|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 13, 2024 22:10:23 GMT
Indeed. It was one of the stretch targets added in the last fortnight. Is there a list of those somewhere? I think they're the ones identified in labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-battleground-areas-full-list-general-election-2024/ as "The 11 ‘non-battleground’ seats now dubbed ‘battleground areas’": Bexleyheath and Crayford Derbyshire Dales Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard Isle of Wight East Isle of Wight West Mid Derbyshire North East Somerset and Hanham North Northumberland Portsmouth North Reading West and Mid Berkshire Weston-super-Mare Of which only Isle of Wight East did not return a Labour MP on 4 July. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2024 22:27:39 GMT
Is there a list of those somewhere? I think they're the ones identified in labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-battleground-areas-full-list-general-election-2024/ as "The 11 ‘non-battleground’ seats now dubbed ‘battleground areas’": Bexleyheath and Crayford Derbyshire Dales Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard Isle of Wight East Isle of Wight West Mid Derbyshire North East Somerset and Hanham North Northumberland Portsmouth North Reading West and Mid Berkshire Weston-super-Mare Of which only Isle of Wight East did not return a Labour MP on 4 July. The batshit insanity of Portsmouth North not being a target seat long before it was is the reason why Mordaunt only lost by less than 1k. It was absolutely crystal clear it was there for the taking for Labour months and months ago so I presume there was some kind of mental block in Labour HQ why it wasn't given target status way before a month ago. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Jul 13, 2024 22:30:01 GMT
I think they're the ones identified in labourlist.org/2024/06/labour-battleground-areas-full-list-general-election-2024/ as "The 11 ‘non-battleground’ seats now dubbed ‘battleground areas’": Bexleyheath and Crayford Derbyshire Dales Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard Isle of Wight East Isle of Wight West Mid Derbyshire North East Somerset and Hanham North Northumberland Portsmouth North Reading West and Mid Berkshire Weston-super-Mare Of which only Isle of Wight East did not return a Labour MP on 4 July. The batshit insanity of Portsmouth North not being a target seat long before it was is the reason why Mordaunt only lost by less than 1k. It was absolutely crystal clear it was there for the taking for Labour months and months ago so I presume there was some kind of mental block in Labour HQ why it wasn't given target status way before a month ago. A huge number of seats Labour actually won weren't listed as targets at all. SE Cornwall, Ribble Valley, Forest of Dean, Poole, SW Norfolk, S Dorset, Congleton, NW Cambs, etc |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2024 22:31:16 GMT
The batshit insanity of Portsmouth North not being a target seat long before it was is the reason why Mordaunt only lost by less than 1k. It was absolutely crystal clear it was there for the taking for Labour months and months ago so I presume there was some kind of mental block in Labour HQ why it wasn't given target status way before a month ago. A huge number of seats Labour actually won weren't listed as targets at all. SE Cornwall, Ribble Valley, Forest of Dean, Poole, SW Norfolk, S Dorset, Congleton, NW Cambs, etc Completely irrelevant to my point. |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Jul 13, 2024 22:42:25 GMT
A huge number of seats Labour actually won weren't listed as targets at all. SE Cornwall, Ribble Valley, Forest of Dean, Poole, SW Norfolk, S Dorset, Congleton, NW Cambs, etc Completely irrelevant to my point. I thought it served as evidence to further your point that Labour wasn't targeting widely enough. They could easily have won Central Devon |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by john07 on Jul 13, 2024 22:58:03 GMT
Completely irrelevant to my point. I thought it served as evidence to further your point that Labour wasn't targeting widely enough. They could easily have won Central Devon Of course it is easy to be wise after the event. Clearly Labour could have won many more seats than they actually did. I think that the polling information, had it been believed and acted on would have led to a bigger Labour majority. But polling has told lies before, exaggerating the level of Labour support, particularly in 1970 and 1992. I can understand why the more cautious approach was adopted. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,432
|
Post by iain on Jul 13, 2024 23:39:10 GMT
I gather Labour flooded this with activists very late, presumably once someone worked out Earley & Woodley was ok. Though this was won (narrowly; but even so) by a greater margin than Earley & Woodley. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,011
|
Post by Khunanup on Jul 13, 2024 23:58:25 GMT
Completely irrelevant to my point. I thought it served as evidence to further your point that Labour wasn't targeting widely enough. They could easily have won Central Devon No, that wasn't my point at all. I was specifically referring to Portsmouth North. Bearing in mind who the sitting MP was and what impact her survival would have on the aftermath of for the Conservative Party, there was a very specific reason why targeting Portsmouth North early not only made political sense, but was an obvious target due to the disastrous local election results for the Conservatives there recently. |
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jul 14, 2024 5:44:42 GMT
I thought it served as evidence to further your point that Labour wasn't targeting widely enough. They could easily have won Central Devon Of course it is easy to be wise after the event. Clearly Labour could have won many more seats than they actually did. I think that the polling information, had it been believed and acted on would have led to a bigger Labour majority. But polling has told lies before, exaggerating the level of Labour support, particularly in 1970 and 1992. I can understand why the more cautious approach was adopted. When does “targeting widely” become in fact not targeting at all? |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 14, 2024 6:29:05 GMT
I thought it served as evidence to further your point that Labour wasn't targeting widely enough. They could easily have won Central Devon Of course it is easy to be wise after the event. Clearly Labour could have won many more seats than they actually did. I think that the polling information, had it been believed and acted on would have led to a bigger Labour majority. But polling has told lies before, exaggerating the level of Labour support, particularly in 1970 and 1992. I can understand why the more cautious approach was adopted. True, but I'd be surprised if the party centrally hadn't detected the shift downwards in the Labour vote that would have seemed threatening and led to some caution. Of course under our system distribution is the key. Working out how much was needed to win in seats where a winning percentage could be a low as 30 per cent, and where actual voter data was inevitably poor (many such places would have had virtually no canvass data beyond occasional, isolated historical local election stuff) would be virtually impossible. That wouldn't be true of Portsmouth North - the party did fight local seats albeit not very successfully. Another variable would be the state of local party organisation. Bearing in mind what else was happening at the time (in the middle of a general election (!) considering diverting volunteers to minimal or fractious parties would be crazy. And finally I'd imagine some sterner choices were made - whether a candidate was liked or not by their region. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 17, 2024 15:24:27 GMT
Looking at the general area on Boundary Assistant, I didn't realise until now just how much of the electorate here is in the Reading portion of this seat (~30% when just including Reading Borough Council wards, <50% when also including all other wards that were previously in Reading West or even just the three West Berks wards fully contiguous with bits of Reading proper). In light of this, I'm now somewhat less surprised that this ended up being a LAB gain (though I would have probably still predicted a CON hold had I been aware prior to the GE), however even then this was a good result for them. However Labour don't really do very well in the reading portion of this seat. Occasionally win Kentwood and usually win Norcot solidly but unspectacularly, but are a very distant third in Tilehurst I would however guess that the LD vote in local elections in Tilehurst mostly goes elsewhere in general elections. Probably not usually primarily to Labour's benefit, if the 2010 and 2015 results are any clue, but that's the kind of area that will probably have broken our way this time round. |
|
