|
|
Post by rockefeller on Dec 3, 2022 9:56:37 GMT
As minionofmidas has pointed out, whatever point you are trying to make is rather negated by the fact you've cherry-picked three of the five seats listed which were Conservative defences and ignored the two Labour defences. There's also rather a difference between Mid Staffs and SE Staffs. Do you know what that is? one was a strange leftovers seat? One gave its name to a 2000s NHS debacle? |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,380 
|
Post by stb12 on Dec 3, 2022 9:56:51 GMT
This is one of those previously marginal seats that swung heavily to Labour in 2017 and they held onto it comfortably in 2019
I don't really see how any other kind of result could have been expected and it backs up the current situation with polling and so on
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 3, 2022 10:01:08 GMT
Rentaghoul still pushing this easily countered nonsense is he?
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Dec 3, 2022 10:02:32 GMT
As minionofmidas has pointed out, whatever point you are trying to make is rather negated by the fact you've cherry-picked three of the five seats listed which were Conservative defences and ignored the two Labour defences. There's also rather a difference between Mid Staffs and SE Staffs. Do you know what that is? Thatcher was still PM at the time of the Mid Staffs contest? *facepalm* I thought what Pete actually meant was the suicide of the previous incumbent, but he actually meant this, right. Labour lost the next General Election. Although that's more a point against Rentoul's argument. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 3, 2022 10:10:08 GMT
I recall that trio of E London byelections in June 1994 well.
Newham NE almost certainly saw the Labour swing increased by the LibDem candidate (in)famously defecting to them in the week before the election. The other two - Barking and Dagenham - saw *far* bigger swings against Labour than average in the 1974-87 period, turning them into semi-marginals.
The results then were effectively a reversion to their safe status before Thatcher, rather than anything groundbreaking and new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 3, 2022 10:10:40 GMT
As minionofmidas has pointed out, whatever point you are trying to make is rather negated by the fact you've cherry-picked three of the five seats listed which were Conservative defences and ignored the two Labour defences. There's also rather a difference between Mid Staffs and SE Staffs. Do you know what that is? Thatcher was still PM at the time of the Mid Staffs contest? Well there's the small matter of the fact the Conservatives regained the seat at the following general election and won that general election. Thing is I'm not defending Rentoul's take here - it is overly simplistic, but you don't refute it with equally or more simplistic takes of your own. The difference I would observe between Chester and all those seats on the list is that Chester has actually always been quite a low swing seat whereas those are all packed full of swing voters. If the Tamworth by-election were to take place we might have something worthwhile to make a comparison. As it is, there are far too many variables to be able to make meaningful comparisons in 140 characters, be it by Rentoul or Rockefeller |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Dec 3, 2022 10:29:21 GMT
Thatcher was still PM at the time of the Mid Staffs contest? Well there's the small matter of the fact the Conservatives regained the seat at the following general election and won that general election. Thing is I'm not defending Rentoul's take here - it is overly simplistic, but you don't refute it with equally or more simplistic takes of your own. The difference I would observe between Chester and all those seats on the list is that Chester has actually always been quite a low swing seat whereas those are all packed full of swing voters. If the Tamworth by-election were to take place we might have something worthwhile to make a comparison. As it is, there are far too many variables to be able to make meaningful comparisons in 140 characters, be it by Rentoul or Rockefeller I agree, Tamworth is a byelection I would relish in terms of what it might tell us about the decline of Tory loyalty and the reach of the Labour appeal, or otherwise. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 3, 2022 11:47:17 GMT
And a byelection in Selby would be fascinating for similar reasons.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Dec 3, 2022 13:38:50 GMT
And a byelection in Selby would be fascinating for similar reasons. Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Dec 3, 2022 20:36:06 GMT
It's common to read that the key reason for the shift against the Tories here longer term is the Merseyside effect creeping this way. How much of this change can also be put down to the student population (possibly a bit like Canterbury but on a smaller scale)? I'd expect the student numbers to have grown a lot here in the last twenty years or so (relative to the average, I don't think I'd even heard of the University of Chester until recently).
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,612
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Dec 3, 2022 20:41:22 GMT
It's common to read that the key reason for the shift against the Tories here longer term is the Merseyside effect creeping this way. How much of this change can also be put down to the student population (possibly a bit like Canterbury but on a smaller scale)? I'd expect the student numbers to have grown a lot here in the last twenty years or so (relative to the average, I don't think I'd even heard of the University of Chester until recently). In many ways the shift against the Tories here happened ( or at least started) a while ago. Their performances went down hill in the 1980s- they got a lower share in 1987 ( when winning with a 100 majority nationally) than in 1966 ( when Labour were winning a 100 majority) . Between 1987 and 2015 it really didn’t move very much and fairly well tracked national results. It has shifted a bit more in the last 5 years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2022 21:03:09 GMT
Yes the 1992 result was distinctly underwhelming. It had stopped being a safe seat a good while before 1997. In that sense it was more similar to Brighton Pavilion or Blackpool South… or Bath and Cheltenham a few years earlier.
|
|
bsjmcr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,591
|
Post by bsjmcr on Dec 3, 2022 21:16:44 GMT
Yes the 1992 result was distinctly underwhelming. It had stopped being a safe seat a good while before 1997. In that sense it was more similar to Brighton Pavilion or Blackpool South… or Bath and Cheltenham a few years earlier. Could that be to do with the celebrity candidate at the time not having any prior connection to Chester (to my knowledge) beforehand? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2022 21:30:00 GMT
Yes the 1992 result was distinctly underwhelming. It had stopped being a safe seat a good while before 1997. In that sense it was more similar to Brighton Pavilion or Blackpool South… or Bath and Cheltenham a few years earlier. Could that be to do with the celebrity candidate at the time not having any prior connection to Chester (to my knowledge) beforehand? I would personally doubt it had that much impact. The majority in 1987 was already under 5,000. |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,612
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Dec 3, 2022 21:40:14 GMT
Could that be to do with the celebrity candidate at the time not having any prior connection to Chester (to my knowledge) beforehand? I would personally doubt it had that much impact. The majority in 1987 was already under 5,000. And the Tory share in 1992 more or less held steady, which wasn’t the worst result for a new non local candidate. Labour’s vote share increase that year came from the Lib Dems mostly. |
|
|
|
Post by rockefeller on Dec 4, 2022 7:56:27 GMT
Yes the 1992 result was distinctly underwhelming. It had stopped being a safe seat a good while before 1997. In that sense it was more similar to Brighton Pavilion or Blackpool South… or Bath and Cheltenham a few years earlier. Why was the Tory majority higher in Chester in 2010 than in 1992? It's noteworthy that in 2010 the Cheshire Tories did pretty well (winning Chester by more than in 92 and winning Warrington S and Crewe & Nantwich), but Labour reversed such gains by 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by rockefeller on Dec 4, 2022 8:06:08 GMT
And a byelection in Selby would be fascinating for similar reasons. Because the Tories are past their Selby date? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 4, 2022 8:10:14 GMT
And a byelection in Selby would be fascinating for similar reasons. Because the Tories are past their Selby date? They Aintsy bad |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,612
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Dec 4, 2022 8:25:45 GMT
Yes the 1992 result was distinctly underwhelming. It had stopped being a safe seat a good while before 1997. In that sense it was more similar to Brighton Pavilion or Blackpool South… or Bath and Cheltenham a few years earlier. Why was the Tory majority higher in Chester in 2010 than in 1992? It's noteworthy that in 2010 the Cheshire Tories did pretty well (winning Chester by more than in 92 and winning Warrington S and Crewe & Nantwich), but Labour reversed such gains by 2017. Two explanations. One is boundary changes. The changes in 1997 added some rural villages, so the 1992 majority would been at least 1000 higher on the subsequent boundaries. Secondly the Lib Dems got 19% in 2010 which meant that a lower Tory share gave them a bigger majority. The Tory share was 44% in 1992 and 41% in 2010. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 4, 2022 10:10:43 GMT
Because the Tories are past their Selby date? They Aintsy bad these jokes are only funny if you've had a few Sherburns |
|
