Based on Hanretty's data and the 2011 census proportion of graduates the correct answer is Sutton Coldfield (34.9% graduates). However, Hanretty's actual estimates showed it as voting narrowly Remain -- it's only the Birmingham ward data that shows it was actually narrowly Leave -- and Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner, which is quite a bit more educated than Sutton Coldfield (39.3%), is estimated as being close enough that it might have also been Leave. The next few are Derbyshire Dales, West Worcestershire, Stratford on Avon, Surrey Heath, Sutton & Cheam and Sevenoaks. Among 55% or higher Leave constituencies the most educated appears to be Haltemprice & Howden; Bromsgrove and Stone are close behind. Among 60% or higher Leave constituencies it appears to be Brentwood & Ongar, and among 65% or higher Leave constituencies South Staffordshire. This is all assuming Hanretty's figures, of course. Stone and South Dtaffs- completely forgot those. Derbyshire Dales surprises me. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,853 
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 11, 2021 8:42:57 GMT
I agree entirely - Chesham & Amersham for example would have been a seat we'd have had no hope in a general election despite being "blue wall" but obviously won in the by-election. That doesn't mean that every single by-election falls into the category however. But if Chesham and Amersham is only somewhere Lib Dems could win in a by-election, then the blue wall is meaningless.Losing by-elections is an irritation with an 80 seat majority. The threat has to be at General Elections for it to be meaningful at all. Well, yes. to be a blue wall seat, it must blue (obv) it must also be a wall. That is: Contiguous with a number of other blue seats, having non blue areas either side of the wall or opposition seats one side and weaker blue seats on the other and, crucially, the breach of such a wall by loss of this seat should have some consequence such as (even metaphorically) opposing forces flowing through the breach and attacking the weak rear of the wall or weak seats behind it. or we could agree it is meaningless |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 11, 2021 9:29:21 GMT
I think you can interpret 'wall' differently to that - as a defensive bastion that could normally be relied upon, but if it were breached would create severe problems in an unexpected quarter. That wouldn't require the seats to be contiguous.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 11, 2021 10:37:07 GMT
Yes, I'd expected more St Albans results. Of course (misplaced, and anyway ridiculous in the context of what a government could actually do) fear of a Corbyn Labour win must have led quite a few Remain Tories to hold their nose and stick with a Johnson Tory party. One of the (fairly limited so far) positives of a Starmer Labour is that that anxiety will be less (although the actual outcomes of a change of government wouldn't be wildly different!). I think there is a deep misunderstanding among a lot of Lib Dem activists that if the other two parties move to more extreme positions then it leaves a huge opportunity for the Lib Dems in the middle ground. What they fail to recognise is that a left-wing Labour Party is a recruiting tool for the Tories and vice versa (it's slightly more nuanced in reality, but broadly the case). I was an Agent in the 2019 GE and I'd rate the national party's campaign as E- on a scale of A to D. You mean to say that you didn't fully believe that Jo Swinson was our next prime minister? |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 11, 2021 11:00:45 GMT
Based on Hanretty's data and the 2011 census proportion of graduates the correct answer is Sutton Coldfield (34.9% graduates). However, Hanretty's actual estimates showed it as voting narrowly Remain -- it's only the Birmingham ward data that shows it was actually narrowly Leave -- and Ruislip, Northwood & Pinner, which is quite a bit more educated than Sutton Coldfield (39.3%), is estimated as being close enough that it might have also been Leave. The next few are Derbyshire Dales, West Worcestershire, Stratford on Avon, Surrey Heath, Sutton & Cheam and Sevenoaks. Among 55% or higher Leave constituencies the most educated appears to be Haltemprice & Howden; Bromsgrove and Stone are close behind. Among 60% or higher Leave constituencies it appears to be Brentwood & Ongar, and among 65% or higher Leave constituencies South Staffordshire. This is all assuming Hanretty's figures, of course. Stone and South Dtaffs- completely forgot those. Derbyshire Dales surprises me. Why so? It has a number of rather affluent, pleasant communities attracting both business managers and academics from the nearby larger centres - Derby, Sheffield, Chesterfield, even Manchester. Its politics are shifting particularly in the more Peak District parts reflecting an increasingly arty/environmentalist influx (who are likely to be graduates). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 11, 2021 11:20:49 GMT
Stone and South Dtaffs- completely forgot those. Derbyshire Dales surprises me. Why so? It has a number of rather affluent, pleasant communities attracting both business managers and academics from the nearby larger centres - Derby, Sheffield, Chesterfield, even Manchester. Its politics are shifting particularly in the more Peak District parts reflecting an increasingly arty/environmentalist influx (who are likely to be graduates). For the reason you outline, I'd have had High Peak as more attractive to graduates than the Dales. Not least because the transport links are a bit easier up there. Sheffield or Manchester to Ashbourne for example is a bugger by every means of transport, and places like Tideswell feel like they are well off the beaten path. By contrast, New Mills and most of the Hope Valley settlements are plugged in more easily to the main rail network and to those urban centres with their grad-friendly jobs. (Appreciate that Hathersage is in the Hope Valley but is in DD) |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,821
|
Post by right on Nov 11, 2021 11:58:06 GMT
It is certainly true that the Revoke policy was disastrous. It was of course provoked by Labour committing to the People's Vote, and I suspect was strongly influenced by the Change UK Labour deserters. A deeply illiberal policy. We led on the People's Vote and should have stuck with it. On campaign visibility, it is very difficult when the mainstream media insist on keeping the attention given to each Party in proportion to the number of seats held. The most ridiculous example was the BBC question time packed with picked Party activists and with only 2 Lib Dems in the entire audience. (even worse for the Greens of course) And we had no plan b for our campaign. Once it was obvious it was back to the old binary choice as far as the media was concerned (and the Scottish media did the same between the SNP & the Tories) we didn't change anything. Our polling slid, and we were still given the same messages which didn't work where it mattered (yet, bizarre though it may seem, did where it was irrelevant...). I wonder how many Labour-Tory marginals stopped going Tory because enough Tories lent votes to the Lib Dems and it counteracted the Labour votes going Tory I know we did lose votes in the marginal I stomped around, and it seemed like a fair few. Nowhere near the Labour vote switch, but there may have been some places where this would have made a difference. But in general I suspect the Lib Dems accidentally optimised for protest votes, so showing great results in European Parliament and council elections and (non Liberal) safe seats in the GE but not persuading voters to help Lib Dem MPs influence a government. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 11, 2021 12:41:49 GMT
Why so? It has a number of rather affluent, pleasant communities attracting both business managers and academics from the nearby larger centres - Derby, Sheffield, Chesterfield, even Manchester. Its politics are shifting particularly in the more Peak District parts reflecting an increasingly arty/environmentalist influx (who are likely to be graduates). For the reason you outline, I'd have had High Peak as more attractive to graduates than the Dales. Not least because the transport links are a bit easier up there. Sheffield or Manchester to Ashbourne for example is a bugger by every means of transport, and places like Tideswell feel like they are well off the beaten path. By contrast, New Mills and most of the Hope Valley settlements are plugged in more easily to the main rail network and to those urban centres with their grad-friendly jobs. (Appreciate that Hathersage is in the Hope Valley but is in DD) But if you're living in Ashbourne then you're much more likely to be commuting to Derby than to Sheffield or Manchester. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,853
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 11, 2021 17:10:23 GMT
I think you can interpret 'wall' differently to that - as a defensive bastion that could normally be relied upon, but if it were breached would create severe problems in an unexpected quarter. That wouldn't require the seats to be contiguous. the first part is a reasonable extension of the metaphor, it is the second part I take issue with. There is no greater consequence to losing a blue wall seat, over and above the loss of that one seat. It doesn't mean another seat is more likely to be lost (it may be lost for the same or similar reasons the first one is, but not because the first one has been). |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Nov 12, 2021 12:48:00 GMT
Why so? It has a number of rather affluent, pleasant communities attracting both business managers and academics from the nearby larger centres - Derby, Sheffield, Chesterfield, even Manchester. Its politics are shifting particularly in the more Peak District parts reflecting an increasingly arty/environmentalist influx (who are likely to be graduates). For the reason you outline, I'd have had High Peak as more attractive to graduates than the Dales. Not least because the transport links are a bit easier up there. Sheffield or Manchester to Ashbourne for example is a bugger by every means of transport, and places like Tideswell feel like they are well off the beaten path. By contrast, New Mills and most of the Hope Valley settlements are plugged in more easily to the main rail network and to those urban centres with their grad-friendly jobs. (Appreciate that Hathersage is in the Hope Valley but is in DD) Looking at a map of graduates in Derbyshire Dales (district) generated by the Nomis website, the highest levels are in the north-east, fairly close to Sheffield: not just Hathersage but also Grindleford, Calver, Baslow, and much of the area around Bakewell. Levels are a bit lower further west and south, but most of the Lower Super Output Areas in the district are over 30% graduates. Ashbourne is one of the less educated parts. OTOH it surprises me a bit, given its bourgeois reputation, that Sutton Coldfield's proportion of graduates isn't a bit higher. It also surprised me that it voted Leave (assuming that the Birmingham ward data are reliable and that it actually did). |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 12, 2021 13:13:36 GMT
I think you can interpret 'wall' differently to that - as a defensive bastion that could normally be relied upon, but if it were breached would create severe problems in an unexpected quarter. That wouldn't require the seats to be contiguous. the first part is a reasonable extension of the metaphor, it is the second part I take issue with. There is no greater consequence to losing a blue wall seat, over and above the loss of that one seat. It doesn't mean another seat is more likely to be lost (it may be lost for the same or similar reasons the first one is, but not because the first one has been). no, but yr path to a majority has just gotten one seat thornier. Obviously this makes a lot more sense in the US EC context where states' weights vary. (And where PA, MI and WI, the original Blue Wall, were in the same general direction even if not contiguous, as well as having vaguely similarish profiles and sharing a 'titanium tilt D' (pre16) political lean.) But then no one has ever claimed the term's importation to the UK was a great idea. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,910
|
Post by Tony Otim on Nov 12, 2021 13:28:47 GMT
the first part is a reasonable extension of the metaphor, it is the second part I take issue with. There is no greater consequence to losing a blue wall seat, over and above the loss of that one seat. It doesn't mean another seat is more likely to be lost (it may be lost for the same or similar reasons the first one is, but not because the first one has been). no, but yr path to a majority has just gotten one seat thornier. Obviously this makes a lot more sense in the US EC context where states' weights vary. (And where PA, MI and WI, the original Blue Wall, were in the same general direction even if not contiguous, as well as having vaguely similarish profiles and sharing a 'titanium tilt D' (pre16) political lean.) But then no one has ever claimed the term's importation to the UK was a great idea. Lazy journalists with copy to fill think its an absolutely amazing idea... |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 12, 2021 13:36:03 GMT
I recall that the term as originally defined was about areas that had consistently voted more Labour than the underlying demographics would have suggested. Has anybody done a similar analysis looking at which areas of the South have Conservative support running above what you'd assume from demographics? I suspect that would have comparatively little crossover with the Blue Wall as commonly defined, but it'd be closer to the original sense of the term.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Nov 12, 2021 15:23:10 GMT
For the reason you outline, I'd have had High Peak as more attractive to graduates than the Dales. Not least because the transport links are a bit easier up there. Sheffield or Manchester to Ashbourne for example is a bugger by every means of transport, and places like Tideswell feel like they are well off the beaten path. By contrast, New Mills and most of the Hope Valley settlements are plugged in more easily to the main rail network and to those urban centres with their grad-friendly jobs. (Appreciate that Hathersage is in the Hope Valley but is in DD) Looking at a map of graduates in Derbyshire Dales (district) generated by the Nomis website, the highest levels are in the north-east, fairly close to Sheffield: not just Hathersage but also Grindleford, Calver, Baslow, and much of the area around Bakewell. Levels are a bit lower further west and south, but most of the Lower Super Output Areas in the district are over 30% graduates. Ashbourne is one of the less educated parts. All those places are basically very pretty countryside, now Sheffield commuter belt (Bakewell merging into Manchester commuter belt), and quite different from the former mining areas further east.. |
|
