|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 27, 2016 12:53:35 GMT
My trawling through the swing of all constituencies has got to Number 165 and at Number 137 is Richmond (Yorks). I advance my stats for this in my own defence as much as for any other reason. RICHMOND (YORKS) TO 64,7% CON 51.4 - 11.4 UKIP 15.2 (First candidature) Classic Swing (Con-Lab) Con 4.7 to Labour. Current Swing (Winner-Runner-Up) Con 13.3 to UKIP Historic Swing (Winner-2910 Runner-Up) LD 0.7 to Con Now, why have I singled this out? Well, because it is a stolid, rural, deeply conservative (lower case) seat. For such a Conservative seat with a very settled-state electorate, the TO is amazingly low. The heavy fall in the Conservative vote 11.4 is way out of character for such constituencies in 2015. The swing from LD is surprisingly low and the Classic swing to Labour rather high for the type of seat. Why this thusness? My interest is pushing this is a serious slur called upon me in the GE run up for suggesting on the constituency thread that the choice of candidate here at Richmond was a very serious error of judgement. It was suggested that I had made such comment because I didn't like the candidate for personal racist reasons. Like virtually everyone here I am at heart a bit of an anorak and most of my factual comment is 100% informed and guided by genuine interest and usually dispassionate analysis. It is not Jones-like invective or polemical rhetoric. I was both hurt and aggrieved at that time to have had my forecast traduced by a personal attack. So, here is the clear evidence of what a party can do if it chooses a clearly unsatisfactory candidate 'in the eyes of a significant number of the electorate'. That was not my view, my hoped for result, my attack upon the candidate. It was me a fellow anorak opining a view of a possible outcome. To have chosen a very 'foreign', very southern, very urban, very grey suit banker, very thin and very young man for an expansive very rural, hunting fishing, beer drinking, agricultural, northern seat seemed barmy. And it was. In a rather good year the party suffered a considerable reverse, not because I willed it, but because I was just plain right about the choice. Parties can be silly and the Conservative party made some very duff choices in 2015. This was one of them. This is what happened! Look at Hexham, another highly rural seat - a very poor Tory performance when the sitting MP retired in 2010, followed by a much much improved result in 2015. Was the new candidate poor - no, it's just because incumbency is very important in highly rural seats. That combined with the leader effect. Same will happen here - I bet this seat is in the biggest 20 increases in the Tory share in 2020. None of what you say alters my point and my assertion. There were many safe Conservative seats with a new candidate who put on extra vote share. Very few new candidates in safe areas who lost vote share. I still contend that I was right and a very significant number of people were put off enough not to vote or to change to UKIP. Find another safe Conservative seat where there is little or no demographic change and a more than 10% vote share drop and I might start listening. this is clear-cut stupid choice imposed by elements in the party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2016 13:03:47 GMT
Look at Hexham, another highly rural seat - a very poor Tory performance when the sitting MP retired in 2010, followed by a much much improved result in 2015. Was the new candidate poor - no, it's just because incumbency is very important in highly rural seats. That combined with the leader effect. Same will happen here - I bet this seat is in the biggest 20 increases in the Tory share in 2020. None of what you say alters my point and my assertion. There were many safe Conservative seats with a new candidate who put on extra vote share. Very few new candidates in safe areas who lost vote share. I still contend that I was right and a very significant number of people were put off enough not to vote or to change to UKIP. Find another safe Conservative seat where there is little or no demographic change and a more than 10% vote share drop and I might start listening. this is clear-cut stupid choice imposed by elements in the party. Well, we will see who is correct in 2020. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 27, 2016 13:07:12 GMT
None of what you say alters my point and my assertion. There were many safe Conservative seats with a new candidate who put on extra vote share. Very few new candidates in safe areas who lost vote share. I still contend that I was right and a very significant number of people were put off enough not to vote or to change to UKIP. Find another safe Conservative seat where there is little or no demographic change and a more than 10% vote share drop and I might start listening. this is clear-cut stupid choice imposed by elements in the party. Well, we will see who is correct in 2020. Rubbish. It is true now and has nothing to do with 2020. Find me another safe Conservative seat with static demographics that had a 2015 vote share loss in excess of 10%. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 27, 2016 13:17:48 GMT
Well, we will see who is correct in 2020. Rubbish. It is true now and has nothing to do with 2020. Find me another safe Conservative seat with static demographics that had a 2015 vote share loss in excess of 10%. Surely the salient point here is that UKIP stood in 2015 where they didn't in 2010? By the way, according to UKPR, the Tories got 54.8% in Richmond in 2015 so only an 8% drop. |
|
