graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 17, 2023 17:40:58 GMT
Twenty years ago I would have thought there was more chance of me becoming Pope than Croydon South going Labour - after all this is Purley, Kenley, Coulsdon, rather than Thornton Heath or Waddon! Demographics have changed that so rapidly, with large family houses being knocked down left, right and centre and replaced by flats for young commuters. I could quite easily see Croydon South going Labour next time... David Winnick did narrowly win Croydon South for Labour in 1966 - albeit on very different boundaries. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 17, 2023 18:08:30 GMT
Twenty years ago I would have thought there was more chance of me becoming Pope than Croydon South going Labour - after all this is Purley, Kenley, Coulsdon, rather than Thornton Heath or Waddon! Demographics have changed that so rapidly, with large family houses being knocked down left, right and centre and replaced by flats for young commuters. I could quite easily see Croydon South going Labour next time... David Winnick did narrowly win Croydon South for Labour in 1966 - albeit on very different boundaries. That wasn’t a version of Croydon South with different boundaries; it was a version of Croydon Central with a different name. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Oct 17, 2023 20:02:05 GMT
Twenty years ago I would have thought there was more chance of me becoming Pope than Croydon South going Labour - after all this is Purley, Kenley, Coulsdon, rather than Thornton Heath or Waddon! Demographics have changed that so rapidly, with large family houses being knocked down left, right and centre and replaced by flats for young commuters. I could quite easily see Croydon South going Labour next time... I understand the logic of what you’re saying, but it is still true that (on the new boundaries) no part of Croydon South has ever elected a Labour councillor. It may be on the list of constituencies which Labour needs to win in order to get a majority (assuming a uniform national swing) but in reality it would only fall if there were a Labour landslide. For a variety of reasons, I am expecting Croydon South to have a smaller swing than the national average, and I am not expecting a Labour landslide anyway. Would need 175 plus net Labour gains(using new boundaries) which even Blair couldnt do so I agree |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Oct 17, 2023 20:10:08 GMT
Talking of bellwether seats immediately makes my mind think of Bury North. From my earliest memory of politics it had always been won by the governing party - yet very often with super-slim majorities.
Checking the records, Bury N & its predecessor Bury & Radcliffe was won by the party winning the GE in every election since the war except for 1974 Feb (when the Tories held on..by 38 votes!; though you could argue that as they won the most votes nationally, the people of Bury North could claim to have still voted for "the most popular party", just that the seat distribution didnt work for the Tories on that occasion) and 2017 when Labour won it back in the wake of the disastrous May campaign!
So, within a gnat's whisker of being a perfect bellwether seat for nearly 80 years!
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 17, 2023 22:20:14 GMT
Bury, as it then was, was an extremely narrow Conservative hold in 1945. Walter Fletcher who had held Bury in 1945 then won Bury & Radcliffe when it was formed in 1950 (before then, Radcliffe was in a constituency with Heywood). So you're not quite right.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 17, 2023 22:29:48 GMT
Bury, as it then was, was an extremely narrow Conservative hold in 1945. Walter Fletcher who had held Bury in 1945 then won Bury & Radcliffe when it was formed in 1950 (before then, Radcliffe was in a constituency with Heywood). So you're not quite right. Does anyone have any theories as to why Labour took so long to win Bury? I'd be interested to hear them. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 17, 2023 23:00:25 GMT
Talking of bellwether seats immediately makes my mind think of Bury North. From my earliest memory of politics it had always been won by the governing party - yet very often with super-slim majorities. Checking the records, Bury N & its predecessor Bury & Radcliffe was won by the party winning the GE in every election since the war except for 1974 Feb (when the Tories held on..by 38 votes!; though you could argue that as they won the most votes nationally, the people of Bury North could claim to have still voted for "the most popular party", just that the seat distribution didnt work for the Tories on that occasion) and 2017 when Labour won it back in the wake of the disastrous May campaign! So, within a gnat's whisker of being a perfect bellwether seat for nearly 80 years! That won't stop lazy media commentators calling it a "red wall" seat. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2023 0:23:53 GMT
Bury & Radcliffe was held by Labour in 1979
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Oct 18, 2023 6:16:40 GMT
In this morning's Independent reporting a leaked Conservative memo, they believe they will poll around 31% of the vote in Tamworth (low 28%, high 33%). The report does not state what the other parties are expected to poll, but compared to Staffordshire South East in 1996 the bottom end of that estimate would be 0.5% worse than 1996 and the top end would be 4.5% better, suggesting (based on what happened in 1996) they are suggesting a possible Conservative HOLD in Tamworth, but only by less than 1,000 votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Oct 18, 2023 6:42:10 GMT
In this morning's Independent reporting a leaked Conservative memo, they believe they will poll around 31% of the vote in Tamworth (low 28%, high 33%). The report does not state what the other parties are expected to poll, but compared to Staffordshire South East in 1996 the bottom end of that estimate would be 0.5% worse than 1996 and the top end would be 4.5% better, suggesting (based on what happened in 1996) they are suggesting a possible Conservative HOLD in Tamworth, but only by less than 1,000 votes. If they are only gettingf 33% of the vote, they've lost Tamworth, it really is a two horse race. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2023 6:45:28 GMT
In this morning's Independent reporting a leaked Conservative memo, they believe they will poll around 31% of the vote in Tamworth (low 28%, high 33%). The report does not state what the other parties are expected to poll, but compared to Staffordshire South East in 1996 the bottom end of that estimate would be 0.5% worse than 1996 and the top end would be 4.5% better, suggesting (based on what happened in 1996) they are suggesting a possible Conservative HOLD in Tamworth, but only by less than 1,000 votes. If they are only gettingf 33% of the vote, they've lost Tamworth, it really is a two horse race. Exactly. Plus the Tory candidates recent 2020 gaffes coming to light will not help the Conservatives, even if many voters may privately share the sentiment. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Oct 18, 2023 6:50:25 GMT
If they are only gettingf 33% of the vote, they've lost Tamworth, it really is a two horse race. Exactly. Plus the Tory candidates recent 2020 gaffes coming to light will not help the Conservatives, even if many voters may privately share the sentiment. Don't honestly think it will change many votes. There was an opportunity for a strong local Indo, who wouldn't win but would have added something to the race especially if under the Reform banner. Reform, from what I hear, have not campaigned strongly or been very visible but I suspect they will hold their deposit. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2023 6:53:35 GMT
If they are only gettingf 33% of the vote, they've lost Tamworth, it really is a two horse race. Exactly. Plus the Tory candidates recent 2020 gaffes coming to light will not help the Conservatives, even if many voters may privately share the sentiment. What 'gaffes'? |
|
skyep
Non-Aligned
Posts: 61
|
Post by skyep on Oct 18, 2023 7:07:40 GMT
assuming it's social media gaffes, including this shared on here yesterday... Conservative candidate's sympathy for parents who can't afford to feed their children  |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Oct 18, 2023 7:11:45 GMT
assuming it's social media gaffes, including this shared on here yesterday... Conservative candidate's sympathy for parents who can't afford to feed their children I mean, if you are paying for lip fillers but don’t feed your children then you really do need to fuck off. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2023 7:41:22 GMT
assuming it's social media gaffes, including this shared on here yesterday... Conservative candidate's sympathy for parents who can't afford to feed their children He doesn't appear to be repudiating the post or claiming it was posted in error or issuing a grovelling apology and a promise to 'do better'. I take it therefore this is not a 'gaffe' (definition of which is unintentional error) |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 18, 2023 7:41:27 GMT
Bury & Radcliffe was held by Labour in 1979 yes, that was the 38-vote majority that manchesterman referred to, he just got the wrong election & the wrong winning party. The Tories held on to Bury & Radcliffe in February 1974 by more than 300 votes. I remember at the time that Frank White was said to be a particularly well-liked constituency MP, and his against-the-odds hold was put down to that by most pundits. He also kept the swing down to somewhat below the national average (notionally, anyway, as worked out by psephologists) in Bury North in 1983 but failed to hold on in the face of a further national swing. He then moved to Bolton NE in 1987 but although again he achieved a slightly above-average result he was unable to gain the seat from Peter Thurnham. It's easy enough to check past parliamentary election results, every constituency past & present has a Wikipedia entry. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 18, 2023 7:44:39 GMT
I seem to recall that notionally Bury North was regarded as a Tory seat when formed in 1983, but that Bury South was notionally Labour. Of course Labour won neither seat until 1997.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Oct 18, 2023 8:15:25 GMT
assuming it's social media gaffes, including this shared on here yesterday... I mean, if you are paying for lip fillers but don’t feed your children then you really do need to fuck off. I suppose I'm old-fashioned but no, I don't tell someone to "fuck off" when they ask for help even when I think their choices are foolish or even selfish. If they need a discussion on their spending choices I give that, and there are agencies that can do the same. Similarly if I could cash the times a conversation started with the words 'you'll think I've been foolish' I would be quite a wealthy man yet I never answered 'you bet'. The purposes of being an elected representative are various but one of them is not to cast moral judgements or tell someone that they've been stupid. It's to take that person from where they now are - asking for help - and suggest the next steps. This man clearly isn't right for the role of a modern MP where casework is pretty heavy (or he needs to employ decent people to do it and keep well away from the task). |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Oct 18, 2023 8:20:26 GMT
I mean, if you are paying for lip fillers but don’t feed your children then you really do need to fuck off. I suppose I'm old-fashioned but no, I don't tell someone to "fuck off" when they ask for help even when I think their choices are foolish or even selfish. If they need a discussion on their spending choices I give that, and there are agencies that can do the same. Similarly if I could cash the times a conversation started with the words 'you'll think I've been foolish' I would be quite a wealthy man yet I never answered 'you bet'. The purposes of being an elected representative are various but one of them is not to cast moral judgements or tell someone that they've been stupid. It's to take that person from where they now are - asking for help - and suggest the next steps. This man clearly isn't right for the role of a modern MP where casework is pretty heavy (or he needs to employ decent people to do it and keep well away from the task). I believe that the child should be taken away until the parents get their act together (if it comes to excessive spending) and that the state should probably help the parents develop healthier spending habits. I understand that it might sound harsh, but it is for the health and well-being of the child. |
|
