john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774 
|
Post by john07 on Jun 22, 2024 11:33:31 GMT
The Lib Dems didn’t just collapse in 2015 for tactical reasons, I hate to break it to you. Have they been campaigning here? If not I’d expect a percentage point increase or two at best.. Sure, the coalition hurt them too, but it isn't THAT different to Edinburgh West. It’s very different to Edinburgh West in that Edinburgh South has been Labour held since the 1980s whereas Edinburgh West has never been Labour held. Labour edged the Edinburgh South seat in 2010 and have been in pole position ever since. The Lib Dems were punished in Edinburgh West for the coalition but recovered to retake the seat. I have seen nothing from them in terms of campaign leaflets so far. I suspect that all efforts will be focused on Edinburgh West. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2024 11:35:46 GMT
Sure, the coalition hurt them too, but it isn't THAT different to Edinburgh West. It’s very different to Edinburgh West in that Edinburgh South has been Labour held since the 1980s whereas Edinburgh West has never been Labour held. Labour edged the Edinburgh South seat in 2010 and have been in pole position ever since. The Lib Dems were punished in Edinburgh West for the coalition but recovered to retake the seat. I have seen nothing from them in terms of campaign leaflets so far. I suspect that all efforts will be focused on Edinburgh West. Oh I don't doubt the supply side is stretched, but with the private school fees hike, there is definitely a case to say there's a demand for them to appeal to that group. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,362
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Jun 22, 2024 11:37:15 GMT
The Lib Dems didn’t just collapse in 2015 for tactical reasons, I hate to break it to you. Have they been campaigning here? If not I’d expect a percentage point increase or two at best.. Sure, the coalition hurt them too, but it isn't THAT different to Edinburgh West. And Putney isn’t THAT different to Wimbledon (which I suspect the Lib Dems will win). Sometimes the fight can be over which party owns the progressive tradition in an area. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2024 11:38:18 GMT
Sure, the coalition hurt them too, but it isn't THAT different to Edinburgh West. And Putney isn’t THAT different to Wimbledon (which I suspect the Lib Dems will win). Sometimes the fight can be over which party owns the progressive tradition in an area. I'm not sure it's that, more liberal than progressive. In the US, I wager that Putney and Wimbledon would be represented by routine centrist Democrats. |
|
bore
Labour
Posts: 55
|
Post by bore on Jun 22, 2024 12:06:40 GMT
South may not be that different from West regarding how much money its residents make, but it clearly is in terms of where they make that money, and this much more than pre 2010 electoral history explains why one is lib dem and the other labour now.
The principal employers in South are the university - and it can't really be overstated how much it dominates this seat- and the Hospital complex at Little France, the principal employers in West are private sector - particularly finance - at places like Gogarburn and around Haymarket. The first demographic may have voted Lib dem in places in 2010 (think Manchester Withington), but they didn't really return in 2017 or after.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 22, 2024 14:23:49 GMT
South may not be that different from West regarding how much money its residents make, but it clearly is in terms of where they make that money, and this much more than pre 2010 electoral history explains why one is lib dem and the other labour now. The principal employers in South are the university - and it can't really be overstated how much it dominates this seat- and the Hospital complex at Little France, the principal employers in West are private sector - particularly finance - at places like Gogarburn and around Haymarket. The first demographic may have voted Lib dem in places in 2010 (think Manchester Withington), but they didn't really return in 2017 or after. That is true to an extent but probably an oversimplification in that it doesn't really account for the large numbers who commute south to west and vice versa. For example, in my patch there are probably more people who work at the Gyle and Gogarburn than the university or hospital. The huge increase in remote working is likely to further reduce the differences over time. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426
|
Post by iain on Jun 22, 2024 20:47:08 GMT
South may not be that different from West regarding how much money its residents make, but it clearly is in terms of where they make that money, and this much more than pre 2010 electoral history explains why one is lib dem and the other labour now. The principal employers in South are the university - and it can't really be overstated how much it dominates this seat- and the Hospital complex at Little France, the principal employers in West are private sector - particularly finance - at places like Gogarburn and around Haymarket. The first demographic may have voted Lib dem in places in 2010 (think Manchester Withington), but they didn't really return in 2017 or after. Quite strongly disagree with this. The evidence we have in Scotland is that LD held seats in 2010 saw the party’s vote hold up exceptionally well, without fail. Had the Lib Dems won this in 2010 they would likely have held it in 2015 (I believe there was some scandal either the SNP candidate that year) and we would be in a very different place. The employment profile of the seat is really irrelevant to that - the 2010 result was essentially all powerful in deciding the 2015 tactical voting in Scotland. However, that does not imply any support for comments about what is likely in 2024. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 22, 2024 22:31:54 GMT
South may not be that different from West regarding how much money its residents make, but it clearly is in terms of where they make that money, and this much more than pre 2010 electoral history explains why one is lib dem and the other labour now. The principal employers in South are the university - and it can't really be overstated how much it dominates this seat- and the Hospital complex at Little France, the principal employers in West are private sector - particularly finance - at places like Gogarburn and around Haymarket. The first demographic may have voted Lib dem in places in 2010 (think Manchester Withington), but they didn't really return in 2017 or after. Quite strongly disagree with this. The evidence we have in Scotland is that LD held seats in 2010 saw the party’s vote hold up exceptionally well, without fail. Had the Lib Dems won this in 2010 they would likely have held it in 2015 (I believe there was some scandal either the SNP candidate that year) and we would be in a very different place. The employment profile of the seat is really irrelevant to that - the 2010 result was essentially all powerful in deciding the 2015 tactical voting in Scotland. However, that does not imply any support for comments about what is likely in 2024. The highlighted bit just isn't true - in 2015 the Lib Dem vote share held up in some Scottish seats (Edinburgh West, Gordon and East Dunbartonshire notably just a couple of percent down), but fell by much larger amounts in others - Inverness down 10%, NE Fife down 13%, West Aberdeenshire larger still, Charlie Kennedy lost 17% and Michael Moore over 26%, so I think it would be really difficult to say what would have happened here had the Lib Dems won it 2010. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774
|
Post by john07 on Jun 22, 2024 23:05:25 GMT
Much of the above discussion seems to equate Edinburgh South to Edinburgh West in terms of social composition. This is far from the case. It may be true if the Scottish Parliament seat Edinburgh Southern but certainly not Edinburgh South.
Edinburgh South contains some highly deprived areas beyond Liberton which are not in Southern. There is nothing comparable to the likes of Burdiehouse in Edinburgh West. These areas tend to be SNP friendly but are certainly not the sort of areas where the Lib Dems have done well.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426
|
Post by iain on Jun 22, 2024 23:07:55 GMT
Quite strongly disagree with this. The evidence we have in Scotland is that LD held seats in 2010 saw the party’s vote hold up exceptionally well, without fail. Had the Lib Dems won this in 2010 they would likely have held it in 2015 (I believe there was some scandal either the SNP candidate that year) and we would be in a very different place. The employment profile of the seat is really irrelevant to that - the 2010 result was essentially all powerful in deciding the 2015 tactical voting in Scotland. However, that does not imply any support for comments about what is likely in 2024. The highlighted bit just isn't true - in 2015 the Lib Dem vote share held up in some Scottish seats (Edinburgh West, Gordon and East Dunbartonshire notably just a couple of percent down), but fell by much larger amounts in others - Inverness down 10%, NE Fife down 13%, West Aberdeenshire larger still, Charlie Kennedy lost 17% and Michael Moore over 26%, so I think it would be really difficult to say what would have happened here had the Lib Dems won it 2010. Without fail was a bit of an overstatement - it was true in 9/11 defences. It was true with the exceptions of West Aberdeenshire and Berwickshire where the Tories managed to split the tactical vote. Elsewhere the Lib Dem vote held up very well, but was defeated by an SNP turnout surge. In Inverness the LD vote fell by only around 1000, in NE Fife with a new candidate it fell by only 3000. The LD vote total actually went up in some of the seats you mention (E Dunbartonshire, Gordon). Could Labour have split the tactical vote in Edinburgh South if they didn’t hold it? Theoretically possible I suppose, but they didn’t manage it in any other seat, and Scottish Labour had bigger problems in that election. To imagine they would have gained Edinburgh South whilst losing every other seat they held is an … interesting … position. I know many people here like to complicate things, but sometimes the simple answer is the answer. There is really no need to go searching for obscure demographic factors. If the Lib Dems had won here in 2010 then all the indicators point to the fact that they would have been the challenger in 2015, and probably won. From that position, Labour would likely have been out of the picture. But, of course, that isn’t what happened. Instead Labour held on narrowly in 2010 and have become the flag for unionists to rally around here. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jun 22, 2024 23:38:08 GMT
Much of the above discussion seems to equate Edinburgh South to Edinburgh West in terms of social composition. This is far from the case. It may be true if the Scottish Parliament seat Edinburgh Southern but certainly not Edinburgh South. Edinburgh South contains some highly deprived areas beyond Liberton which are not in Southern. There is nothing comparable to the likes of Burdiehouse in Edinburgh West. These areas tend to be SNP friendly but are certainly not the sort of areas where the Lib Dems have done well. In the post-2005 pre-2024 incarnation of Edinburgh West, it contained Muirhouse (now in Edinburgh North and Leith). Quite a deprived area. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2024 2:40:14 GMT
South may not be that different from West regarding how much money its residents make, but it clearly is in terms of where they make that money, and this much more than pre 2010 electoral history explains why one is lib dem and the other labour now. The principal employers in South are the university - and it can't really be overstated how much it dominates this seat- and the Hospital complex at Little France, the principal employers in West are private sector - particularly finance - at places like Gogarburn and around Haymarket. The first demographic may have voted Lib dem in places in 2010 (think Manchester Withington), but they didn't really return in 2017 or after. Fair enough, although as others have said, WFH is a thing which may have blurred distinctions between the seats. It seems a bit like Cambridge demographically (I knew someone who moved from this seat to there with parents who are scientists at the universities in both places). You have roads in this seat with £10 million houses. |
|
bore
Labour
Posts: 55
|
Post by bore on Jun 23, 2024 12:19:38 GMT
South may not be that different from West regarding how much money its residents make, but it clearly is in terms of where they make that money, and this much more than pre 2010 electoral history explains why one is lib dem and the other labour now. The principal employers in South are the university - and it can't really be overstated how much it dominates this seat- and the Hospital complex at Little France, the principal employers in West are private sector - particularly finance - at places like Gogarburn and around Haymarket. The first demographic may have voted Lib dem in places in 2010 (think Manchester Withington), but they didn't really return in 2017 or after. Quite strongly disagree with this. The evidence we have in Scotland is that LD held seats in 2010 saw the party’s vote hold up exceptionally well, without fail. Had the Lib Dems won this in 2010 they would likely have held it in 2015 (I believe there was some scandal either the SNP candidate that year) and we would be in a very different place. The employment profile of the seat is really irrelevant to that - the 2010 result was essentially all powerful in deciding the 2015 tactical voting in Scotland. However, that does not imply any support for comments about what is likely in 2024. There are two aspects to this claim - what would have happened in 2015, and what would have happened thereafter - both of which I think are pretty unconvincing. Lets take the 2015 vote first. Murray held against the SNP because he increased his numerical vote (by 4000 votes) and his share (by 4.4%). If he had stood still, as the better performing lib dems did, he would have lost. He was able to win because he could take enough votes from the lib dem share, which was pulverised, dropping to 3.7%. Would a lib dem candidate have been able to do the same to the labour share if the situation was reversed, in a seat heavily dominated by a university, in the context of their vote halving nationally, with their resources divided between defensive campaigns in West and South, against one of the few CLPs in scotland that was not moribund? You only have to look at the 2015 labour share of 12.3% in the formerly lib/lab marginal of East Dunbartonshire to get your answer. Now we come to 2017, and even supposing that the lib dems gained a creditable second place in 2015 I think they'd be unlikely to recapture it 2 years after. The first issue is your misrepresentation of unionist tactical voting in scotland. Obviously it has played a significant role, including in this seat. But the 2010 result was by no means all powerful in determining the 2015 pattern (consider West Aberdeenshire, Berwickshire or Dumfries and Galloway), let alone after (think Aberdeen South, Ochil and South Perthshire or Argyll and Bute), and in a couple of weeks in much the same way we are very likely to see Labour come from third place to take Scottish seats as well. A section of the electorate does vote tactically, but it is only a section - notice that in every scottish lib dem gain in 2017 the labour share also increased- and changes in the leading unionist party can and have happened at every election since 2015. Why do I think you'd have seen that sort of shift to Labour here, (though I 'd concede that I can imagine a situation like Southport or Colchester where the drift was slow enough to keep the SNP in control until now)? Well, and apologies if this is too obscure or arcane for a poster on a psephology forum, the seat is dominated by the University of Edinburgh. The University alone has 50,000 students, and then there are its employees and those of Napier, whose craiglockhart campus is just outside the boundary. Obviously not all of them, and probably not even a majority, live here, but you are still talking of tens of thousands of students and recent graduates in places like Marchmont, Newington, Morningside and Bruntsfield . In 2017 in every single university seat where the labour vote was was not negligible, whether the lib dems won it in 2015 like Leeds Northwest, came surprisingly close like Cambridge, or merely polled respectably like in Manchester Withington, their vote fell and Labours rose. This is the key to understanding the seats political history. The university is why, despite the wealth of many residents, the torys have not been close for 40 years. The university is why, despite their strong position in 2010, the lib dems have collapsed to complete irrelevance. The university, with its high proportion of english and foreign students and employees, is why the SNP are so much weaker than elsewhere in Scotland. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426
|
Post by iain on Jun 23, 2024 18:34:18 GMT
Lets take the 2015 vote first. Murray held against the SNP because he increased his numerical vote (by 4000 votes) and his share (by 4.4%). If he had stood still, as the better performing lib dems did, he would have lost. He was able to win because he could take enough votes from the lib dem share, which was pulverised, dropping to 3.7%. Would a lib dem candidate have been able to do the same to the labour share if the situation was reversed, in a seat heavily dominated by a university, in the context of their vote halving nationally, with their resources divided between defensive campaigns in West and South, against one of the few CLPs in scotland that was not moribund? You only have to look at the 2015 labour share of 12.3% in the formerly lib/lab marginal of East Dunbartonshire to get your answer. Would a Lib Dem candidate have been able to destroy the Labour share in the same way as the happened in reverse? Not to the same extent, no - as you say the Labour share in East Dunbartonshire was ‘only’ reduced to 12%. However, it is likely that this would have been made up for by a greater squeeze on the Tory vote than happened in reality, allowing the Lib Dems to ‘hold’ the seat, possibly by a slightly lower margin than Murray managed in reality. Now we come to 2017, and even supposing that the lib dems gained a creditable second place in 2015 I think they'd be unlikely to recapture it 2 years after. The first issue is your misrepresentation of unionist tactical voting in scotland. Obviously it has played a significant role, including in this seat. But the 2010 result was by no means all powerful in determining the 2015 pattern (consider West Aberdeenshire, Berwickshire or Dumfries and Galloway), let alone after (think Aberdeen South, Ochil and South Perthshire or Argyll and Bute), and in a couple of weeks in much the same way we are very likely to see Labour come from third place to take Scottish seats as well. Tactical voting in the case of the LDs in Scotland was extreme. The only partial exceptions were West Aberdeenshire and Berwickshire, where the Conservatives continued to run active campaigns and confuse the tactical unionist message. Are you claiming that Labour would have managed a similar feat in 2015 in Edinburgh South, even as they cratered in every seat they held? That strikes me as fanciful in the extreme. As for 2017: in any case I think it highly probably that the Lib Dems would have held on in 2015, making the rest of your spiel somewhat by the by, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it was a narrow SNP gain. In that case, would Labour have been able to mount a campaign from a very distant third place to overhaul the Lib Dems? Always possible I suppose, but the context of the 2017 election was a last minute Labour surge rather than the all-round boost the Tories achieved. It seems rather unlikely that they would have overhauled the Lib Dems (something they didn’t come close to achieving in any seriously contested ex-Lib Dem seat). In reality it may have depended on how the local bases held up in such a scenario, but the evidence we have points to the Lib Dems remaining challengers. Much of the demographic stuff is interesting, and certainly has a great deal of relevance going forward, but in the counterfactual scenario presented likely would not have done (perhaps until this year). |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 23, 2024 19:57:09 GMT
I think this ignores a couple of the reasons that the Lib Dems didn't take the seat in 2010 and why Labour did manage to hang on in 2015.
One is that, unlike a lot of other local parties, Labour in South Edinburgh was not complacent and had become very good at fighting close elections - they worked very hard in both elections and might not have been so easily squeezable come 2015.
The other factor is that locally the Lib Dem run council had become very unpopular especially over some school closures and other cuts. In itself local factors may not have a huge impact in a general election but the margin here and in N&L were so tight that election it may have played apart. Between 2010 and 2015 the Lib Dems lost Edinburgh Southern - dropping to third on more favourable boundaries - and lost every councillor they had in the constituency. By 2015 there wasn't anywhere near so much of an activist base left in the seat, as evidenced by the fairly woeful candidate they did put up. Having a sitting MP would have mitigated that to some extent, but enough to hold the seat, I have my doubts.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,426
|
Post by iain on Jun 23, 2024 20:11:33 GMT
I think this ignores a couple of the reasons that the Lib Dems didn't take the seat in 2010 and why Labour did manage to hang on in 2015. One is that, unlike a lot of other local parties, Labour in South Edinburgh was not complacent and had become very good at fighting close elections - they worked very hard in both elections and might not have been so easily squeezable come 2015. The other factor is that locally the Lib Dem run council had become very unpopular especially over some school closures and other cuts. In itself local factors may not have a huge impact in a general election but the margin here and in N&L were so tight that election it may have played apart. Between 2010 and 2015 the Lib Dems lost Edinburgh Southern - dropping to third on more favourable boundaries - and lost every councillor they had in the constituency. By 2015 there wasn't anywhere near so much of an activist base left in the seat, as evidenced by the fairly woeful candidate they did put up. Having a sitting MP would have mitigated that to some extent, but enough to hold the seat, I have my doubts. Though these factors also broadly apply to Edinburgh West. I’d also note that the Lib Dem result in Edinburgh Southern in 2011 was actually one of their best in the country, despite coming third (though I take the point on 2012). We can delve into demographics and specific local factors as much as we like, but the SNP wave didn’t take much account of these in 2015. In many places where the Lib Dems tanked in 2011/12 they held up pretty well in 2015 due to tactical voting, even though I dare say we’d have been behind both Labour and the Tories in many of those same places in that particular election if people had voted ‘with their heart’. In any case, Labour did hold it in 2010 and there isn’t too much point raking over the ‘what if?’. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 24, 2024 11:26:18 GMT
2 freeposts in the mail this morning:
Labour's glossy effort from Ian Murray
and one for the Scottish Family Party ... for their candidate in Edinburgh South West.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 25, 2024 17:18:11 GMT
Three leaflets through the post today:
- Conservative addressed to my wife - first Tory leaflet I can remember in ages which isn't say no to indy ref 2. Instead the argument is you voted tactically Labour to keep out the SNP, but that's not needed anymore so vote for us to protect your schools from Labour's VAT rise, which isn't a bad one, but won't make an difference.
- Standard Reform - The Immigration Election - wrong constituency for that honestly
- Leaflet from the indy (Alex Martin):
Why Vote for Me:
- Protecting our NHS and Healthcare
- Revitalising the Economy
- Defending Democracy
- Preserving the Environment
- Closer ties with Europe
- Justice for Palestinian-Israeli conflict
then a whole load of local issues (GPs, public services, potholes, anti-social behaviour, tourist tax,etc...)
Absolutely no details what he would do about any of it other than not being subject to a party whip.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 26, 2024 12:23:49 GMT
Today's mail brings addressed (to the wife again) offering from the Lib Dems - very light on any content.
|
|
|
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Jun 26, 2024 21:23:01 GMT
Calling this for Labour.
|
|
