|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Mar 7, 2023 22:01:36 GMT
Absolutely is rural, even the towns feel like the countryside, but another for the "not like anywhere else" file. I wouldn't rule out a Labour revival but they'd have to more or less re-start from scratch - they went to crap here after losing the seat. No signs of revival in council elections - just three district and one county councillor - we (Lib Dems) have two and one respectively, and I'm not for one second suggesting that we're strong in the Forest. A national Tory meltdown may be sufficient as I think Labour will still be the obvious beneficiary, short of something weird like a brilliant local Green campaign. Generally, I'd say that Labour are in a poor state in Gloucestershire, even in places you'd expect them to do well in when the national polls are good and where they've been strong in the past. Stroud is there for them to lose, and I think the PPC will perform well, but even here they are shooting themselves in the foot on the district council. In Gloucester they are well behind Lib Dems in City and County Council elections - I'd expect them to outperform us in a GE there but it won't help them get past the sitting Tory without that local council activist base. I was going to say that Tewkesbury seemed to be one of those more 'urban'/'small town' areas that Labour/Lib Dems seemed to really underperform in back in '97, not even coming that close, but I didn't realise how much hinterland there was and how much 'bigger' it is than Cheltenham/Gloucester, but it is around the same size as Stroud. More provincial and less 'bohemian' than Stroud?... To flip this coin, there are more compact urban/suburban areas that were opposition underperformances/Tory over-performances (I know there's a thread for that) like Poole (still striking how the more rural one fell to the LDs), Bournemouth, B'Regis &..., Worthing and the handful of remaining London seats (most of which other than Orpington, and Ruislip... are now in play!) and the handful in the West Midlands of Aldridge, S'Coldfield (no surprises there), Solihull (until '05) and I guess Meridian is quite an exceptional one in itself in terms of its makeup, and literally just Altrincham (not for much longer after today's announcement) and Cheadle (not for long of course after '97) in the north. Definitely less Bohemian than Stroud. The constituency name is a bit misleading - it's almost the opposite of Stroud, which (as @europeanlefty says is really a town, plus several satellite towns, set in farmland) - Tewkesbury constituency is more a chunk of the Lower Severn valley which happens to have a small town in the middle. Though it skews back to urban a bit through taking on parts of Gloucester City (Longlevens, plus Elmbridge under the new boundaries,) and Springbank from Cheltenham. |
|
|
|
Post by where2travel on Mar 7, 2023 23:12:26 GMT
I am assuming a 10% swing from Con to Lab at the next election. As the new boundaries have not been confirmed yet, here is my list of "rural" Lab gains at the next election greater than that national swing: Monmouth, Hexham, Macclesfield, Scarborough and Whitby Macclesfield is not a rural constituency. The majority of the electorate live in Macclesfield itself and significant additional numbers in Bollington (suburb of Macclesfield) and Poynton (on the edge of Greater Manchester). Probably only about 10k rural votes in total. Scarborough likewise holds a majority of the electorate of its seat. Completely agree, I was surprised to see Macclesfield originally thought of as a rural constituency. Macclesfield itself and towards Manchester from there (including the other areas you quote) is the vast majority of the seat with open spaces, but not large swathes of land between communities. The beauty of this part of Cheshire is that it is surrounded by some very seemingly remote and hilly parts, and they come very quickly as you leave Macclesfield town - heading towards places like Rainow, Kettleshulme, Wildboarclough and Wincle etc. However they're not distant in mileage terms and don't make up more than a small proportion of the seat's electorate. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426 
|
Post by iain on Mar 7, 2023 23:25:49 GMT
I was going to say that Tewkesbury seemed to be one of those more 'urban'/'small town' areas that Labour/Lib Dems seemed to really underperform in back in '97, not even coming that close, but I didn't realise how much hinterland there was and how much 'bigger' it is than Cheltenham/Gloucester, but it is around the same size as Stroud. More provincial and less 'bohemian' than Stroud?... To flip this coin, there are more compact urban/suburban areas that were opposition underperformances/Tory over-performances (I know there's a thread for that) like Poole (still striking how the more rural one fell to the LDs), Bournemouth, B'Regis &..., Worthing and the handful of remaining London seats (most of which other than Orpington, and Ruislip... are now in play!) and the handful in the West Midlands of Aldridge, S'Coldfield (no surprises there), Solihull (until '05) and I guess Meridian is quite an exceptional one in itself in terms of its makeup, and literally just Altrincham (not for much longer after today's announcement) and Cheadle (not for long of course after '97) in the north. Tewkesbury is a weird seat because the name doesn't reflect its nature very well. The majority of its electorate live in the suburbs of Gloucester and Cheltenham - Tewkesbury is fairly small component and the genuinely rural bits like Winchombe are even smaller. I remember reading somewhere (possibly on here) than in 1997, the Gloucester facing suburbs were fairly close between the Conservatives and Labour, while the Cheltenham facing suburbs were closer between the Conservatives and Lib Dems - perhaps influenced by the contests in their respective centres. I don't know whether this is accurate but it seems plausible from the results - the Conservatives would almost certainly have won anyway but the opposition was almost perfectly split. Probably that's true-ish. Labour will have done best in 1997 in Innsworth, Brockworth (both Gloucester suburbs) and Tewkesbury itself, while the Lib Dems will have done best in Swindon Village and Bishops Cleeve (Cheltenham suburbs) and Churchdown (Gloucester suburb / own village). |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,367
|
Post by stb12 on Mar 8, 2023 0:31:20 GMT
In relation to the talk of all the constituencies the Tories could lose, were there any in the '97 election that stood out as surprise holds under the circumstances?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Mar 8, 2023 0:36:45 GMT
In relation to the talk of all the constituencies the Tories could lose, were there any in the '97 election that stood out as surprise holds under the circumstances? Canterbury? |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,532
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 8, 2023 1:19:56 GMT
In relation to the talk of all the constituencies the Tories could lose, were there any in the '97 election that stood out as surprise holds under the circumstances? Tom King in Bridgwater, Michael Howard in Folkestone & Hythe, Eastbourne |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2023 1:29:08 GMT
Absolutely is rural, even the towns feel like the countryside, but another for the "not like anywhere else" file. I wouldn't rule out a Labour revival but they'd have to more or less re-start from scratch - they went to crap here after losing the seat. No signs of revival in council elections - just three district and one county councillor - we (Lib Dems) have two and one respectively, and I'm not for one second suggesting that we're strong in the Forest. A national Tory meltdown may be sufficient as I think Labour will still be the obvious beneficiary, short of something weird like a brilliant local Green campaign. Generally, I'd say that Labour are in a poor state in Gloucestershire, even in places you'd expect them to do well in when the national polls are good and where they've been strong in the past. Stroud is there for them to lose, and I think the PPC will perform well, but even here they are shooting themselves in the foot on the district council. In Gloucester they are well behind Lib Dems in City and County Council elections - I'd expect them to outperform us in a GE there but it won't help them get past the sitting Tory without that local council activist base. I was going to say that Tewkesbury seemed to be one of those more 'urban'/'small town' areas that Labour/Lib Dems seemed to really underperform in back in '97, not even coming that close, but I didn't realise how much hinterland there was and how much 'bigger' it is than Cheltenham/Gloucester, but it is around the same size as Stroud. More provincial and less 'bohemian' than Stroud?... To flip this coin, there are more compact urban/suburban areas that were opposition underperformances/Tory over-performances (I know there's a thread for that) like Poole (still striking how the more rural one fell to the LDs), Bournemouth, B'Regis &..., Worthing and the handful of remaining London seats (most of which other than Orpington, and Ruislip... are now in play!) and the handful in the West Midlands of Aldridge, S'Coldfield (no surprises there), Solihull (until '05) and I guess Meridian is quite an exceptional one in itself in terms of its makeup, and literally just Altrincham (not for much longer after today's announcement) and Cheadle (not for long of course after '97) in the north. In addition to previous comments re Tewkesbury, the Gloucester and Cheltenham bits are some of the most Conservative areas of their respective cities |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Mar 8, 2023 7:55:41 GMT
In relation to the talk of all the constituencies the Tories could lose, were there any in the '97 election that stood out as surprise holds under the circumstances? Tom King in Bridgwater, Michael Howard in Folkestone & Hythe, Eastbourne I was deeply involved in the F&H one ( not on Howard's side, you might not be surprised to learn) and it was the deepest disappointment of my whole political career. I can remember Folkestone in particular, being a huge sea of LD posters everywhere and we underestimated the shy Tory vote even there and the strong continued Tory vote in the northern rural part of the constituency ( the bit being transferred to Ashford in the latest realignment!) |
|
Clark
Forum Regular
Posts: 744
|
Post by Clark on Mar 8, 2023 8:35:13 GMT
Tom King in Bridgwater, Michael Howard in Folkestone & Hythe, Eastbourne I was deeply involved in the F&H one ( not on Howard's side, you might not be surprised to learn) and it was the deepest disappointment of my whole political career. I can remember Folkestone in particular, being a huge sea of LD posters everywhere and we underestimated the shy Tory vote even there and the strong continued Tory vote in the northern rural part of the constituency ( the bit being transferred to Ashford in the latest realignment!) Yeah Labour's national performance pushed them up to 25% of the vote at a time when you needed them squeezed. Referendum Party took 4,000 votes from Howard too but still not enough |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Mar 8, 2023 9:09:27 GMT
I was deeply involved in the F&H one ( not on Howard's side, you might not be surprised to learn) and it was the deepest disappointment of my whole political career. I can remember Folkestone in particular, being a huge sea of LD posters everywhere and we underestimated the shy Tory vote even there and the strong continued Tory vote in the northern rural part of the constituency ( the bit being transferred to Ashford in the latest realignment!) Yeah Labour's national performance pushed them up to 25% of the vote at a time when you needed them squeezed. Referendum Party took 4,000 votes from Howard too but still not enough Yeah, agree both those points. The main point of all those LD posters in Folkestone was to convince wavering Lib/Lab voters which was the way to jump - of course it may have had the effect of making committed Labour voters to grit their teeth and try even harder for Labour. Some of those would prefer a Howard win to a LD one. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Mar 8, 2023 9:28:40 GMT
Yeah Labour's national performance pushed them up to 25% of the vote at a time when you needed them squeezed. Referendum Party took 4,000 votes from Howard too but still not enough Yeah, agree both those points. The main point of all those LD posters in Folkestone was to convince wavering Lib/Lab voters which was the way to jump - of course it may have had the effect of making committed Labour voters to grit their teeth and try even harder for Labour. Some of those would prefer a Howard win to a LD one. I might add, I don't think our candidate that year was the best we've had for that seat! Laws was decidedly weak compared with John MacDonald before or particularly Peter Carroll after. I think Lib Dem performances are much more down to the strengths of the individual candidates than the big 2 parties- our candidates have to be really good campaigners in their own right and Laws was never that, as his subsequent history showed. I didn't take him long to undo all the work of Paddy Ashdown. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 8, 2023 10:10:24 GMT
Yeah, agree both those points. The main point of all those LD posters in Folkestone was to convince wavering Lib/Lab voters which was the way to jump - of course it may have had the effect of making committed Labour voters to grit their teeth and try even harder for Labour. Some of those would prefer a Howard win to a LD one. I might add, I don't think our candidate that year was the best we've had for that seat! Laws was decidedly weak compared with John MacDonald before or particularly Peter Carroll after. I think Lib Dem performances are much more down to the strengths of the individual candidates than the big 2 parties- our candidates have to be really good campaigners in their own right and Laws was never that, as his subsequent history showed. I didn't take him long to undo all the work of Paddy Ashdown. In 2005 (after his first term) he won a higher vote share than he had inherited from Ashdown. In 2010 he won a higher vote share than Ashdown ever did. So it took until 2015 to 'undo' all the work - the collapse in Lib Dem support there being hardly a unique phenomenon |
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Mar 8, 2023 10:49:45 GMT
In relation to the talk of all the constituencies the Tories could lose, were there any in the '97 election that stood out as surprise holds under the circumstances? Wells-albeit it was eventually lost. Possibly retained in 1997 due to the Michael Eavis effect. Totnes Salisbury |
|
Clark
Forum Regular
Posts: 744
|
Post by Clark on Mar 8, 2023 10:58:38 GMT
If Sir Richard Body retired and the Ref Party put up a candidate, Labour would've won Boston & Skegness easily
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 8, 2023 11:04:22 GMT
If Sir Richard Body retired and the Ref Party put up a candidate, Labour would've won Boston & Skegness easily A similar argument could be made for Aldridge-Brownhills of course. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Mar 8, 2023 11:55:13 GMT
I might add, I don't think our candidate that year was the best we've had for that seat! Laws was decidedly weak compared with John MacDonald before or particularly Peter Carroll after. I think Lib Dem performances are much more down to the strengths of the individual candidates than the big 2 parties- our candidates have to be really good campaigners in their own right and Laws was never that, as his subsequent history showed. I didn't take him long to undo all the work of Paddy Ashdown. In 2005 (after his first term) he won a higher vote share than he had inherited from Ashdown. In 2010 he won a higher vote share than Ashdown ever did. So it took until 2015 to 'undo' all the work - the collapse in Lib Dem support there being hardly a unique phenomenon Fair enough points and it is quite difficult to disentangle the personal from the the national trends. All I would say is that David Laws was always someone who expected to be handed a gold plated campaign without contributing that much personally - maybe down to his own personality, which always seemed to me remarkably diffident for someone of his standing. For some while the Yeovil machine created under Paddy would see him through, but not when the going got tough. Maybe the word I should withdraw from my original post was "long" but it depends what you think is a long time in politics. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,881
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 8, 2023 13:43:02 GMT
Yeah Labour's national performance pushed them up to 25% of the vote at a time when you needed them squeezed. Referendum Party took 4,000 votes from Howard too but still not enough Yeah, agree both those points. The main point of all those LD posters in Folkestone was to convince wavering Lib/Lab voters which was the way to jump - of course it may have had the effect of making committed Labour voters to grit their teeth and try even harder for Labour. Some of those would prefer a Howard win to a LD one. I would have thought a majority of them? Just as I would prefer Labour to have taken the seat by far over the LDs taking it. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Mar 8, 2023 13:51:26 GMT
No there is no way that a majority of Labour voters would have preferred a Howard win to a Lib Dem one, if forced to make such a binary choice.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,532
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 8, 2023 14:01:25 GMT
Yeah, agree both those points. The main point of all those LD posters in Folkestone was to convince wavering Lib/Lab voters which was the way to jump - of course it may have had the effect of making committed Labour voters to grit their teeth and try even harder for Labour. Some of those would prefer a Howard win to a LD one. I would have thought a majority of them? Just as I would prefer Labour to have taken the seat by far over the LDs taking it. Your list of preferences in disliking the Lib Dems does not match the preferences of the general electorate as they were in 1997. The main reason why the Conservatives held Folkestone & Hythe, and Bridgwater, and similar seats, was because it was not clear which of the two main opposition parties was the main challenger. There were some seats where the Labour Party did so well that they leapfrogged the Lib Dems to go from 3rd to 1st place. I think that if voters could have the luxury of knowing what the result is going to be, then most Lib Dem and Labour supporters would have plumped for whichever of the two candidates was closest to beating Michael Howard. Perhaps not enough for him to be defeated, but it wouldn’t have been such an even 3-way split. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 8, 2023 14:38:08 GMT
Carlton is confusing the mentality of normal votes with those of partisan activists. It logically makes sense for a Conservative activist to prefer Labour to have gained a seat than the Lib Dems, as the former would be removed by the swing back of the pendulum, the latter much harder to shift. If Labour had won Colchester in 1997 for example, the Conservatives would have probably gained it in 2005 and if not then certainly in 2010. As it was they had to wait until 2015. Likewise freom the poing of view of a partisan Labour supporter, it is not good for them for the Lib Dems to win a seat where they have themselves been competetive as their support gets squeezed away to nothing and often their local govenment base is destroyed as well (as in eg Bath, St Albans now).
These sort of considerations are not going to carry any weight with the vast majority of normal voters who just have a preference for or against a particular party. Overwhelmingly Labour voters are going to see a Lib Dem MP as preferable to a Conservative one and Conservative voters will see a Lib Dem MP as preferable to a Labour one. Lib Dem voters will be more evenly divided, but in 1997 would have skewed quite heavily in Labour's favour.
|
|
