Somerton and Frome

[andrewp]

I’ll post this here but one of the factors in terms of the Conservative by election losses in this parliament as compared to those in the 1992-97 parliament and whether they can regain them at the next general election, or whether the Lib Dem’s or Labour can dig in and hold them, as in 1997, is the difference in the batch of seats.

Of the 1992-97 losses, without by elections, Newbury and Eastleigh were very much on the borderline of seats that the Lib Dem’s might have gained in 1997 or the Tories might have held.

Labour would have gained Tamworth and Wirral South and Dudley West/ South in 1997 anyway without the by elections

Christchurch is the only 1992-97 loss that the Tories would have Defitnely held in 1997 without a by election and indeed was the only one that they regained.

In other words none of those by elections appear to have led to the Lib Dem’s or Labour winning a seat in 1997 that needed something far in excess of the national swing.

The ones in this parliament are a bit different. If the Tories are reduced to 1997 levels of 160 or so seats, without the by elections, North Shropshire, Chesham and Amersham, Tiverton and Minehead, Honiton and Sidmouth, Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth would almost certainly be amongst those 160. Selby would quite likely be. They do look more difficult for the opposition parties to ‘hold’.

The seats that the Tories are losing in this parliament are much safer than the ones they lost in 1992-97, with the exception of Christchurch.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jul 22, 2023 20:50:04 GMT johnloony said:

Jul 22, 2023 13:46:51 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

This is untrue. You had heard of her but had forgotten. She was widely discussed on the Canada election threads both at the time of her first election and her subsequent re-election and we know you follow those threads because your sister lived in Alberta at the time and you posted on them.

(1) She can’t possibly have been widely discussed at the time of her first election, because her first election was in 2011 and this forum didn’t start until 2012.

(2) My sister didn’t move to Alberta until 2012, so I wouldn’t have had any special interest in Canadian elections, beyond the normal background level, at that time, even if the forum had existed in 2011, which it didn’t.

(3) A brief search of the Canada threads reveals two brief mentions of Ruth Ellen Brosseau in 2019, and two in 2021, but none in 2015. And none in 2011, because the forum didn’t exist in 2011. In those posts, she was mentioned in passing in the middle of a longer text, and was not the main subject of the text.

(4) There is no reason for me to have noticed or remembered those mentions, because my focus would have been on Edmonton and Alberta, not Quebec.

Anybody who is daft enough to think that that amount of mentions is enough to constitute her being “widely discussed” is an insane hysterical person who has probably accidentally swallowed a moose.

Easily done, if you're trying to swallow an elk and are unsure of the difference.

[iain]

Jul 22, 2023 21:04:24 GMT edgbaston said:

Jul 21, 2023 14:23:44 GMT polupolu said:

Our 10th female MP out of 15.

What was the composition of the Lib Dem parliamentary party prior to 2015. You’ve not arrived at this statistic by choice

We very much have arrived there by choice. The party has been very focused on increasing female representation since 2015.

I think the implication of your post is that we were left with a lot of women due to them holding safer seats prior to 2015, but nothing could be further from the truth. From 2010-15 we only had 7/57 women, all in marginals, and 2015-17 we had 0/8 (1/9 post-Richmond Park by-election).

[No Offence Alan]

Jul 22, 2023 21:32:45 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Jul 22, 2023 20:50:04 GMT johnloony said:

(1) She can’t possibly have been widely discussed at the time of her first election, because her first election was in 2011 and this forum didn’t start until 2012.

(2) My sister didn’t move to Alberta until 2012, so I wouldn’t have had any special interest in Canadian elections, beyond the normal background level, at that time, even if the forum had existed in 2011, which it didn’t.

(3) A brief search of the Canada threads reveals two brief mentions of Ruth Ellen Brosseau in 2019, and two in 2021, but none in 2015. And none in 2011, because the forum didn’t exist in 2011. In those posts, she was mentioned in passing in the middle of a longer text, and was not the main subject of the text.

(4) There is no reason for me to have noticed or remembered those mentions, because my focus would have been on Edmonton and Alberta, not Quebec.

Anybody who is daft enough to think that that amount of mentions is enough to constitute her being “widely discussed” is an insane hysterical person who has probably accidentally swallowed a moose.

Easily done, if you're trying to swallow an elk and are unsure of the difference.

I thought I gnu the difference, but I have forgotten.

[edgbaston]

Jul 22, 2023 22:09:16 GMT iain said:

Jul 22, 2023 21:04:24 GMT edgbaston said:

What was the composition of the Lib Dem parliamentary party prior to 2015. You’ve not arrived at this statistic by choice

We very much have arrived there by choice. The party has been very focused on increasing female representation since 2015.

I think the implication of your post is that we were left with a lot of women due to them holding safer seats prior to 2015, but nothing could be further from the truth. From 2010-15 we only had 7/57 women, all in marginals, and 2015-17 we had 0/8 (1/9 post-Richmond Park by-election).

Looking at the stats you are right and I retract my prior post

[where2travel]

Jul 22, 2023 21:22:11 GMT andrewp said:

I’ll post this here but one of the factors in terms of the Conservative by election losses in this parliament as compared to those in the 1992-97 parliament and whether they can regain them at the next general election, or whether the Lib Dem’s or Labour can dig in and hold them, as in 1997, is the difference in the batch of seats.

Of the 1992-97 losses, without by elections, Newbury and Eastleigh were very much on the borderline of seats that the Lib Dem’s might have gained in 1997 or the Tories might have held.

Labour would have gained Tamworth and Wirral South and Dudley West/ South in 1997 anyway without the by elections

Christchurch is the only 1992-97 loss that the Tories would have Defitnely held in 1997 without a by election and indeed was the only one that they regained.

In other words none of those by elections appear to have led to the Lib Dem’s or Labour winning a seat in 1997 that needed something far in excess of the national swing.

The ones in this parliament are a bit different. If the Tories are reduced to 1997 levels of 160 or so seats, without the by elections, North Shropshire, Chesham and Amersham, Tiverton and Minehead, Honiton and Sidmouth, Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth would almost certainly be amongst those 160. Selby would quite likely be. They do look more difficult for the opposition parties to ‘hold’.

The seats that the Tories are losing in this parliament are much safer than the ones they lost in 1992-97, with the exception of Christchurch.

Completely agree. A key difference is that in 1992 the Tories barely had any seats where they got over 60% (or majorities of 40%). In Christchurch they did get over 60% (I don't know how many others there were). In 2019 there was a whole load of over 60% (and even about a dozen of over 70%) Tory vote shares and 40%/50% majorities, and these have been a fair proportion of the by-elections.

[finsobruce]

Jul 22, 2023 22:55:25 GMT No Offence Alan said:

Jul 22, 2023 21:32:45 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Easily done, if you're trying to swallow an elk and are unsure of the difference.

I thought I gnu the difference, but I have forgotten.

You are on the horns of a dilemma.

[Crimson King]

Jul 23, 2023 5:32:34 GMT finsobruce said:

Jul 22, 2023 22:55:25 GMT No Offence Alan said:

I thought I gnu the difference, but I have forgotten.

You are on the horns of a dilemma.

oh deer, not another pun fest. Should I buck the trend?

[finsobruce]

Jul 23, 2023 7:51:38 GMT Crimson King said:

Jul 23, 2023 5:32:34 GMT finsobruce said:

You are on the horns of a dilemma.

oh deer, not another pun fest. Should I buck the trend?

you could leave it lying fallow, yes.

[Crimson King]

Jul 23, 2023 8:14:07 GMT finsobruce said:

Jul 23, 2023 7:51:38 GMT Crimson King said:

oh deer, not another pun fest. Should I buck the trend?

you could leave it lying fallow, yes.

Taken as read

[No Offence Alan]

Jul 22, 2023 23:25:48 GMT where2travel said:

Jul 22, 2023 21:22:11 GMT andrewp said:

I’ll post this here but one of the factors in terms of the Conservative by election losses in this parliament as compared to those in the 1992-97 parliament and whether they can regain them at the next general election, or whether the Lib Dem’s or Labour can dig in and hold them, as in 1997, is the difference in the batch of seats.

Of the 1992-97 losses, without by elections, Newbury and Eastleigh were very much on the borderline of seats that the Lib Dem’s might have gained in 1997 or the Tories might have held.

Labour would have gained Tamworth and Wirral South and Dudley West/ South in 1997 anyway without the by elections

Christchurch is the only 1992-97 loss that the Tories would have Defitnely held in 1997 without a by election and indeed was the only one that they regained.

In other words none of those by elections appear to have led to the Lib Dem’s or Labour winning a seat in 1997 that needed something far in excess of the national swing.

The ones in this parliament are a bit different. If the Tories are reduced to 1997 levels of 160 or so seats, without the by elections, North Shropshire, Chesham and Amersham, Tiverton and Minehead, Honiton and Sidmouth, Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth would almost certainly be amongst those 160. Selby would quite likely be. They do look more difficult for the opposition parties to ‘hold’.

The seats that the Tories are losing in this parliament are much safer than the ones they lost in 1992-97, with the exception of Christchurch.

Completely agree. A key difference is that in 1992 the Tories barely had any seats where they got over 60% (or majorities of 40%). In Christchurch they did get over 60% (I don't know how many others there were). In 2019 there was a whole load of over 60% (and even about a dozen of over 70%) Tory vote shares and 40%/50% majorities, and these have been a fair proportion of the by-elections.

The last paragraph could indicate that the Tories are piling up too many votes in their safe seats, and may suffer worse in the GE than a UNS would imply?

[graham]

Jul 22, 2023 21:22:11 GMT andrewp said:

I’ll post this here but one of the factors in terms of the Conservative by election losses in this parliament as compared to those in the 1992-97 parliament and whether they can regain them at the next general election, or whether the Lib Dem’s or Labour can dig in and hold them, as in 1997, is the difference in the batch of seats.

Of the 1992-97 losses, without by elections, Newbury and Eastleigh were very much on the borderline of seats that the Lib Dem’s might have gained in 1997 or the Tories might have held.

Labour would have gained Tamworth and Wirral South and Dudley West/ South in 1997 anyway without the by elections

Christchurch is the only 1992-97 loss that the Tories would have Defitnely held in 1997 without a by election and indeed was the only one that they regained.

In other words none of those by elections appear to have led to the Lib Dem’s or Labour winning a seat in 1997 that needed something far in excess of the national swing.

The ones in this parliament are a bit different. If the Tories are reduced to 1997 levels of 160 or so seats, without the by elections, North Shropshire, Chesham and Amersham, Tiverton and Minehead, Honiton and Sidmouth, Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth would almost certainly be amongst those 160. Selby would quite likely be. They do look more difficult for the opposition parties to ‘hold’.

The seats that the Tories are losing in this parliament are much safer than the ones they lost in 1992-97, with the exception of Christchurch.

Not so sure about Tamworth - if the by election does happen - given that Labour did hold the seat 1997 - 2010.

[maxque]

Jul 23, 2023 10:37:08 GMT graham said:

Jul 22, 2023 21:22:11 GMT andrewp said:

I’ll post this here but one of the factors in terms of the Conservative by election losses in this parliament as compared to those in the 1992-97 parliament and whether they can regain them at the next general election, or whether the Lib Dem’s or Labour can dig in and hold them, as in 1997, is the difference in the batch of seats.

Of the 1992-97 losses, without by elections, Newbury and Eastleigh were very much on the borderline of seats that the Lib Dem’s might have gained in 1997 or the Tories might have held.

Labour would have gained Tamworth and Wirral South and Dudley West/ South in 1997 anyway without the by elections

Christchurch is the only 1992-97 loss that the Tories would have Defitnely held in 1997 without a by election and indeed was the only one that they regained.

In other words none of those by elections appear to have led to the Lib Dem’s or Labour winning a seat in 1997 that needed something far in excess of the national swing.

The ones in this parliament are a bit different. If the Tories are reduced to 1997 levels of 160 or so seats, without the by elections, North Shropshire, Chesham and Amersham, Tiverton and Minehead, Honiton and Sidmouth, Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth would almost certainly be amongst those 160. Selby would quite likely be. They do look more difficult for the opposition parties to ‘hold’.

The seats that the Tories are losing in this parliament are much safer than the ones they lost in 1992-97, with the exception of Christchurch.

Not so sure about Tamworth - if the by election does happen - given that Labour did hold the seat 1997 - 2010.

In term of majority sizes, Mid Beds was the 33rd largest Tory majority, Tiverton and Honiton was 41st, North Shropshire was 58th, Selby and Aisnty was 96th, Tamworth was 109th, Somerton and Frome was 114th and Chesham and Amersham was 163rd.

[jakegb]

Jul 23, 2023 14:15:25 GMT maxque said:

Jul 23, 2023 10:37:08 GMT graham said:

Not so sure about Tamworth - if the by election does happen - given that Labour did hold the seat 1997 - 2010.

In term of majority sizes, Mid Beds was the 33rd largest Tory majority, Tiverton and Honiton was 41st, North Shropshire was 58th, Selby and Aisnty was 96th, Tamworth was 109th, Somerton and Frome was 114th and Chesham and Amersham was 163rd.

This is the only one I could see Lib Dems holding (or gaining, depending on terminology) - and that will be a tough, tough task. 

As the election looms closer, the Lib Dems will have to speak about Brexit, immigration etc. - and I am highly sceptical their manifesto plans will match with the socially conservative electorate in these seats. 

[Pete Whitehead]

The boundary changes are unhelpful to them. They might pull some votes out of Hazlemere but Gerrards Cross is massively Tory and I would think the area around Great Missenden being removed was above averagally LIb Dem

[greenhert]

Meanwhile, Frome & East Somerset and Somerton & Glastonbury are unknown quantities psephologically, although both are notionally very safely Conservative at present. Complicating factors include significant Labour and Green support in Frome & East Somerset, as well as the fact the Liberal Democrats campaigned particularly hard in NE Somerset in 2019, and whether Glastonbury and Street can make enough of a difference in Somerton & Glastonbury.

[Pete Whitehead]

Jul 23, 2023 18:22:30 GMT greenhert said:

Meanwhile, Frome & East Somerset and Somerton & Glastonbury are unknown quantities psephologically, although both are notionally very safely Conservative at present. Complicating factors include significant Labour and Green support in Frome & East Somerset, as well as the fact the Liberal Democrats campaigned particularly hard in NE Somerset in 2019, and whether Glastonbury and Street can make enough of a difference in Somerton & Glastonbury.

Glastonbury and Street are pretty good for the Lib Dems. I'd have thought the Somerton part of the new seat would have been the Lib Dem relative weakspot so they look well placed there now.

Edit: Checking on the boundaries, I see that most of that new seat comes from this one with only a small number of voters from Yeovil plus the Glastonbury/Street 'conurbation' from Wells. Also includes Sarah Dyke's home area so I assume she goes for this seat and wins.
Had the Lib Dems selected for the new seats at all?

[andrewp]

Jul 23, 2023 18:43:45 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jul 23, 2023 18:22:30 GMT greenhert said:

Meanwhile, Frome & East Somerset and Somerton & Glastonbury are unknown quantities psephologically, although both are notionally very safely Conservative at present. Complicating factors include significant Labour and Green support in Frome & East Somerset, as well as the fact the Liberal Democrats campaigned particularly hard in NE Somerset in 2019, and whether Glastonbury and Street can make enough of a difference in Somerton & Glastonbury.

Glastonbury and Street are pretty good for the Lib Dems. I'd have thought the Somerton part of the new seat would have been the Lib Dem relative weakspot so they look well placed there now.

Edit: Checking on the boundaries, I see that most of that new seat comes from this one with only a small number of voters from Yeovil plus the Glastonbury/Street 'conurbation' from Wells. Also includes Sarah Dyke's home area so I assume she goes for this seat and wins.
Had the Lib Dems selected for the new seats at all?

I’d be surprised if she didn’t go for Glastonbury and Somerton. As you say she lives there and there is no nuisance from Labour and the Greens there unlike Frome and East Somerset. I don’t believe the Lib Dem’s have selected for either of those seats, although they have selected for Taunton and Wellington, Yeovil and Wells & Mendip Hills in the county.

[Deleted]

Say what you will about the Lib Dems, but their by-election ops and graphics are slick as anything.

[The Bishop]

Jul 23, 2023 18:15:49 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The boundary changes are unhelpful to them. They might pull some votes out of Hazlemere but Gerrards Cross is massively Tory and I would think the area around Great Missenden being removed was above averagally LIb Dem

Has been, yes.

But it could be the sort of place that such standing loyalty might weaken a bit in the face of a more general Blue Wall (yes, yes I know) realignment.