Mid Bedfordshire

[The Bishop]

Oct 16, 2023 3:31:08 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

Worth remembering Labour’s similar graphs in North Shropshire

One single claim about canvassing returns relatively early on in the campaign, which few took seriously and even Labour ultimately didn't bother pushing.

Not quite the same perhaps as a literally completely made up graph in the closing days.

[woollyliberal]

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

The Lib Dems have stuck to their strategy of only seriously fighting where they can win. They're not putting a lot of effort in to Tamworth, nor did they in Selby. It is a strategy that is yielding results for them. Labour didn't really try in Tiverton, nor in Chesham. They did try in North Shropshire though. Labour are also trying hard in Mid Beds. It shows that there isn't co-ordination between the parties. Whether you think there should be co-ordination depends on what your top priority is. If it is defeating the most Tories, then yes. If you think it is winning the most seats for yourself, then maybe not.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

don't really see that as our responsibility, I'm sure the Lib Dems rightly don't either.

Apart from change the voting system, outside that you play the ball as it lies

[jamesdoyle]

Oct 16, 2023 9:27:40 GMT woollyliberal said:

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

The Lib Dems have stuck to their strategy of only seriously fighting where they can win. They're not putting a lot of effort in to Tamworth, nor did they in Selby. It is a strategy that is yielding results for them. Labour didn't really try in Tiverton, nor in Chesham. They did try in North Shropshire though. Labour are also trying hard in Mid Beds. It shows that there isn't co-ordination between the parties. Whether you think there should be co-ordination depends on what your top priority is. If it is defeating the most Tories, then yes. If you think it is winning the most seats for yourself, then maybe not.

Yes, but my point is that both sides seem to saying 'you shouldn't be fighting this one' - which implies they think there should be some negotiation. Just - as your sentence that I've highlighted says - that isn't happening.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

What could they do? In most cases the situation won't arise, purely because there are very few seats that could be 3-way marginals and most are too far down both LD and Labour target lists to get much national resource anyway. But where they do, the only evidence as to who is better placed are constituency polls, which are both rare and of dubious accuracy.

[jamesdoyle]

Oct 16, 2023 9:30:04 GMT mattbewilson said:

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

don't really see that as our responsibility, I'm sure the Lib Dems rightly don't either.

Apart from change the voting system, outside that you play the ball as it lies

Then stop moaning (not necessarily you specifically, but your side), about the other side playing.

[liverpoolliberal]

Oct 16, 2023 9:23:49 GMT The Bishop said:

Oct 16, 2023 3:31:08 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

Worth remembering Labour’s similar graphs in North Shropshire

One single claim about canvassing returns relatively early on in the campaign, which few took seriously and even Labour ultimately didn't bother pushing.

Not quite the same perhaps as a literally completely made up graph in the closing days.

No, not the same at all is it? In other news..:

x.com/jhlibdem/status/1713539305371554187?s=46&t=_U-1ZhdtvXlVNpRpZ9asGQ

[finsobruce]

Oct 16, 2023 9:33:22 GMT jamesdoyle said:

Oct 16, 2023 9:30:04 GMT mattbewilson said:

don't really see that as our responsibility, I'm sure the Lib Dems rightly don't either.

Apart from change the voting system, outside that you play the ball as it lies

Then stop moaning (not necessarily you specifically, but your side), about the other side playing.

Stop moaning? And where's the fun in that?

[finsobruce]

Oct 16, 2023 9:39:14 GMT liverpoolliberal said:

Oct 16, 2023 9:23:49 GMT The Bishop said:

One single claim about canvassing returns relatively early on in the campaign, which few took seriously and even Labour ultimately didn't bother pushing.

Not quite the same perhaps as a literally completely made up graph in the closing days.

No, not the same at all is it? In other news..:

x.com/jhlibdem/status/1713539305371554187?s=46&t=_U-1ZhdtvXlVNpRpZ9asGQ

Now be fair, one of those doesn't even mention the Lib Dems...

[LDCaerdydd]

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

…So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

Nothing.

The public like and deserve a choice. The public would be rightly annoyed if a back room deal was done to allow party x to stand in place of party y.

No party has a god given right to just assume they are the natural challenger in any seat.

(And before anyone chips in I said the same in the run up to the 2019 GE with regards to Unite to Remain.

[graham]

I believe that all parties have a right to campaign with the intention of maximising vote share.In this seat the result does not really matter in that the Tories are overwhelmingly likely to win it at the GE next year.
Re- earlier by elections I do suspect that were Shropshire North happening now - rather than in December 2021 - Labour would be mounting an effort similar to that now being seen in Mid - Beds.It would be far from clear who was the main challenger to the Tories.
More widely,there are seats where despite the fact that the LDs came second in 2019 , Labour is the likely challenger now. In that election the LDs overtook Labour in many seats which had seen Labour as the runner up in 2017 and 2015. In many cases , that is now likely to have been reversed which is why it is far too simplistic to rely on the 2019 result as the starting point - the longer term history of the seat needs to be considered. That particularly applies to seats such as Finchley & Golders Green and Cities of London & Westminster where specific local factors distorted the result in 2019. Wimbledon I would expect to be a three- way battle like Mid Beds.

[matureleft]

The fact is that this seat wouldn’t have been a target for either party except in circumstances of both Tory national unpopularity and the behaviour of the individual MPs in this and a couple of other seats.

So the parties have a sort of “shot to nothing”. You can understand why both are having a go.

But I sense a deeper Labour strategic point that’s being made which is essentially that the Lib Dems should stick to territory that is comfortable for Labour - “blue wall” seats where Labour is clearly out of it. Thus I suspect Labour’s second choice outcome would be a Tory hold demonstrating the limits of Lib Dem reach to them.

[mattbewilson]

Oct 16, 2023 9:33:22 GMT jamesdoyle said:

Oct 16, 2023 9:30:04 GMT mattbewilson said:

don't really see that as our responsibility, I'm sure the Lib Dems rightly don't either.

Apart from change the voting system, outside that you play the ball as it lies

Then stop moaning (not necessarily you specifically, but your side), about the other side playing.

thanks for the caveat, I think the Lib Dems have every right to stand. I will pick them up if I don't agree with something in the campaign as they would if shoe was on other foot

[mattbewilson]

Oct 16, 2023 10:00:17 GMT matureleft said:

The fact is that this seat wouldn’t have been a target for either party except in circumstances of both Tory national unpopularity and the behaviour of the individual MPs in this and a couple of other seats.

So the parties have a sort of “shot to nothing”. You can understand why both are having a go.

But I sense a deeper Labour strategic point that’s being made which is essentially that the Lib Dems should stick to territory that is comfortable for Labour - “blue wall” seats where Labour is clearly out of it. Thus I suspect Labour’s second choice outcome would be a Tory hold demonstrating the limits of Lib Dem reach to them.

there's definitely a underlying reasons to throw the sink in mid beds in prep for the boundary changes

[grumpyguy]

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

Yes, but ...... short of the total destruction of the party (and sadly that doesn't look likely at present), there has to be a limit to how many supposedly safe seats it's reasonable to expect the Cons to lose. And this seat is probably one of their 100 safest (Tamworth is even safer), and not just because the opposition is divided. They will be well-organized and they have a very credible candidate, and have a large core of supporters who will turn out for them at elections. Whatever happens at this election (and I think it will stay Con) it will probably return a Tory in a year's time. Opposition parties shouldn't expect to win every by-election. Some are just too hard. This may well be one. 

[woollyliberal]

Oct 16, 2023 10:00:17 GMT matureleft said:

But I sense a deeper Labour strategic point that’s being made which is essentially that the Lib Dems should stick to territory that is comfortable for Labour

Why should the Lib Dems "stick to territory that is comfortable for Labour"? Other than perhaps as a quid pro quo in return for something Labour had done for the Lib Dems?

[southernliberal]

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

Happy to answer this question - I'd say broadly nothing, not a thing.

This is a very unique situation that is happening mid-term in a parliament where the government party has a very large majority.

When it comes to a general election, the number of Conservative-held seats that both Labour and the Liberal Democrats will be going for (to the extent that both will realistically think they are the main challengers as they do in Mid Bedfordshire) are going to be very small, certainly in the single digits, so won't be something to be overly concerned about.

[The Bishop]

Oct 16, 2023 10:14:04 GMT grumpyguy said:

(Tamworth is even safer)

I said just earlier that there are some seats where its "safeness" for the Tories based on the 2019 result, may be a bit of an illusion.

We don't know for sure that Tamworth is one of those places, but may have a better idea on Friday.

(conversely, there are certainly a few seats that are harder for the Tories to lose than they appear on paper)

[Deleted]

It'll be funny if the Tories hold both seats!

The 1997 result here. Tamworth it ain't:

General election 1997: Mid Bedfordshire
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Conservative Jonathan Sayeed 24,176 46.0 –16.4
Labour Neil Mallett 17,086 32.5 +12.7
Liberal Democrats Tim J. Hill 8,823 16.8 +1.0
Referendum Shirley C. Marler 2,257 4.3 New
Natural Law Marek J. Lorys 174 0.3 New
Majority 7,090 14.0 –22.4
Turnout 52,534 78.9 –5.5
Conservative hold Swing −14.6

[graham]

Oct 16, 2023 10:14:04 GMT grumpyguy said:

Oct 16, 2023 8:59:41 GMT jamesdoyle said:

I see that here, and elsewhere, we have reached a stage of Labour and the LibDems sniping at each other over who had the 'right' to be the challenger here, who has said what in their election materials, and whether the voting system is fair. So I infer that neither side is confident of winning (although perhaps both are confident of beating the Cons? And that would be great of course).

One or both sides are going to be disappointed by Friday morning. So the question I'd ask as an outsider whose optimal outcome is the Cons getting as widely hammered as possible is, 'What are you going to do about it?' Whether you win, lose to the others (LD/Lab), or let the Cons slip through the middle, what are you going to do to minimise the chances of this happening again, perhaps in many seats?

Yes, but ...... short of the total destruction of the party (and sadly that doesn't look likely at present), there has to be a limit to how many supposedly safe seats it's reasonable to expect the Cons to lose. And this seat is probably one of their 100 safest (Tamworth is even safer), and not just because the opposition is divided. They will be well-organized and they have a very credible candidate, and have a large core of supporters who will turn out for them at elections. Whatever happens at this election (and I think it will stay Con) it will probably return a Tory in a year's time. Opposition parties shouldn't expect to win every by-election. Some are just too hard. This may well be one. 

Whilst theoretically Tamworth 'is even safer' for the Tories than Mid Beds , its electoral history is very different in that it was Labour-held 1997 - 2010. Thereafter, it swung massively to the Tories such that on paper it might now appear out of reach for Labour. However, what remains unclear is the extent to which the very strong pro-Tory swing was due to specific factors that now have been reversed or ceased to be relevant - ie Brexit - Corbyn - and Johnson. It was a pattern seen in other seats in the Midlands - and along the East coast. Beyond that , there may have been longer term demographic changes that have been helpful to the Tories.  It will be a very interesting result in terms of analysing the extent to which those specific factors have now unwound. Little of this really applies to Mid Beds though.