|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jul 21, 2023 9:45:33 GMT
'BAME', 'aspirational Asian heritage' - it's okay, you can just say Hindu guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jul 21, 2023 10:02:31 GMT
The ULEZ is the right thing to do, given the high level of air pollution in London, and its impact on people's health. Obviously a small number of people negatively affected don't like it, but it's still the right thing to do. And those affected are in line for a public subsidy, which everyone else won't be getting. There will be a lot more of this sort of thing as environmental action is taken (as you can see from the constant whinging from the likes of London Lad), but mostly it will be accepted once it has happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 21, 2023 10:18:40 GMT
6 ) Steve Tuckwell still faces a difficult battle to win the revised constituency in the general election for a number of reasons. Firstly, although local issues often do impact particular constituencies in general elections, it's much harder to make the result a referendum on an issue such as ULEZ extension. Secondly, although there will be a very slightly favourable boundary change for the Tories, this will be at least nullified by the likelihood of a much greater student vote. Thirdly, I think that in one of the parts joining the constituency, Ickenham, rather as in neighbouring Hillingdon West which is already part of the constituency, in common with other very prosperous areas there may be a slight anti-Tory trend which I don't think is the case in the areas around Ruislip Manor & Eastcote which are departing from the constituency in the boundary changes. Although Ickenham is still Tory for sure. There are precedents for parties holding on to seats in by-elections and then losing them in the following general elections; this happened to the Tories, for example, in Bolton East in 1960 and to Labour in Dundee East in 1973, and Darlington in 1983. However, as I said above, this seat is a tough nut to crack, and it will probably take something close to a Labour landslide to carry this seat along with it as a Labour gain. Excellent analysis Barnaby. One minor point of information: on the final proposals Ruislip Manor stays in the constituency and Harefield remains with RN&P, otherwise Ickenham replaces southern Eastcote (ie the old Cavendish ward). I think I agree with your view of the relative trends in those areas but to all intents and purposes I think the partisan effect of the boundary changes are negligible. As you say the next general election here will not be a referendum on ULEZ (although local and London wide issues can influence general election voting behaviour, as it did notably in parts of London in 1987). I think the main advantage Steve Tuckwell has from this is an element of incumbency - something that also helped John Randall in 2001 (when it might plausibly have been a Labour gain had it been an open seat). I still think Labour should gain this seat if they win nationally by anything close to the margin that is currently being suggested by opinion polls. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 21, 2023 10:28:23 GMT
In Sheffield we've now got CAZ and just because it doesn't affect most people it doesn't stop people thinking it will affect them or that it will soon affect them There is a CAZ in Bath which is about lorries, vans & coaches but doesn’t charge for cars. Doesn’t stop rumours that cars are going to be charged from next week (or whenever) which have absolutely no basis in fact or even being considered. I think our satnav even tried to divert us away from the Bath CAZ |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 21, 2023 10:29:16 GMT
Parts of Hillingdon have quite a lot of light industry, so it's probably more likely the impact on commercial vehicles (especially ULEZ compliant vans, which are hard to find) rather than personal vehicles round here. There are probably enough white van men in this constituency for it to have made all the difference. White van men are easy to mock in various ways but there are a lot of them and they do a lot of important work. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 21, 2023 10:29:54 GMT
The ULEZ is the right thing to do, given the high level of air pollution in London, and its impact on people's health. Obviously a small number of people negatively affected don't like it, but it's still the right thing to do. And those affected are in line for a public subsidy, which everyone else won't be getting. There will be a lot more of this sort of thing as environmental action is taken (as you can see from the constant whinging from the likes of London Lad ), but mostly it will be accepted once it has happened. Indeed. Can you imagine if the anti-smog reforms of the 50s werent enacted - largely by "proper" Conservative governments - and if you had instead had much of the "current iteration of the Tory party" + client journalists and media outlets saying "NO to anti-smog laws"!
The ULEZ policy clearly wasnt thought through properly and much more needs to be done to support ordinary people through this major lifestyle change; but there can surely be no doubt that the aim of *checks notes* saving lives is the right one [or is this like the anti-covid conspiracy theorists who were quite content to 'let the bodies pile high' (as long as it wasnt them, of course)]
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 21, 2023 10:34:05 GMT
A good surprise to wake up to. We were told it was all but gone already. A lesson there for socialist hubris, you can't take someone's vote for granted if you're simultaneously kicking them in the gut. It was more than socialist hubris - I think most of us had written this one off as well Indeed, the absence of a visit from Sunak - even though its not exactly hard from him to get to - maybe told its own story there. And the vibe I got from the Tory candidate, even after the result was announced, was that he didn't actually expect to win despite ULEZ. And maybe it wasn't really so much Labour "hubris" in that their vote was roughly what they had been expecting (and indeed what the constituency poll had predicted) rather than the right wing vote being impressively united, and more so than nearly anyone envisaged - and the depoliticised "send the mayor a message" Tory campaign (almost the sort of thing the LibDems have perfected down the years) was surely a big part of that. Taking these three byelections in the round, Selby and Somerton show that the current polls are pretty much correct. The signifcance of Uxbridge is that it shows the Tories can still come back from the dead (even if not to the extent of actually winning) if the other parties are careless enough to allow them to. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 21, 2023 10:36:36 GMT
It was more than socialist hubris - I think most of us had written this one off as well Indeed, the absence of a visit from Sunak - even though its not exactly hard from him to get to - maybe told its own story there. And the vibe I got from the Tory candidate, even after the result was announced, was that he didn't actually expect to win despite ULEZ. And maybe it wasn't really so much Labour "hubris" in that their vote was roughly what they had been expecting (and indeed what the constituency poll had predicted) rather than the right wing vote being impressively united, and more so than almost anyone predicted - and the depoliticised "send the mayor a message" Tory campaign (almost the sort of thing the LibDems have perfected down the years) was surely a big part of that. Taking these three byelections in the round, Selby and Somerton show that the current polls are pretty much correct. The signifcance of Uxbridge is that it shows the Tories can still come back from the dead (even if not to the extent of actually winning) if the other parties are careless enough to allow them to. a fair summary, though the Uxbridge result must cause some deep down and not so deep down unease? |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyguy on Jul 21, 2023 10:36:48 GMT
6 ) Steve Tuckwell still faces a difficult battle to win the revised constituency in the general election for a number of reasons. Firstly, although local issues often do impact particular constituencies in general elections, it's much harder to make the result a referendum on an issue such as ULEZ extension. Secondly, although there will be a very slightly favourable boundary change for the Tories, this will be at least nullified by the likelihood of a much greater student vote. Thirdly, I think that in one of the parts joining the constituency, Ickenham, rather as in neighbouring Hillingdon West which is already part of the constituency, in common with other very prosperous areas there may be a slight anti-Tory trend which I don't think is the case in the areas around Ruislip Manor & Eastcote which are departing from the constituency in the boundary changes. Although Ickenham is still Tory for sure. There are precedents for parties holding on to seats in by-elections and then losing them in the following general elections; this happened to the Tories, for example, in Bolton East in 1960 and to Labour in Dundee East in 1973, and Darlington in 1983. However, as I said above, this seat is a tough nut to crack, and it will probably take something close to a Labour landslide to carry this seat along with it as a Labour gain. Excellent analysis Barnaby. One minor point of information: on the final proposals Ruislip Manor stays in the constituency and Harefield remains with RN&P, otherwise Ickenham replaces southern Eastcote (ie the old Cavendish ward). I think I agree with your view of the relative trends in those areas but to all intents and purposes I think the partisan effect of the boundary changes are negligible. As you say the next general election here will not be a referendum on ULEZ (although local and London wide issues can influence general election voting behaviour, as it did notably in parts of London in 1987). I think the main advantage Steve Tuckwell has from this is an element of incumbency - something that also helped John Randall in 2001 (when it might plausibly have been a Labour gain had it been an open seat). I still think Labour should gain this seat if they win nationally by anything close to the margin that is currently being suggested by opinion polls. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 21, 2023 10:45:00 GMT
Indeed, the absence of a visit from Sunak - even though its not exactly hard from him to get to - maybe told its own story there. And the vibe I got from the Tory candidate, even after the result was announced, was that he didn't actually expect to win despite ULEZ. And maybe it wasn't really so much Labour "hubris" in that their vote was roughly what they had been expecting (and indeed what the constituency poll had predicted) rather than the right wing vote being impressively united, and more so than almost anyone predicted - and the depoliticised "send the mayor a message" Tory campaign (almost the sort of thing the LibDems have perfected down the years) was surely a big part of that. Taking these three byelections in the round, Selby and Somerton show that the current polls are pretty much correct. The signifcance of Uxbridge is that it shows the Tories can still come back from the dead (even if not to the extent of actually winning) if the other parties are careless enough to allow them to. a fair summary, though the Uxbridge result must cause some deep down and not so deep down unease? Even given the other two results? Though you can imagine the DISCOURSE had this byelection been a stand alone event can't you  As already pointed out, Labour unexpectedly holding Grimsby in 1977 wasn't as much a predictor of the coming GE as losing Ashfield on the same day. |
|
|
|
Post by grumpyguy on Jul 21, 2023 10:45:25 GMT
This analysis is fine as far as it goes, but there is one feature about this by-election which is odd and hasn't been noticed. the number of registered voters was noticeably down on 2019. (The exact figure doesn't seem to have been published but extrapolating, it seems to have been approx. 66900, compared to 70365 in 2019). This may be down to problems caused by voter ID, or to temporary residents not bothering to register, or for other reasons. If it's for either of the reasons suggested, then Labour are likely to be worse affected, and they need to find out how widespread the problem is. It may not just be Uxbridge that's affected.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jul 21, 2023 10:46:12 GMT
6 ) Steve Tuckwell still faces a difficult battle to win the revised constituency in the general election for a number of reasons. Firstly, although local issues often do impact particular constituencies in general elections, it's much harder to make the result a referendum on an issue such as ULEZ extension. Secondly, although there will be a very slightly favourable boundary change for the Tories, this will be at least nullified by the likelihood of a much greater student vote. Thirdly, I think that in one of the parts joining the constituency, Ickenham, rather as in neighbouring Hillingdon West which is already part of the constituency, in common with other very prosperous areas there may be a slight anti-Tory trend which I don't think is the case in the areas around Ruislip Manor & Eastcote which are departing from the constituency in the boundary changes. Although Ickenham is still Tory for sure. There are precedents for parties holding on to seats in by-elections and then losing them in the following general elections; this happened to the Tories, for example, in Bolton East in 1960 and to Labour in Dundee East in 1973, and Darlington in 1983. However, as I said above, this seat is a tough nut to crack, and it will probably take something close to a Labour landslide to carry this seat along with it as a Labour gain. Excellent analysis Barnaby. One minor point of information: on the final proposals Ruislip Manor stays in the constituency and Harefield remains with RN&P, otherwise Ickenham replaces southern Eastcote (ie the old Cavendish ward). I think I agree with your view of the relative trends in those areas but to all intents and purposes I think the partisan effect of the boundary changes are negligible. As you say the next general election here will not be a referendum on ULEZ (although local and London wide issues can influence general election voting behaviour, as it did notably in parts of London in 1987). I think the main advantage Steve Tuckwell has from this is an element of incumbency - something that also helped John Randall in 2001 (when it might plausibly have been a Labour gain had it been an open seat). I still think Labour should gain this seat if they win nationally by anything close to the margin that is currently being suggested by opinion polls. That's the key, Labour should have won this seat and they didn't. Labour (admittedly foolishly) targeted the seat in 2019, so its not one of the 50-70 bolted on safe seats like Richmond was in 1989 where the Conservatives can perhaps grind out a win in terrible by-election year. Selby, the national polls, the very thin margin, the hard to repeat campaign, the previously proven stickiness of Conservative support and the unifying of the right wing vote are substantial slices of comfort for Labour - but there is still no enthusiasm for Labour. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jul 21, 2023 10:49:15 GMT
This analysis is fine as far as it goes, but there is one feature about this by-election which is odd and hasn't been noticed. the number of registered voters was noticeably down on 2019. (The exact figure doesn't seem to have been published but extrapolating, it seems to have been approx. 66900, compared to 70365 in 2019). This may be down to problems caused by voter ID, or to temporary residents not bothering to register, or for other reasons. If it's for either of the reasons suggested, then Labour are likely to be worse affected, and they need to find out how widespread the problem is. It may not just be Uxbridge that's affected. I think it was mentioned that in 2019 there was a substantial student registration drive that particularly targeted Commonwealth students. It would be interesting to see if this dip was heavily concentrated in heavily student polling districts. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 21, 2023 10:51:24 GMT
6 ) Steve Tuckwell still faces a difficult battle to win the revised constituency in the general election for a number of reasons. Firstly, although local issues often do impact particular constituencies in general elections, it's much harder to make the result a referendum on an issue such as ULEZ extension. Secondly, although there will be a very slightly favourable boundary change for the Tories, this will be at least nullified by the likelihood of a much greater student vote. Thirdly, I think that in one of the parts joining the constituency, Ickenham, rather as in neighbouring Hillingdon West which is already part of the constituency, in common with other very prosperous areas there may be a slight anti-Tory trend which I don't think is the case in the areas around Ruislip Manor & Eastcote which are departing from the constituency in the boundary changes. Although Ickenham is still Tory for sure. There are precedents for parties holding on to seats in by-elections and then losing them in the following general elections; this happened to the Tories, for example, in Bolton East in 1960 and to Labour in Dundee East in 1973, and Darlington in 1983. However, as I said above, this seat is a tough nut to crack, and it will probably take something close to a Labour landslide to carry this seat along with it as a Labour gain. Excellent analysis Barnaby. One minor point of information: on the final proposals Ruislip Manor stays in the constituency and Harefield remains with RN&P, otherwise Ickenham replaces southern Eastcote (ie the old Cavendish ward). I think I agree with your view of the relative trends in those areas but to all intents and purposes I think the partisan effect of the boundary changes are negligible. As you say the next general election here will not be a referendum on ULEZ (although local and London wide issues can influence general election voting behaviour, as it did notably in parts of London in 1987). I think the main advantage Steve Tuckwell has from this is an element of incumbency - something that also helped John Randall in 2001 (when it might plausibly have been a Labour gain had it been an open seat). I still think Labour should gain this seat if they win nationally by anything close to the margin that is currently being suggested by opinion polls. yes fair point about Steve Tuckwell's incumbency, and it seems near-certain that he will be a better constituency MP than his predecessor was, and a good fit for the constituency. Randall was in many ways too, although as a bearded pro-Serbian ornithologist he wasn't exactly typical of the local demographic. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 21, 2023 10:51:31 GMT
a fair summary, though the Uxbridge result must cause some deep down and not so deep down unease? Even given the other two results? Though you can imagine the DISCOURSE had this byelection been a stand alone event can't you As already pointed out, Labour unexpectedly holding Grimsby in 1977 wasn't as much a predictor of the coming GE as losing Ashfield on the same day. oh i agree the other 2 were a good slap in the tory face but the Uxbridge one might give much food for thought. Agree re the discourse if was standalone one(i wanted you to win Uxbridge! but suspected it was looking dodgy from some of the mood music) On another note I found Mercer's comment re the new Selby MP very sour |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 21, 2023 10:54:54 GMT
I doubt if the Mayor thought a by-election at all likely in this seat when he launched this policy... So no hubris really. But it gave a good opportunity for a local referendum and people took it. Fair enough. Elections (particularly by-elections, where the consequences are very modest) are for people to use as they please, exasperating though that might be for politicians. The hubris was more about treating this as a nailed on gain I was on the ground in the 1997 byelection and remember that hubris from Labour activists very well Though that was slightly different in that the "parachuted" Labour candidate meant that a lot of local activists boycotted the campaign either totally or significantly. Of course they were easily replaced from outside given the national climate at that time, but those people maybe didn't have as good a grasp of things on the ground. It should be remembered that the Tories only picked Randall after Labour had selected - had we stuck with the candidate who narrowly lost out a few months earlier, the Tories would likely (as was indeed speculated) have gone for some 1997 retread and then experienced the widely expected defeat. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jul 21, 2023 11:10:05 GMT
The hubris was more about treating this as a nailed on gain I was on the ground in the 1997 byelection and remember that hubris from Labour activists very well Though that was slightly different in that the "parachuted" Labour candidate meant that a lot of local activists boycotted the campaign either totally or significantly. Of course they were easily replaced from outside given the national climate at that time, but those maybe didn't have as good a grasp of things on the ground. It should be remembered that the Tories only picked Randall after Labour had selected - had we stuck with the candidate who narrowly lost out a few months earlier, the Tories would likely (as was indeed speculated) have gone for some 1997 retread and then experienced the widely expected defeat. There were lots of tactical calls the Tories seemed to get right in hindsight. But I also remember the much resented card stamping for those on the candidate's list. The Tories got a lot wrong, although we've both probably consigned those to the mists of time. I've seen more unpleasant Labour efforts, even with an overlay of mild physical threat, and Uxbridge in 97 certainly didn't have that. But the premature triumphalism was far more than in the General Election and to be fair more than I ever saw again. Even when the polls closed the Tory office in Randall's store was surrounded by well lubricated activists from the nearby campaign HQ telling us that we'd lost. They had sadly gone by the time of the result. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Jul 21, 2023 11:16:52 GMT
I saw discussion somewhere that on the results show on BBC, it was pointed out that the Tories had effectively run an opposition campaign here. It worked (against my expectations), but it's going to be difficult to replicate that elsewhere, and in a GE.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 21, 2023 11:49:06 GMT
I knew SNP folk working on the Glenrothes by-election and they were pretty much convinced of a gain for months. Lindsay Roy proved a remarkably smart pick for Labour though and I know local nationalists who rated him highly as a local MP before his health declined. Might be worth mentioning that a significant factor in Labour's "surprise" win in said byelection was that the SNP were running the local council and had made a few rather unpopular decisions. As with Uxbridge, this gave a party generally in trouble something solid to campaign on. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Jul 21, 2023 11:49:41 GMT
Now we will get to see how good Lord Ashcroft's constituency poll really is Not that bad it turns out |
|
