Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2017 13:25:32 GMT
And on Manchester, remember its boundaries are extremely tightly drawn and look quite odd. Though I suspect Didsbury is lost to the Tories for a long time. The natural Tory voters' kids are moving or have moved out towards the Heatons, Cheadle or Sale. That movement, which mirrors past ones, is what keeps the Conservative Party vibrant in Trafford and competitive in Stockport despite it all. Yes that's true. They're never going to win Burnage, Chorlton or Didsbury West again I don't think. Under STV they probably would've won a seat in Brooklands at some point, and might now have a chance in City Centre with STV if the local elections and the GE were on the same day. As for Liverpool they'd probably still struggle in Church and Woolton, even with STV. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Feb 4, 2017 14:49:04 GMT
As for Liverpool they'd probably still struggle in Church and Woolton, even with STV. There is some scope for the conservatives clawing back some of their vote in the more middle class areas of liverpool under a more proportional system of voting, in the way that won't happen under FPTP. In a number of previous local elections, the conservative vote (small as it is) held up reasonably well during the coalition years when the Lib Dem candidate was new, not that well known or did not have a personal vote. Whereas in Church and Cressington, when either of the Kemps or Paula Keaveney stood, the conservative vote was squeezed a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Feb 4, 2017 14:54:35 GMT
Though I suspect Didsbury is lost to the Tories for a long time. The natural Tory voters' kids are moving or have moved out towards the Heatons, Cheadle or Sale. That movement, which mirrors past ones, is what keeps the Conservative Party vibrant in Trafford and competitive in Stockport despite it all. Although none of those three areas you mentioned (Heatons, Cheadle or Sale) are moving towards the conservatives. Guessing the kids may be moving out and voting differently to their parents  Sale is not really moving either way, with labour and the conservatives each gaining strength in the wards that they hold in sale. Cheadle is not moving much towards the conservatives at all, despite us taking the parliamentary seat. Stepping Hill was the exception, Cheadle Hulme is not really competitive for the conservatives at present and Bramhall maintains a large lib dem vote, despite them not having had any councillors in the ward for a while. Hazel Grove is showing more swing away from the lib dems and towards the conservatives than Cheadle is. The conservatives are not going to become competitive in the Heaton wards again for a very long time. they have really swung to labour a lot since 2010, helped by their current council leader Alex Ganotis (much better than his predecessor as labour group leader) and their large number of activists in the Heaton wards. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 4, 2017 16:15:52 GMT
I don't disagree at all thirdchill. My point, badly set out, was that the Tory vote that exists further out is kept alive by newcomers from further in. Priory ward in Sale is an interesting one. The Brotherton Labour Machine is very effective and more importantly very competent. But it can't last for ever, and that part of Sale, and Sale Moor, are gentrifying at a rate of knots. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 5, 2017 1:09:50 GMT
There are many areas in the south where Labour have enough votes to win some council seats with a more proportional system. Actuaslly, despite doing better overall from a change, I think the LibDems might actually do less well in some of those areas as they do benefit from tactical voting But in plenty of those areas we did win seats a couple of decades ago, and the areas concerned aren't usually radically different now from how they were then. A different voting system might increase our representation there, but it'd do nothing about the structural reasons underlying our diminished support in such places. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 6, 2017 14:45:24 GMT
There are many areas in the south where Labour have enough votes to win some council seats with a more proportional system. Actuaslly, despite doing better overall from a change, I think the LibDems might actually do less well in some of those areas as they do benefit from tactical voting But in plenty of those areas we did win seats a couple of decades ago, and the areas concerned aren't usually radically different now from how they were then. A different voting system might increase our representation there, but it'd do nothing about the structural reasons underlying our diminished support in such places. The area I was brought up on is like that. Places like Chesham used to have Labour councillors and even Windsor had a safe Labour ward at one time. But tactical voting has had its effect too. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 6, 2017 20:27:23 GMT
Again, a partial answer but far from a total one. There are plenty of formerly safe Labour wards in the south where the Lib Dems have never had any support but where we now get badly beaten by the Tories. Some of our problems are local and organisational, but I suspect there's a larger problem that we just don't appeal much to poorer southern working-class areas, largely because what we're offering doesn't seem relevant to them. Given that the country as a whole is moving towards a more 'southern' economy (fewer large employers, more SMEs, a larger service sector), this strikes me as a serious medium-term problem.
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Feb 6, 2017 20:39:50 GMT
To add to what thirdchill has said- democracy requires as many views to be represented as there are people willing to stand and represent them. Or to put it another way- the major centre-right party has a duty to provide a centre-right option for voters across the whole country, whether they live in Old Sarum or Old Swan. I dislike the supposed virility test of putting up candidates in every constituency and ward. The Conservatives should be stuffing Labour by not standing in safe-ish Labour seats rather than stuffing UKIP by standing in them. |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,840 
|
Post by myth11 on Feb 6, 2017 21:40:35 GMT
To add to what thirdchill has said- democracy requires as many views to be represented as there are people willing to stand and represent them. Or to put it another way- the major centre-right party has a duty to provide a centre-right option for voters across the whole country, whether they live in Old Sarum or Old Swan. I dislike the supposed virility test of putting up candidates in every constituency and ward. The Conservatives should be stuffing Labour by not standing in safe-ish Labour seats rather than stuffing UKIP by standing in them. It cost you council seats in bassetlaw at 2015 election because you did not put a full list up. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Feb 6, 2017 21:48:53 GMT
Again, a partial answer but far from a total one. There are plenty of formerly safe Labour wards in the south where the Lib Dems have never had any support but where we now get badly beaten by the Tories. Some of our problems are local and organisational, but I suspect there's a larger problem that we just don't appeal much to poorer southern working-class areas, largely because what we're offering doesn't seem relevant to them. Given that the country as a whole is moving towards a more 'southern' economy (fewer large employers, more SMEs, a larger service sector), this strikes me as a serious medium-term problem. Quite. I don't know if they qualify as "southern" but I lived in Wychavon during the mid-80s when the Tories were well ahead of Labour nationally, yet there were still Labour wards in Droitwich and Evesham. Wychavon is now a Labour-free zone. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 8, 2017 18:01:16 GMT
To add to what thirdchill has said- democracy requires as many views to be represented as there are people willing to stand and represent them. Or to put it another way- the major centre-right party has a duty to provide a centre-right option for voters across the whole country, whether they live in Old Sarum or Old Swan. I dislike the supposed virility test of putting up candidates in every constituency and ward. The Conservatives should be stuffing Labour by not standing in safe-ish Labour seats rather than stuffing UKIP by standing in them. You're assuming that Tory voters would necessarily go for UKIP as their second choice out of all the other options available (in Coventry a few years ago the Conservative candidate in one safe Labour ward withdrew his nomination, and the actual beneficiary was spoiled ballots). And, indeed, that UKIP are guaranteed to stand in the seats where the Conservatives don't. Plus, there's the potential embarrassment factor if you leave so many wards uncontested that you miss out on media coverage (e.g. missing the threshold for a party election broadcast, being given less airtime/column inches by local media etc.). Yes, there are circumstances where it is better not to stand a full slate, but to take the approach of "we can't win here so we won't even bother to put up candidates" is not only a disservice to the voters, but over time it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Quite. I don't know if they qualify as "southern" but I lived in Wychavon during the mid-80s when the Tories were well ahead of Labour nationally, yet there were still Labour wards in Droitwich and Evesham. Wychavon is now a Labour-free zone. The Midlands is not the South. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 9, 2017 10:16:30 GMT
Quite. I don't know if they qualify as "southern" but I lived in Wychavon during the mid-80s when the Tories were well ahead of Labour nationally, yet there were still Labour wards in Droitwich and Evesham. Wychavon is now a Labour-free zone. The Midlands is not the South. Indeed. The Midlands is the North. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 9, 2017 10:40:55 GMT
Again, a partial answer but far from a total one. There are plenty of formerly safe Labour wards in the south where the Lib Dems have never had any support but where we now get badly beaten by the Tories. Some of our problems are local and organisational, but I suspect there's a larger problem that we just don't appeal much to poorer southern working-class areas, largely because what we're offering doesn't seem relevant to them. Given that the country as a whole is moving towards a more 'southern' economy (fewer large employers, more SMEs, a larger service sector), this strikes me as a serious medium-term problem. But if what is 'relevant' to them isn't in line with our values, then that's simply a sign of the continuing dominance of both individualism and the current trend towards populist nationalism. I can't see the point of existing if we have to justify those mistaken beliefs |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 9, 2017 10:52:41 GMT
The Midlands is not the South. Indeed. The Midlands is the North. LOL! It is not the South, it is the deep, deep South. Yorkshire is the South. Glasgow and Newcastle are the Midlands. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 9, 2017 10:59:32 GMT
Indeed. The Midlands is the North. LOL! It is not the South, it is the deep, deep South. Yorkshire is the South. Glasgow and Newcastle are the Midlands. Can we just agree that the Midlands is the British equivalent to the demilitarised zone at the 38th parallel? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 9, 2017 11:01:31 GMT
Again, a partial answer but far from a total one. There are plenty of formerly safe Labour wards in the south where the Lib Dems have never had any support but where we now get badly beaten by the Tories. Some of our problems are local and organisational, but I suspect there's a larger problem that we just don't appeal much to poorer southern working-class areas, largely because what we're offering doesn't seem relevant to them. Given that the country as a whole is moving towards a more 'southern' economy (fewer large employers, more SMEs, a larger service sector), this strikes me as a serious medium-term problem. But if what is 'relevant' to them isn't in line with our values, then that's simply a sign of the continuing dominance of both individualism and the current trend towards populist nationalism. I can't see the point of existing if we have to justify those mistaken beliefs I think that EAL's point is a bit more nuanced than that tbf. |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,906
|
Post by spqr on Feb 9, 2017 11:14:25 GMT
But if what is 'relevant' to them isn't in line with our values, then that's simply a sign of the continuing dominance of both individualism and the current trend towards populist nationalism. I can't see the point of existing if we have to justify those mistaken beliefs I think that EAL's point is a bit more nuanced than that tbf. Unfortunately a lot of Merseymike's points aren't. And, as he rightly points out, there are plenty who think like him. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 9, 2017 11:18:15 GMT
The difficulty for Labour is that MM has a point as well - if anything is worse than Corbynism, its the "we have to mindlessly parrot whatever focus groups say even if we don't actually believe it" brigade. Not only can Labour not win that way, if they somehow did the result would be such a disaster it *might* finish the party off for good.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 9, 2017 11:41:13 GMT
LOL! It is not the South, it is the deep, deep South. Yorkshire is the South. Glasgow and Newcastle are the Midlands. Can we just agree that the Midlands is the British equivalent to the demilitarised zone at the 38th parallel? Why? And if we did. Where would you place the British Midlands then? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 9, 2017 12:26:20 GMT
Evesham is on the same latitude as Milton Keynes and Ipswich, so pretty southern really
|
|
