Sg1
Conservative
Posts: 1,084 
|
Post by Sg1 on Oct 20, 2023 13:19:56 GMT
Yes, the notion that we're to return to 2005 political geography seems unfounded, as though the last 10 years didn't happen or didn't result in changes in voting habits. I think this will result in close seconds for Labour in many of the seats you've mentioned, but overall won't impede a Labour majority, just the scale of such a win. However, it will be costly for the Conservatives as these seats will still have to be fought as marginals to be held. Over optimism on your part I feel. The political landscape is not static but changing with demographic trends Yes, Labour may not regain a number of seats lost in 2010 but are likely to gain plenty of others which were not won in 2005 or earlier. There's no overoptimism on my part, I'm only speaking to those particular seats. I agree with you that Labour will likely win some seats that have been trending in the opposite direction which perhaps even Labour aren't confident of winning, the the Bournemouth, Worthing type seats for instance. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Oct 20, 2023 14:38:50 GMT
it's the 3rd-largest swing from Conservative to Labour ever in a by-election. Underwhelming is not an appropriate adjective in such a circumstance. Of course it would have been nice for it to have been even larger but it was a very large swing. Indeed so - but the result rather implies that the massive shift to the Tories in Midlands seats and along the East Coast since 2005 has not totally unwound. Compared with 2005 this result shows a very small swing to the Tories.. It does have implications for Labour's ability to pick up seats such as - Cannock - Warwickshire North - Leicestershire NW - Bassetlaw - Grimsby - Great Yarmouth et al. You seem to fail to understand that constituencies change, for various demographic or political reasons. The fact that Labour won this seat in 2005 does not mean it is a disappointing result for Labour in 2023. Some seats essentially don't see demographic or long-term political change of any real consequence, be they marginals or safe seats for either party, others do. To analyse constituencies successfully, present-day realities normally have to take precedence over what happened in past years. It's like saying that Labour has a chance in Winchester because we won it in 1945; the present-day reality is different. The same applies the other way round with for example Lewisham East. The fact that the Tories have won it within our living memory does not mean they can win it now. And so on. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 20, 2023 14:58:16 GMT
Indeed so - but the result rather implies that the massive shift to the Tories in Midlands seats and along the East Coast since 2005 has not totally unwound. Compared with 2005 this result shows a very small swing to the Tories.. It does have implications for Labour's ability to pick up seats such as - Cannock - Warwickshire North - Leicestershire NW - Bassetlaw - Grimsby - Great Yarmouth et al. You seem to fail to understand that constituencies change, for various demographic or political reasons. The fact that Labour won this seat in 2005 does not mean it is a disappointing result for Labour in 2023. Some seats essentially don't see demographic or long-term political change of any real consequence, be they marginals or safe seats for either party, others do. To analyse constituencies successfully, present-day realities normally have to take precedence over what happened in past years. It's like saying that Labour has a chance in Winchester because we won it in 1945; the present-day reality is different. The same applies the other way round with for example Lewisham East. The fact that the Tories have won it within our living memory does not mean they can win it now. And so on. Winchester had very different boundaries back in 1945. I am well aware that social and demographic change does impact on the political alleigance of seats. That explains why Liverpool no longer elects Tory MPs and why rural seats in Norfolk do not return Labour MPs. However, in the case of Tamworth - and other seats in the Midlands - the massive pro-Tory swing occured over a relatively short time period and was not particularly influenced by demographic factors.It was not a gradual process in that Tory support leapt from 37% in 2005 to 66% in 2019. The likely explanation is surely likely to be found in the salient issues of those years - Brexit - Corbyn - and finally Johnson in 2019. Those factors have surely now ceased to be relevant in Tamworth - and the other seats I listed - and for that reason I would have expected the consequent unwinding to have produced a result better than 2005 - if not as good as 2001 and 1997. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Oct 20, 2023 15:49:36 GMT
OK fair enough graham, I may have slightly exaggerated the extent to which you rely on past results. Nevertheless, it's the second-largest (I was wrong earlier, it's not the third-largest) swing to Labour in any postwar by-election. It's an incredible stretch to regard it as disappointing. Remember, very few of its wards are safe Labour, with all but one or two having at least coherent Tory votes, and in a baddish (not just disastrous, baddish will do) year Labour can lose almost the lot; and there are some ferociously solid Tory villages, although I grant you they are small, where they routinely rack up 80% or so of the vote even in baddish years for them. The seat is definitely in play at the general election, though it is perfectly possible that the Tories will regain it even if they lose heavily nationally. I'd say that Labour did even better in Mid Bedfordshire, because it's a seat with no natural Labour centres whatsoever, and no history of Labour winning, even though the swing was slightly less; but if you're trying to make me disappointed in the result in Tamworth, I won't be. Most pundits said it was a bridge too far for Labour when Pincher's problems first came to light, well they were wrong.
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Oct 20, 2023 15:50:20 GMT
Of course, Labour would have absolutely no chance in any Winchester constituency, not even now, no matter what boundaries happened to be in operation.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 20, 2023 16:57:53 GMT
Of course, Labour would have absolutely no chance in any Winchester constituency, not even now, no matter what boundaries happened to be in operation. Possibly my expectations of Tamworth were too high, but I do focus on the history of a seat - rather than relying on the most recent results , particularly as the circumstances of 2019 are likely to have exaggerated Tory strength in Tamworth and elsewhere. Re- Labour's success in Mid Beds. Is this likely to impact on Labour efforts in Wimbledon?
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Oct 20, 2023 17:08:47 GMT
Labour could quite feasibly take Wimbledon in my opinion. It's like Sheffield Hallam- a two horse Lab vs LD race, with a sizeable Tory presence but not enough for them to have a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Oct 20, 2023 17:14:25 GMT
If Graham is concerned about Labour's performance in tamworth because of "historical results", wait till he finds out about how the Tories are doing in places like Liverpool and Manchester nowadays  |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 20, 2023 17:30:38 GMT
If Graham is concerned about Labour's performance in tamworth because of "historical results", wait till he finds out about how the Tories are doing in places like Liverpool and Manchester nowadays I am well versed in the history of both cities. Most Liverpool seats were Tory until 1964! |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 20, 2023 20:29:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 20, 2023 20:40:24 GMT
Just noticed that the Lib Dem and Green candidates accrued exactly the same number of votes! Whilst I'm sure it must have happened before it can't be very common. Can anyone remember the last time two candidates achieved this "feat"? Kensington & Chelsea 1999: 24 votes for Equal Parenting Party and 24 votes for Independent Environmentalist Stop Climate Change Newbury 1993: 33 votes for SDP and 33 votes for Defence of Children’s Humanity Bosnia Rochester & Strood 2014: 69 votes for Independent and 69 votes for People Before Profit Haltemprice & Howden 2008: 8 votes for Independent Anti-Crime and 8 votes for Independent Anti-Smoking ditto: 135 votes for Independent Anti-Government Waste, and 135 votes for New Party Sedgefield 2007: 177 for Christian Party and 177 for English Democrats |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,786
|
Post by john07 on Oct 21, 2023 0:53:46 GMT
If Graham is concerned about Labour's performance in tamworth because of "historical results", wait till he finds out about how the Tories are doing in places like Liverpool and Manchester nowadays Better keep quiet about Glasgow and Edinburgh then! Remember the Conservatives held a majority of Westminster seats in in Edinburgh (4 seats to 3 for Labour) until 1987. Even in Glasgow, the Conservatives (Unionists) took a majority of seats in 1955 (if the border territory of Rutherglen is included) by 8 seats to 7 for Labour. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 21, 2023 11:42:55 GMT
More remarkable is the Tories/Unionists taking most Glasgow seats in *1945*.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2023 11:45:18 GMT
More remarkable is the Tories/Unionists taking most Glasgow seats in *1945*. I believe the business vote in Glasgow Central was pretty important in the Unionst win in 1945. The Communist vote also exceeded the Unionist majority. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 21, 2023 12:29:44 GMT
More remarkable is the Tories/Unionists taking most Glasgow seats in *1945*. The only way you can get the Conservative Party winning “most” of the seats in Glasgow in 1945 is if you count the Co-operative Party as not being Labour, and if you define “most” in terms of plurality rather than majority. Glasgow constituencies, 1945: Labour 4 “Lab/Co-op”* 3 I.L.P. 3 Conservative 5 The only one which changed hands between parties was Kelvingrove, but that was on a swing of only 0.3%. In 1935 it had a Conservative majority of 149; In 1945 it had a Labour majority of 88. source: F.W.S.Craig 1918-1949 |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Oct 21, 2023 17:36:25 GMT
More remarkable is the Tories/Unionists taking most Glasgow seats in *1945*. I believe the business vote in Glasgow Central was pretty important in the Unionst win in 1945. The Communist vote also exceeded the Unionist majority. I'd say it was crucial and a sine qua non for a Tory victory. The Tories have never won it since. Exactly the same applies to the Holborn constituency but that was merged with 2 of the St Pancras seats into one in 1950 and was therefore effectively abolished. It is not quite the only seat to have existed in some form throughout & voted Conservative in 1945, but never since; this also applies to Orkney & Shetland. I don't think there are any others. John is of course correct in what he says above about the Glasgow seats. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Oct 21, 2023 17:39:11 GMT
I think it's true to say that Jimmy Maxton (MP for Glasgow Bridgeton) was agreeable to rejoining the official Labour Party having been elected as ILP in 1945, but died before he put this into effect, in 1946.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2023 4:06:09 GMT
I believe the business vote in Glasgow Central was pretty important in the Unionst win in 1945. The Communist vote also exceeded the Unionist majority. I'd say it was crucial and a sine qua non for a Tory victory. The Tories have never won it since. Exactly the same applies to the Holborn constituency but that was merged with 2 of the St Pancras seats into one in 1950 and was therefore effectively abolished. It is not quite the only seat to have existed in some form throughout & voted Conservative in 1945, but never since; this also applies to Orkney & Shetland. I don't think there are any others. John is of course correct in what he says above about the Glasgow seats. Holborn is another city centre seat where the business vote saved the Tories in 1945, although they narrowly took Holborn & St Pancras South in 1959. |
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 12,399
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Oct 22, 2023 8:20:55 GMT
yes but of course that was a much larger area even though it was a small seat by today's standards! The Tory MP who won it was the broadcaster Geoffrey Johnson Smith, who later represented a very safe seat in Sussex for a number of years (well it was safe at the time, they had a shocker there in this year's local elections). Lena Jeger had succeeded her husband there when he died, in a by-election in 1953, lost it in 1959 but then regained it in 1964. She became a much-respected figure on the not-particularly-hard left of the Labour Party.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2023 8:32:08 GMT
It's real shame that Keele site is no longer avaialble as it showed the breakdown of business and servive voters which I don't think is available elsewhere. I seem to remember looking at this before though and concluding that the business vote would not have been large enough to be decisive (I could be wrong). Of course it did include some pretty upmarket resdiential areas in Bloomsbury etc. I think most of the council housing which has shifted the voting patterns in Holborn was built by Camden council (or was 'nationalised' from existing stock) yes but of course that was a much larger area even though it was a small seat by today's standards! The Tory MP who won it was the broadcaster Geoffrey Johnson Smith, who later represented a very safe seat in Sussex for a number of years (well it was safe at the time, they had a shocker there in this year's local elections). Lena Jeger had succeeded her husband there when he died, in a by-election in 1953, lost it in 1959 but then regained it in 1964. She became a much-respected figure on the not-particularly-hard left of the Labour Party. And indeed most if the St Pancras borough wards at the time were heavily Labour so its quite likely Holborn itself continued to vote Conservative througout the 1950s |
|
