|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 21, 2016 13:03:53 GMT
The page is wrong. I think someone's copied over the Labour vote change 1997-2001 onto the table for the 1997 election. The notional 1992 figure in Richmond Park was C 30,609 (51.83%), L Dem 22,225 (37.64%), Lab 5,211 (8.82%), Others 1,008 (1.71%). So the actual 1997 Labour vote was an increase of about 2,000, or 3.8% of the poll. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 21, 2016 13:09:55 GMT
The page is wrong. I think someone's copied over the Labour vote change 1997-2001 onto the table for the 1997 election. The notional 1992 figure in Richmond Park was C 30,609 (51.83%), L Dem 22,225 (37.64%), Lab 5,211 (8.82%), Others 1,008 (1.71%). So the actual 1997 Labour vote was an increase of about 2,000, or 3.8% of the poll. Ah, so I was wrong when I thought I was wrong. Thanks, David. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,692
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 13:12:45 GMT
Post by mboy on Oct 21, 2016 13:12:45 GMT
You might want to note the reasoned response from Crimson King on this point. I'm not as reasonable as Crimson King  The page is wrong. I think someone's copied over the Labour vote change 1997-2001 onto the table for the 1997 election. The notional 1992 figure in Richmond Park was C 30,609 (51.83%), L Dem 22,225 (37.64%), Lab 5,211 (8.82%), Others 1,008 (1.71%). So the actual 1997 Labour vote was an increase of about 2,000, or 3.8% of the poll. Fair play - you should change the page if you have references for that. Although, there are often more than one set of notionals for new seats, so I don't know if there is a policy on which ones to use (perhaps another set of notionals produces a fall?)... |
|
|
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 13:14:02 GMT
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 21, 2016 13:14:02 GMT
Don't think anyone did another full set of notionals for the 1995 Boundary changes other than the academics commissioned by BBC/ITN/PA/Sky.
|
|
|
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 13:30:01 GMT
Post by finsobruce on Oct 21, 2016 13:30:01 GMT
You might want to note the reasoned response from Crimson King on this point. I'm not as reasonable as Crimson King Fair play - you should change the page if you have references for that. Although, there are often more than one set of notionals for new seats, so I don't know if there is a policy on which ones to use (perhaps another set of notionals produces a fall?)... We'd noticed  I doubt it. The wards that came in from Kingston (Coombe Hill, Coombe Vale and Tudor) are/were very safely Tory. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Oct 21, 2016 14:46:37 GMT
Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond. You might well be right there. One of the things the left are going to have to come to terms with is to understand that if they want the Tories beaten they have no choice but to rally behind the Lib Dems where the Lib Dems are the challenger. If they'd rather have a Tory win than vote Lib Dem tactically, then they'll get a Tory win. This will be crucial in Richmond Park, where the Lib Dems will need Labour and Green tactical votes to beat the Tories... That may well be counter productive. In order to win a seat like Richmond Park the Lib Dems have to critically win over Tory voters and that is much harder to do when they are openly campaigning as a 'left wing' party with the support of Labour and the Greens who are largely toxic with these kind of voters who will not want to vote for a quasi-Labour candidate. In my opinion a 'progressive alliance' will do more harm then good to the Lib Dems as it ruins their USP i.e. they will no longer be a non-Tory party that isn't openly associated with left wing economic policies in the minds of voters. |
|
|
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 15:26:20 GMT
Post by justin124 on Oct 21, 2016 15:26:20 GMT
Had Labour mounted a fullscale campaign here over the month leading up to Polling Day I would have thought that a 20% vote share would have been likely for them - given the actual outcome.
|
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318 
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 18:30:04 GMT
Post by markf on Oct 21, 2016 18:30:04 GMT
Wish there was a by-election in a marginal seat, something exciting for a change .
|
|
|
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 19:37:18 GMT
Post by justin124 on Oct 21, 2016 19:37:18 GMT
Tooting was quite marginal in June!
|
|
|
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 20:28:27 GMT
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2016 20:28:27 GMT
another though I think it fair to say the Labour vote held up better than it might have done in a classic by election squeeze such as we saw in the past. As has been pointed out there could be a number of reasons for this - the short campaign, starting from 4th, memories of coalition, but I wonder if another could be a Corbyn effect. However much you might dislike him, he obviously speaks to a group of people who follow him with such messianic fervour that they will still vote however pointless that is. Could it be that in less working class seats there will be a small but unshiftable group of idealists who will not be susceptible to squeeze messages, at least until they realise that just because all their FB friends agree with them, the rest of the world doesn't (and some not even then) I was thinking much the same. It occurred to me that there could be movement from Conservatives to LD (I don't see how the respective vote changes are possible without at least some of that; it may also be relevant that I was told that rather late in the campaign the LDs noticed that the Tory vote in the villages was softer than expected) and maybe some from the right wing* of Labour to LD, with simultaneously some from Green or previously sitting-on-hands left wing of Labour back to Labour; with some of those who stuck with Labour yesterday including those who left LDs in the coalition years and voted Labour in 2015. I'd be interested to know the breakdowns by polling district. * as in Merseymike's definition, which is fair enough in context. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 21, 2016 21:39:09 GMT
Wish there was a by-election in a marginal seat, something exciting for a change . Well, you never know what's round the corner. But MPs are getting younger, and therefore don't tend to die in office as often as they used to. Older MPs tend to represent safer seats. What I don't like very much is MPs leaving in between general elections, which is still a small but possibly growing trend (Mensch, Cameron and possibly Goldsmith next). Evidence points to the fact most other people don't like this very much either. I'm quite sure the swing to the Lib Dems wouldn't have been as great in Witney had Cameron not departed in the way that he did. |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 21:44:13 GMT
Post by markf on Oct 21, 2016 21:44:13 GMT
Tooting was quite marginal in June! yes it was, isn't it funny theres only been 1 by-election in a Conservative marginal since the GE 2010 lol, |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 21:47:48 GMT
Post by markf on Oct 21, 2016 21:47:48 GMT
Wish there was a by-election in a marginal seat, something exciting for a change . Well, you never know what's round the corner. But MPs are getting younger, and therefore don't tend to die in office as often as they used to. Older MPs tend to represent safer seats. What I don't like very much is MPs leaving in between general elections, which is still a small but possibly growing trend (Mensch, Cameron and possibly Goldsmith next). Evidence points to the fact most other people don't like this very much either. I'm quite sure the swing to the Lib Dems wouldn't have been as great in Witney had Cameron not departed in the way that he did. If Goldsmith resigns over Heathrow I don't think should he be the official Conservative party candidate in a by-election , that's very contrary in the least |
|
|
|
Witney
Oct 21, 2016 21:51:10 GMT
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 21, 2016 21:51:10 GMT
Well, you never know what's round the corner. But MPs are getting younger, and therefore don't tend to die in office as often as they used to. Older MPs tend to represent safer seats. What I don't like very much is MPs leaving in between general elections, which is still a small but possibly growing trend (Mensch, Cameron and possibly Goldsmith next). Evidence points to the fact most other people don't like this very much either. I'm quite sure the swing to the Lib Dems wouldn't have been as great in Witney had Cameron not departed in the way that he did. If Goldsmith rsigns over Heathrow I don't think should he be the official Conservative party candidate in a by-election , that's very contrary in the least I would agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 21, 2016 22:15:13 GMT
Presumably that argument applies also to Witney for Labour, or perhaps you think not? Labour self-evidently weren't the challenger in Witney. In fact, with Corbyn in charge, Labour will not be the challenger in lots of Tory seats. That was the ironic situation in the Eighties, where Labour was by far the largest opposition party in the Commons, yet about two thirds of Conservative MPs had the Alliance as the main challengers in their constituencies. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 23, 2016 18:40:00 GMT
You might well be right there. One of the things the left are going to have to come to terms with is to understand that if they want the Tories beaten they have no choice but to rally behind the Lib Dems where the Lib Dems are the challenger. If they'd rather have a Tory win than vote Lib Dem tactically, then they'll get a Tory win. This will be crucial in Richmond Park, where the Lib Dems will need Labour and Green tactical votes to beat the Tories... That may well be counter productive. In order to win a seat like Richmond Park the Lib Dems have to critically win over Tory voters and that is much harder to do when they are openly campaigning as a 'left wing' party with the support of Labour and the Greens who are largely toxic with these kind of voters who will not want to vote for a quasi-Labour candidate. In my opinion a 'progressive alliance' will do more harm then good to the Lib Dems as it ruins their USP i.e. they will no longer be a non-Tory party that isn't openly associated with left wing economic policies in the minds of voters. I'm not sure mboy was suggesting running on a progressive alliance message. He's suggesting telling left-wing voters that they have no viable alternative to voting Lib Dem. There's a distinction. Such a message would liable be much less appealing to voters on the left (nobody likes being told their choices are idiotic), but wouldn't repel centre-right voters to the same degree. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 9:46:21 GMT
I thought having a relatively "big name" candidate might have been worth a point or two extra, tbh. Still, you beat UKIP which isn't bad at all Think what did it was the Greens (and Labour to an extent) and prevented both from gaining traction was the lib dem campaign. They were easily the best organised of the opposition to the conservatives in this seat, selecting their candidate early and then campaigning very hard throughout the campaign. To be honest, I'd have been very tempted to vote Liberal Democrat in this byelection, even with Sanders as the Green candidate, and if someone like me is thinking along those lines... |
|
|
|
Witney
Nov 8, 2016 17:15:00 GMT
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 8, 2016 17:15:00 GMT
Here's a (very poor quality) scan of the actual Speaker's warrant, issued to the Clerk of the Crown to instruct him to issue the writ for the byelection.  |
|
