The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,319
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 9, 2022 11:32:14 GMT
The really remarkable thing is this Labour near clean sweep would happen on an overall swing of "just" 10% or so from the last election.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,291
|
Post by graham on Oct 9, 2022 11:40:56 GMT
No way that Labour is competitive in Richmond - Sutton & Cheam - Twickenham - Kingston & Surbiton. Wimbledon,however, is a different matter and the party might well be able to progress in Carshalton & Wallington.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 9, 2022 12:11:38 GMT
Carshalton & Wallington is identical or near-identical in its boundaries to the previous Sutton Carshalton constituency. This was won by Labour at the 1973 GLC elections but never subsequently in parliamentary or GLC elections. Labour has basically never recovered from losing its second place to the Alliance in 1983, unlike in so many other seats. The seat does have demographic potential but the tactical squeeze remains strong and I suspect that it might take another national Lib Dem collapse to put Labour back into contention. But then the boundary changes rip the seat apart anyway don't they.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,450
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 9, 2022 12:23:43 GMT
If the Conservatives want to win London, I suggest they do two things: 1) Run on an aggressively pro-TfL automation ticket, in the name of cost-cutting. The long-awaited Bakerloo line update could be the guinea pig. 2) Run on cutting the costs of the London government, slashing the GLA tax taken from Londoners OPTIONAL: Pledge to introduce birds that will reduce the pigeon population, like goshawks... (wakes from slumber) Shotgnus! (falls back asleep)
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,291
|
Post by graham on Oct 9, 2022 12:42:47 GMT
Carshalton & Wallington is identical or near-identical in its boundaries to the previous Sutton Carshalton constituency. This was won by Labour at the 1973 GLC elections but never subsequently in parliamentary or GLC elections. Labour has basically never recovered from losing its second place to the Alliance in 1983, unlike in so many other seats. The seat does have demographic potential but the tactical squeeze remains strong and I suspect that it might take another national Lib Dem collapse to put Labour back into contention. But then the boundary changes rip the seat apart anyway don't they. I was unaware that significant boundary changes were being proposed for Carshalton & Wallington. Tom Brake's decision not to stand again might be helpful to any Labour revival here. The underlying Labour vote is much higher than implied by recent election results distorted by massive tactical voting. Portsmouth South comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by rockefeller on Oct 9, 2022 13:07:56 GMT
London starts voting like New York City...
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 9, 2022 14:06:05 GMT
Carshalton & Wallington is identical or near-identical in its boundaries to the previous Sutton Carshalton constituency. This was won by Labour at the 1973 GLC elections but never subsequently in parliamentary or GLC elections. Labour has basically never recovered from losing its second place to the Alliance in 1983, unlike in so many other seats. The seat does have demographic potential but the tactical squeeze remains strong and I suspect that it might take another national Lib Dem collapse to put Labour back into contention. But then the boundary changes rip the seat apart anyway don't they. The intital proposals have no change to either Sutton constituency other than to allign with new ward boundaries (and that involves only a handful of voters)
|
|
|
Post by batman on Oct 9, 2022 14:50:47 GMT
thanks Pete. I must be confusing things with the initial recommendations in the previous boundary review that was scrapped. It does make C&W a fairly interesting constituency, but I can't see Labour putting in any effort unless they are still an enormous distance ahead of the Tories in the polls, and quite possibly not even then.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,887
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 9, 2022 20:54:04 GMT
Carshalton & Wallington is identical or near-identical in its boundaries to the previous Sutton Carshalton constituency. This was won by Labour at the 1973 GLC elections but never subsequently in parliamentary or GLC elections. Labour has basically never recovered from losing its second place to the Alliance in 1983, unlike in so many other seats. The seat does have demographic potential but the tactical squeeze remains strong and I suspect that it might take another national Lib Dem collapse to put Labour back into contention. But then the boundary changes rip the seat apart anyway don't they. I was unaware that significant boundary changes were being proposed for Carshalton & Wallington. Tom Brake's decision not to stand again might be helpful to any Labour revival here. The underlying Labour vote is much higher than implied by recent election results distorted by massive tactical voting. Portsmouth South comes to mind.
Portsmouth South comes to mind eh (which you and others have alluded to before)? Pray tell what wisdom do you have to convey to us as to the situation in that seat?
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Oct 9, 2022 21:52:29 GMT
I was unaware that significant boundary changes were being proposed for Carshalton & Wallington. Tom Brake's decision not to stand again might be helpful to any Labour revival here. The underlying Labour vote is much higher than implied by recent election results distorted by massive tactical voting. Portsmouth South comes to mind.
Portsmouth South comes to mind eh (which you and others have alluded to before)? Pray tell what wisdom do you have to convey to us as to the situation in that seat? from time to time people here bring up ports South and you say the Survation poll before the election reflected the kind of response you were getting
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,887
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 10, 2022 0:00:27 GMT
Portsmouth South comes to mind eh (which you and others have alluded to before)? Pray tell what wisdom do you have to convey to us as to the situation in that seat? from time to time people here bring up ports South and you say the Survation poll before the election reflected the kind of response you were getting The key fact to consider (and this is so often lost by people who look at politics in a binary fashion) is that there do exist a significant amount of Lib Dem tactical voters where they are a notable force in local elections in an area but out of the picture in general elections. Combined with that, in Portsmouth South in particular, it's pattern of voting is significantly anti-Conservative and corralling behind whichever challenger is best placed to beat them in a parliamentary election to the extent that if the election was held on the day the general election was called in 2019 (ie without everything that happened subsequently) I'm pretty sure that there would not be a Labour MP now. It brings in a wider point that people refer to someone being a voter of one party or another because of the way they vote at general elections, whereas you might be an habitual voter of one way locally (not for tactical reasons) and another way nationally (not for tactical reasons) but only the latter is seen as being 'defining'. People are so often much more complex in their voting patterns than they're given credit for.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 10, 2022 8:29:57 GMT
from time to time people here bring up ports South and you say the Survation poll before the election reflected the kind of response you were getting The key fact to consider (and this is so often lost by people who look at politics in a binary fashion) is that there do exist a significant amount of Lib Dem tactical voters where they are a notable force in local elections in an area but out of the picture in general elections. Combined with that, in Portsmouth South in particular, it's pattern of voting is significantly anti-Conservative and corralling behind whichever challenger is best placed to beat them in a parliamentary election to the extent that if the election was held on the day the general election was called in 2019 (ie without everything that happened subsequently) I'm pretty sure that there would not be a Labour MP now. It brings in a wider point that people refer to someone being a voter of one party or another because of the way they vote at general elections, whereas you might be an habitual voter of one way locally (not for tactical reasons) and another way nationally (not for tactical reasons) but only the latter is seen as being 'defining'. People are so often much more complex in their voting patterns than they're given credit for. What of those who don't vote in local elections, only voting in General Elections? These voters, in Portsmouth South, swung heavily to Labour in 2017, and then swung even more to Labour in 2019. I suspect that, if the Local Elections has been held on the same day as the GE, Labour would have swept all of the wards, even with split voting.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,887
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 10, 2022 14:59:25 GMT
The key fact to consider (and this is so often lost by people who look at politics in a binary fashion) is that there do exist a significant amount of Lib Dem tactical voters where they are a notable force in local elections in an area but out of the picture in general elections. Combined with that, in Portsmouth South in particular, it's pattern of voting is significantly anti-Conservative and corralling behind whichever challenger is best placed to beat them in a parliamentary election to the extent that if the election was held on the day the general election was called in 2019 (ie without everything that happened subsequently) I'm pretty sure that there would not be a Labour MP now. It brings in a wider point that people refer to someone being a voter of one party or another because of the way they vote at general elections, whereas you might be an habitual voter of one way locally (not for tactical reasons) and another way nationally (not for tactical reasons) but only the latter is seen as being 'defining'. People are so often much more complex in their voting patterns than they're given credit for. What of those who don't vote in local elections, only voting in General Elections? These voters, in Portsmouth South, swung heavily to Labour in 2017, and then swung even more to Labour in 2019. I suspect that, if the Local Elections has been held on the same day as the GE, Labour would have swept all of the wards, even with split voting. There are few that fit into that category. It's a really interesting situation, probably because our wards are so consistently competitive, that there are very few people who never vote in local elections but vote in general elections. Though turnout year on year may be similar in different wards in local elections the similar turnout figure hides that at least a quarter of the voters in some wards did not vote the previous year (and therefore about the same didn't vote having done so the year before). It's probably one of the reasons that when you get a hyper-competitive, high profile election, turnout can jump quite a bit (see Paulsgrove last year and Milton this for example), not because you're engaging a lot of people who never vote in local elections, but that you're driving more of the people who do, but not habitually, to actually go out to vote. Thus, as with in 2015, if either subsequent elections had been on polling day I'm sure it would not have been a Labour clean sweep in Portsmouth South, notwithstanding they didn't win my ward in the 2019 general election anyway, because the vast majority of those voting do vote in local elections at least some of the time and are therefore used to voting different ways depending on the election.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 10, 2022 16:23:54 GMT
What of those who don't vote in local elections, only voting in General Elections? These voters, in Portsmouth South, swung heavily to Labour in 2017, and then swung even more to Labour in 2019. I suspect that, if the Local Elections has been held on the same day as the GE, Labour would have swept all of the wards, even with split voting. There are few that fit into that category. It's a really interesting situation, probably because our wards are so consistently competitive, that there are very few people who never vote in local elections but vote in general elections. Though turnout year on year may be similar in different wards in local elections the similar turnout figure hides that at least a quarter of the voters in some wards did not vote the previous year (and therefore about the same didn't vote having done so the year before). It's probably one of the reasons that when you get a hyper-competitive, high profile election, turnout can jump quite a bit (see Paulsgrove last year and Milton this for example), not because you're engaging a lot of people who never vote in local elections, but that you're driving more of the people who do, but not habitually, to actually go out to vote. Thus, as with in 2015, if either subsequent elections had been on polling day I'm sure it would not have been a Labour clean sweep in Portsmouth South, notwithstanding they didn't win my ward in the 2019 general election anyway, because the vast majority of those voting do vote in local elections at least some of the time and are therefore used to voting different ways depending on the election. I would be fascinated to know the approximate figures in your ward, as the Lib Dems were certainly heavily squeezed by Labour. If they didn't win your ward, they must have swept the other's quite handily.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 10, 2022 16:35:23 GMT
There are few that fit into that category. It's a really interesting situation, probably because our wards are so consistently competitive, that there are very few people who never vote in local elections but vote in general elections. Though turnout year on year may be similar in different wards in local elections the similar turnout figure hides that at least a quarter of the voters in some wards did not vote the previous year (and therefore about the same didn't vote having done so the year before). It's probably one of the reasons that when you get a hyper-competitive, high profile election, turnout can jump quite a bit (see Paulsgrove last year and Milton this for example), not because you're engaging a lot of people who never vote in local elections, but that you're driving more of the people who do, but not habitually, to actually go out to vote. Thus, as with in 2015, if either subsequent elections had been on polling day I'm sure it would not have been a Labour clean sweep in Portsmouth South, notwithstanding they didn't win my ward in the 2019 general election anyway, because the vast majority of those voting do vote in local elections at least some of the time and are therefore used to voting different ways depending on the election. I would be fascinated to know the approximate figures in your ward, as the Lib Dems were certainly heavily squeezed by Labour. If they didn't win your ward, they must have swept the other's quite handily. You wouldn't generally expect a party that is barely 10% ahead across a constituency to carry every ward therein, unless it is unusually homogenous or the wards are pretty uniform in nature. It stands to reason that a grim ward like Charles Dickens and wards like Fratton and the student heavy wards (Central Southsea etc) will have produced a much bigger Labour vote share than a relatively upmarket ward like Eastney & Craneswater.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 10, 2022 16:56:45 GMT
I would be fascinated to know the approximate figures in your ward, as the Lib Dems were certainly heavily squeezed by Labour. If they didn't win your ward, they must have swept the other's quite handily. You wouldn't generally expect a party that is barely 10% ahead across a constituency to carry every ward therein, unless it is unusually homogenous or the wards are pretty uniform in nature. It stands to reason that a grim ward like Charles Dickens and wards like Fratton and the student heavy wards (Central Southsea etc) will have produced a much bigger Labour vote share than a relatively upmarket ward like Eastney & Craneswater. Yes, but Labour have been quite close in the local elections in Eastney and Craneswater in recent times; I accept that the Lib Dems may have been somewhat squeezed by Conservatives in that ward in a two-way constituency battle, but Khunanup suggests that the Lib Dems did well in his ward, or have I misunderstandi that? Labour won by 11.3%, not barely 10%, though I do take your point.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 10, 2022 17:06:40 GMT
You wouldn't generally expect a party that is barely 10% ahead across a constituency to carry every ward therein, unless it is unusually homogenous or the wards are pretty uniform in nature. It stands to reason that a grim ward like Charles Dickens and wards like Fratton and the student heavy wards (Central Southsea etc) will have produced a much bigger Labour vote share than a relatively upmarket ward like Eastney & Craneswater. Yes, but Labour have been quite close in the local elections in Eastney and Craneswater in recent times; I accept that the Lib Dems may have been somewhat squeezed by Conservatives in that ward in a two-way constituency battle, but Khunanup suggests that the Lib Dems did well in his ward, or have I misunderstandi that? Labour won by 11.3%, not barely 10%, though I do take your point. Barely means 'not much more than'. Khunanup can speak for himself but I doubt he was suggesting the Lib Dems won his ward in the general election. Look at it another way, the Conservatives won 37% of the vote in both recent general elections. Their vote is pretty derisory in Charles Dickens, Fratton etc in local elections and would have been well short of that figure in those wards. Again it stands to reason that they must have been getting in the higher 40s in more favourable wards, of which E&C is probably the most favourable..
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 10, 2022 17:13:21 GMT
Yes, but Labour have been quite close in the local elections in Eastney and Craneswater in recent times; I accept that the Lib Dems may have been somewhat squeezed by Conservatives in that ward in a two-way constituency battle, but Khunanup suggests that the Lib Dems did well in his ward, or have I misunderstandi that? Labour won by 11.3%, not barely 10%, though I do take your point. Barely means 'not much more than'. Khunanup can speak for himself but I doubt he was suggesting the Lib Dems won his ward in the general election. Look at it another way, the Conservatives won 37% of the vote in both recent general elections. Their vote is pretty derisory in Charles Dickens, Fratton etc in local elections and would have been well short of that figure in those wards. Again it stands to reason that they must have been getting in the higher 40s in more favourable wards, of which E&C is probably the most favourable.. Surely barely means "only just", anyway, not worth arguing about. The surprise for me is that in 2017, the UKIP vote seemed to collapse to Labour, which shows that in this constituency, unlike Paulsgrove in the Portsmouth North, it really was a protest vote that unravelled and swung behind Labour. Your analysis on E&C is sound.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 10, 2022 18:23:51 GMT
Barely means 'not much more than'. Khunanup can speak for himself but I doubt he was suggesting the Lib Dems won his ward in the general election. Look at it another way, the Conservatives won 37% of the vote in both recent general elections. Their vote is pretty derisory in Charles Dickens, Fratton etc in local elections and would have been well short of that figure in those wards. Again it stands to reason that they must have been getting in the higher 40s in more favourable wards, of which E&C is probably the most favourable.. Surely barely means "only just", anyway, not worth arguing about. The surprise for me is that in 2017, the UKIP vote seemed to collapse to Labour, which shows that in this constituency, unlike Paulsgrove in the Portsmouth North, it really was a protest vote that unravelled and swung behind Labour. Your analysis on E&C is sound. FWIW, Electoral Calculus (yeah, I know) has the Tories winning E&C in GE 2019 and Labour everywhere else in Portsmouth South.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,887
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 10, 2022 18:51:14 GMT
Barely means 'not much more than'. Khunanup can speak for himself but I doubt he was suggesting the Lib Dems won his ward in the general election. Look at it another way, the Conservatives won 37% of the vote in both recent general elections. Their vote is pretty derisory in Charles Dickens, Fratton etc in local elections and would have been well short of that figure in those wards. Again it stands to reason that they must have been getting in the higher 40s in more favourable wards, of which E&C is probably the most favourable.. Surely barely means "only just", anyway, not worth arguing about. The surprise for me is that in 2017, the UKIP vote seemed to collapse to Labour, which shows that in this constituency, unlike Paulsgrove in the Portsmouth North, it really was a protest vote that unravelled and swung behind Labour. Your analysis on E&C is sound. The UKIP vote in 2017 went all over the place, Portsmouth South was churn city with all kinds of weird voting patterns. Despite losing the seat the Conservatives had their best ever results in some places that had voted UKIP 2 years before alongside getting completely creamed in old strongholds. Even today the Labour coalition is utterly different from when they we last polling 20+% in '97-'05.
|
|