'Rural' Labour gains / Tory losses at the next election

[bsjmcr]

Following a comment on the suggestions thread that a Conservative loss in Central Devon would be unlikely, I wanted to know how many of the 'rural' seats that are down as Labour gains (particularly in England, given in '97 there were no Tories in Wales or Scotland) on the Election Maps Nowcast / Electoral Calculus' new boundaries - are simply implausible/impossible and which could well happen? 

Given I don't know many of those areas well, but some people on here might have some insight into issues on the ground, personal votes, demographic changes and a feel for the area so see how likely or not these are given the flaws of the 'uniform swing'. But it would be quite something and symbolic to see an even greater sea of red on the map (and big patches of orange) than in 1997. 

Of course 'rural' is subjective and is really just physical size on the map but also ideally a string of small towns/villages - whereas say Corby is no surprise being a large-but-not-large-enough town that dominates the rural hinterland that was added, and High Peak aka Buxton & Glossop really is no big surprise - but Derbyshire Dales would be - whether or not Johnson stands there. 

As well as Central Devon (Lab majority 5,000), Suffolk Coastal is down with a 3,000 majority - surely in a fairly agricultural place Coffey has not helped herself with the reception she got at the farming conference.

All of Norfolk except North and South West (!) is Labour on the nowcast. In '97 the only rural one they got was North West. In Suffolk, Central and Bury St E's also fall, the latter was close in '97 mind.

Huntingdon/North West Cambridgeshire - would be very symbolic to see John Major's old patch go red. Of course South Cambridgeshire should go Lib Dem, but what about the new Mid Cambs/St Neot's - would possible confusion cause a split opposition there? The same goes for what will be East Cambridgeshire - in SE at least, all three parties are neck and neck. 

All of Bedfordshire - really?! Even with Dorries standing down? The whole of Cheshire too. Macclesfield has been Labour on these maps for some time, and Tatton has delivered a shock result before - but would they really vote for Labour there and is McVey as unpopular there as she was in Wirral, and how many GBNews viewers are there really in Tatton (her appearance on there could be a positive/negative depending on how you view these things)? Congleton is another one, and most surprising would be 'Eddisbury' - though the 'Chester South' element might help a bit in the new seat. Next door in Staffordshire, Bill Cash had to run to the safer pasture of Stone in '97 but will he be at risk now?

Banbury / South Northamptonshire (!) are also interesting to see but boundary changes will mix things up a bit. And given Layla Moran doesn't need much assistance to hold Oxford West, could LD activists go to Witney/Wantage/Henley to see if they can make things closer there?

Salisbury/South West Wiltshire?!

The further north you go, the less surprising - in theory - but what about the new consistencies covering East Yorkshire, such as Beverley & Holderness which didn't quite fall in '97. Would Davis (assuming he stands again) really be at risk in whatever replaces 'Haltemprice'? York Outer is another Macclesfield in that the blue doughnut seems to have been red for some time. Selby less surprising given it was a '97 gain.

Other surprising ones in the north would be Hexham, Penrith & Border, and Berwick - again wouldn't a split opposition from the residual LibDem vote in Berwick be a problem? In Lancashire, Ribble Valley and Wyre &... would be some high-profile defeats. Nearby Skipton & Ripon also predicted Labour but not Richmond (Yet)

Of course there are a few with an opposite scenario to '97 - Newark and Sherwood are now a bigger stretch for Labour than Rushcliffe it seems... but I really, really, would like to see Jenrick lose more than Clarke's hapless replacement. 

[Deleted]

Of course in many "rural" constituencies where a significant chunk, and in some cases a majority, of the population actually live in an urban area or in large towns (my own seat being one of them).

To comment on the specific examples in your post - Central Devon has Labour in second and by a decent margin, and there is some Labour strength (and favourable demographics) in some of the towns, but I would only expect it to fall as an outlier in the most extreme best-case scenario for Labour. Suffolk Coastal of course contains Felixstowe and Ipswich suburbs but I would be surprised if Labour are strong enough there to overwhelm the Tory strength elsewhere - some vote splitting between Tories and LDs would definitely be needed. Banbury as currently constructed is a certain no, however Banbury & Chipping Norton will be close in a Tory meltdown scenario. In Bedfordshire, there is no way the Tories don't win North (East) or Mid Beds, but SW Beds should definitely be a Labour target if we're actually winning the election by anything close to what the polls suggest. In Norfolk, I tend to suspect Labour will underperform although a lot depends on how much the Labour organisation and support has actually decayed in places like KL and Great Yarmouth - but I can only really see 4 seats max for Labour there. Rushcliffe will need Labour to hammer the Tories in West Bridgford (not impossible) and keep the margins down in some of the other towns/rural villages - not impossible, but if it happens the Tories are on a hiding to nothing.

Most of the rest I would say are fantasy land, and probably to do with people trying to reconcile Labour on 450+ seats whilst the SNP are on 45+ in Scotland, however a couple I will comment on:

Skipton does have Labour support, and should probably have more. But Ripon and the rural/small town areas in between should see the Tories home. In Hexham Labour could do well in Hexham, Ponteland and Prudhoe however it's hard to see them winning those towns by a significant margin, and this is a more genuinely rural seat (in that the significant towns are a lower share of the population) than many others you mention. Similarly, Labour will do "well" in Sailsbury, but relative to nearby areas - they might scrape a win in the town but not in the constituency overall

[bsjmcr]

Mar 5, 2023 23:07:08 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Of course in many "rural" constituencies where a significant chunk, and in some cases a majority, of the population actually live in an urban area or in large towns (my own seat being one of them).

To comment on the specific examples in your post - Central Devon has Labour in second and by a decent margin, and there is some Labour strength (and favourable demographics) in some of the towns, but I would only expect it to fall as an outlier in the most extreme best-case scenario for Labour. Suffolk Coastal of course contains Felixstowe and Ipswich suburbs but I would be surprised if Labour are strong enough there to overwhelm the Tory strength elsewhere - some vote splitting between Tories and LDs would definitely be needed. Banbury as currently constructed is a certain no, however Banbury & Chipping Norton will be close in a Tory meltdown scenario. In Bedfordshire, there is no way the Tories don't win North (East) or Mid Beds, but SW Beds should definitely be a Labour target if we're actually winning the election by anything close to what the polls suggest. In Norfolk, I tend to suspect Labour will underperform although a lot depends on how much the Labour organisation and support has actually decayed in places like KL and Great Yarmouth - but I can only really see 4 seats max for Labour there. Rushcliffe will need Labour to hammer the Tories in West Bridgford (not impossible) and keep the margins down in some of the other towns/rural villages - not impossible, but if it happens the Tories are on a hiding to nothing.

Most of the rest I would say are fantasy land, and probably to do with people trying to reconcile Labour on 450+ seats whilst the SNP are on 45+ in Scotland, however a couple I will comment on:

Skipton does have Labour support, and should probably have more. But Ripon and the rural/small town areas in between should see the Tories home. In Hexham Labour could do well in Hexham, Ponteland and Prudhoe however it's hard to see them winning those towns by a significant margin, and this is a more genuinely rural seat (in that the significant towns are a lower share of the population) than many others you mention. Similarly, Labour will do "well" in Sailsbury, but relative to nearby areas - they might scrape a win in the town but not in the constituency overall

Many thanks, that puts things into perspective.

In Rushcliffe then, every single one of the 2,000 or so Nottingham students at the Sutton Bonington campus will have to be registered to vote (and assuming they will vote Labour)... there's a tip for any activists who fancy a day out on the farm. Some will be international of course (but a much lower proportion compared to main campus) and those who don't wish to live in halls are now tending to live in Kegworth in NW Leicester... but it could make all the difference.

[wysall]

Hexham I wouldn’t say is particularly rural, nor particularly surprising. It’s dominated by Ponteland, Prudhoe, and the eponymous town, with a few smaller villages that east of Hexham are really more Novocastrian ‘stockbroker belt’ than rural. We can and will do well in Hexham itself and Prudhoe, as well as Haltwhistle, but Ponteland (that is to say, Darras Hall) is too affluent for us. The next time Labour wins a majority Hexham will be part of it.

[Sibboleth]

Mar 6, 2023 0:42:42 GMT wysall said:

Hexham I wouldn’t say is particularly rural, nor particularly surprising. It’s dominated by Ponteland, Prudhoe, and the eponymous town, with a few smaller villages that east of Hexham are really more Novocastrian ‘stockbroker belt’ than rural. We can and will do well in Hexham itself and Prudhoe, as well as Haltwhistle, but Ponteland (that is to say, Darras Hall) is too affluent for us. The next time Labour wins a majority Hexham will be part of it.

The new boundaries would have been enough for Labour in 1997. Not a huge change, but significant in a big year.

[batman]

I don't agree that Banbury is that strong a no. Although Labour has never won it, the swing needed, while large, is well within what polls are suggesting at the moment & in the event of a repeat of 1997 it would be very close, much more so than it actually was in 1997 when the Tories held on by a fairly comfortable margin. Labour does have a little potential in a small number of areas outside Banbury itself in a really good year, though not many.

[andrewp]

Several of the seats that you mention are in the category that Labour just missed in 1997- and are what, in nationally even circumstances, are a marginal Town and some Tory rural territory, Bedfordshire SW, Hexham, Beverly and Holderness, and then some that they missed by 2-3,000- Norfolk SW, Suffolk Coastal. In 1997, they didn’t win that many of those types of seats- Norfolk Nw, Braintree are perhaps some of the most obvious examples of that type of seat that they won.

Which got me thinking again if we do end up, which looks quite feasible, with a 1997 type result of national shares of 45-30, what will be the differences with 1997.

1, Obviously Scotland, Labour will gain some seats in Scotland but would probably be 30 short of the total that they won in 1997, but which conversely means that a national share of 45% means that they might well do even better in England than 1997
2. In 1997, the Lib Dem’s got 21%. Now I don’t think most people expect them to get much more than about 12% next time, and plenty of those votes are now Labour, but where are they? In e.g Islington in 1997 Labour got 70% in North and 62% in South. In 2024, Jeremy Corbyn aside, they might get 75% in both but that’s not very helpful.
2. There are a bunch of seats in the Midlands that Labour won in 1997, which whilst I think they might swing back more than average, I don’t think Labour would win now- the Cannocks, NW Leics, S Derbyshire, N Warwickshires. There are probably 15 or so of those.
3. There are a bunch of seats that are not rural but Labour can/ will now very likely win for the first time ever- Altrincham, Worthing, Bournemouth etc
4. There are also a handful of seats that the Lib Dem’s won in 1997, which on 45-30 Labour will win or get very close to- Truro, Colchester, Weston SM. Then there are the types on paper where Labour are now 2nd, and on a uniform swing to 45-30 would be close but it remains to be seen whether there is a Labour vote ceiling- Devon Central, Cornwall SE etc
5, London, The Conservatives managed to hold 11 seats in London in 1997, on 45-30 now, they might conceivably be reduced to 5 or 6.
6. Then there are the semi rural seats that you mention- Beverly, Berwick where to win Labour will need to get some more rural votes. Will Labour do better or worse than 1997 in that type of seat?

[wysall]

Mar 6, 2023 1:16:45 GMT Sibboleth said:

Mar 6, 2023 0:42:42 GMT wysall said:

Hexham I wouldn’t say is particularly rural, nor particularly surprising. It’s dominated by Ponteland, Prudhoe, and the eponymous town, with a few smaller villages that east of Hexham are really more Novocastrian ‘stockbroker belt’ than rural. We can and will do well in Hexham itself and Prudhoe, as well as Haltwhistle, but Ponteland (that is to say, Darras Hall) is too affluent for us. The next time Labour wins a majority Hexham will be part of it.

The new boundaries would have been enough for Labour in 1997. Not a huge change, but significant in a big year.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the area moved into Berwick-upon-Tweed had more than 500 or so electors and after accounting for turnout and the fact that won't have been monolithically Conservative (especially in 1997) I think the new boundaries would still have resulted in a Conservative hold, just an even narrower one.

[bjornhattan]

Mar 6, 2023 9:24:31 GMT wysall said:

Mar 6, 2023 1:16:45 GMT Sibboleth said:

The new boundaries would have been enough for Labour in 1997. Not a huge change, but significant in a big year.

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the area moved into Berwick-upon-Tweed had more than 500 or so electors and after accounting for turnout and the fact that won't have been monolithically Conservative (especially in 1997) I think the new boundaries would still have resulted in a Conservative hold, just an even narrower one.

The proposed Hexham seat in the current boundary review would have almost certainly have voted Labour though - it does pick up more rural territory but the main addition is Throckley which would be close to monolithic for Labour in a 1997-style scenario.

[wysall]

Mar 6, 2023 9:29:47 GMT bjornhattan said:

Mar 6, 2023 9:24:31 GMT wysall said:

I'm not sure about that. I don't think the area moved into Berwick-upon-Tweed had more than 500 or so electors and after accounting for turnout and the fact that won't have been monolithically Conservative (especially in 1997) I think the new boundaries would still have resulted in a Conservative hold, just an even narrower one.

The proposed Hexham seat in the current boundary review would have almost certainly have voted Labour though - it does pick up more rural territory but the main addition is Throckley which would be close to monolithic for Labour in a 1997-style scenario.

I think I completely misinterpreted Sibboleth's post, sorry. Absolutely, and especially without the Meadow Hill development.

[jakegb]

Stroud will be high on the list for Labour.

[Deleted]

Mar 6, 2023 19:15:06 GMT jakegb said:

Stroud will be high on the list for Labour.

But again, the Labour vote is actually in the towns rather than the rural areas. And most of the population is in the towns as well - this is very much a scattered small towns seat rather than a genuinely rural one

[Deleted]

Also Stroud is not really a great example of any "type" of seat for a variety of reasons

[islington]

A couple of comments on this if I may.

1. A potentially important factor in many of these seats, especially in the eastern half of the country, is that the Tories may be vulnerable on their right flank if Reform andor Reclaim manages to make some noise and build up a bit of momentum. I don't mean that either of these parties is likely to win a seat, but if they take significant votes from the Tories then the target is that much easier for Labour or the Lib Dems. So the Tories may be more vulnerable than we think in apparently very secure seats.
   
2. If at the next GE Labour is 15% ahead or anything like it, then they needn't worry about getting a big majority. The seats will come from somewhere and I am confident that in that case, among them will be at least one or two that currently no one, but no one, including probably the CLP and the Labour candidate, thinks is a remotely serious possibility.
   

[michaelarden]

I guess it depends on the definition of 'rural' - this classification is quite helpful and I could certianly imagine Labour winning a substantial number of the Rural 50 seats (where 50% of the population live in rural areas).

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239074/2001-classification_parlia-constituencies-method.pdf

[bsjmcr]

Mar 6, 2023 20:48:27 GMT michaelarden said:

I guess it depends on the definition of 'rural' - this classification is quite helpful and I could certianly imagine Labour winning a substantial number of the Rural 50 seats (where 50% of the population live in rural areas).

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239074/2001-classification_parlia-constituencies-method.pdf

And maybe even some of the 75!

On a slightly different note, I have a feeling the people of Wigan and Makerfield will be pretty chuffed that they are classified on here as 'Other urban' and not lumped in with the 'major urban' region of Greater Manchester for the purposes of this.

I don't wish to be sidetracked into dissecting every constituency's classification on here but I was surprised Calder Valley is 'Significant Rural' and Colne Valley is 'Major Urban' when I always thought they were mirror images of each other either side of the M62. I suppose Colne Valley takes in a significant chunk of urban Huddersfield, and Calder doesn't actually take in any parts of Halifax proper, should it take Sowerby (which is almost contiguous with Halifax it seems) that might change. It seems their version of 'West Yorkshire major urban area' takes in the whole of Kirklees but excludes Calderdale.

Its version of Greater London of course sprawls out even further. And back on topic, interesting to note that Orpington remains fairly safely Conservative in all these nowcasts, despite all these more rural areas in other parts of the country falling. It's the closest London has to a 'rural' seat of course, and was marginal in the early 2000's at the hands of the Lib Dems - now nobody seems to be close? 

[manchesterman]

Michael's "rural map" was most interesting.

Seats like Copeland, Workington and the outer Durham seats are all classified in the Rural 75 category, yet are also classified as "red wall" seats by some organisations. Just goes to show how fluid these terms can be.

[wysall]

I think Wansbeck being down as 'Rural 75' neatly demonstrates that there are some issues with the idea of 'rural' here. A constituency that consists of little besides Ashington, Bedlington, and Morpeth being rural, let alone 75% rural?

Mar 6, 2023 23:14:44 GMT manchesterman said:

Michael's "rural map" was most interesting.

Seats like Copeland, Workington and the outer Durham seats are all classified in the Rural 75 category, yet are also classified as "red wall" seats by some organisations. Just goes to show how fluid these terms can be.

North West Durham is maybe 50% rural, Bishop Auckland not even that, and I can assure you that North Durham is definitely not rural (or 'rural') in any way.

[jamie]

Mar 7, 2023 0:06:40 GMT wysall said:

I think Wansbeck being down as 'Rural 75' neatly demonstrates that there are some issues with the idea of 'rural' here. A constituency that consists of little besides Ashington, Bedlington, and Morpeth being rural, let alone 75% rural?

North West Durham is maybe 50% rural, Bishop Auckland not even that, and I can assure you that North Durham is definitely not rural (or 'rural') in any way.

This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. 

[wysall]

Mar 7, 2023 0:26:58 GMT jamie said:

Mar 7, 2023 0:06:40 GMT wysall said:

I think Wansbeck being down as 'Rural 75' neatly demonstrates that there are some issues with the idea of 'rural' here. A constituency that consists of little besides Ashington, Bedlington, and Morpeth being rural, let alone 75% rural?

North West Durham is maybe 50% rural, Bishop Auckland not even that, and I can assure you that North Durham is definitely not rural (or 'rural') in any way.

This is often a problem these days where very few constituencies could be described as genuinely rural but people still like to use the term. Better terms might be ‘non-metropolitan’, ‘regional’ or ‘peripheral’. Certainly, Wansbeck is an almost entirely urban constituency and even somewhere like North West Durham has only a small % of the population living in small villages, with about half living in towns and the remainder living in larger, (post) industrialised large villages. Bishop Auckland is more polarised, having a clear urban and town dwelling majority, but a non-insignificant minority of the population is reasonable to describe as rural thanks to the agricultural villages around Teesdale. 

Berwick-upon-Tweed is the only constituency in the North East that can really be described as rural. A Labour victory there is unlikely unless we're winning 430-450 seats; and I dread to think what Mr Ralph Northumberland would make of it.