Copeland

[greenhert]

Dec 29, 2016 14:10:48 GMT @trident said:

Dec 25, 2016 15:26:54 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

Copeland council suggests to the Boundary Commission that the proposed seat be renamed to "West Cumbria" (as a very similar seat was at the zombie review) or "Whitehaven and Workington"

I hate silly names like Copeland which were made up in the 1970s and which nobody could place on a map.

I dislike those names as well. Many of them were used for rural/semi-rural districts to try and satisfy as many people as possible or at least avoid angering so many people (e.g. if the Copeland district was named Whitehaven instead, some people in Egremont and Cleator Moor would feel very annoyed about being sidelined).

[carlton43]

Dec 29, 2016 14:12:57 GMT The Bishop said:

Dec 29, 2016 13:53:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Interesting background comment Tim. On the basis of that why do you think there was a significant swing back to Labour in 2015? One would have expected a further trend towards the Conservatives because of what you report about the Nantwich-Audlem area.

That was "by-election unwind", a long standing and well observed phenonemon. It is likely that C&N is still moving incrementally in the Tories favour longer term.

I understand what the words mean your Grace and I can follow the concept, but give me a bit more context and explanation. What is the basis to the theory? Is it  suggested that in some (all?) by-elections where a seat changes hands that there is a tendency to overshoot by the winning party because of a bandwagon effect? And that that effect born in part of a euphoria of the moment unwinds with people returning more to their normal and habitual voting traditions?

I was out of the country for this by election and missed all the comment of the time. Am I to gather that another family member stood and was not a quality candidate and not perceived locally to be a good and sufficient choice? Would that effect be additional to a more general unwind effect or just part of it? Is this an occasional effect or is it well documented? How many subsequent elections would it continue? I can see a two year period from by-election to 2010 GE, but 7-years seems a long hang-over?

[carlton43]

Dec 29, 2016 14:42:33 GMT greenhert said:

Dec 29, 2016 14:10:48 GMT @trident said:

I hate silly names like Copeland which were made up in the 1970s and which nobody could place on a map.

I dislike those names as well. Many of them were used for rural/semi-rural districts to try and satisfy as many people as possible or at least avoid angering so many people (e.g. if the Copeland district was named Whitehaven instead, some people in Egremont and Cleator Moor would feel very annoyed about being sidelined).

What evidence is there for any interest at all by the common electorate as to the name of the constituency? I would suggest that the vast majority just want a vote for their patch whatever it is called. That most expect it to have a single and obvious name like Whitehaven and would never expect it to be named after a list of places; nor to have any localist dismay if their home town or village is not part of the title or sole name. I can never understand all this waffle about contiguity, road access, good communication or involving everyone by name of places.

I contend that Copeland, Langbarugh, Waveney and Mole Valley are just bloody silly ideas by outsider 'experts' trying to second guess what people want and expect. In essence they don't care very much at all, but I think would always opt for the sensible, the old, the traditional, the familiar and the for them bloody obvious name.
 

[gwynthegriff]

Dec 29, 2016 15:20:08 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 29, 2016 14:12:57 GMT The Bishop said:

That was "by-election unwind", a long standing and well observed phenonemon. It is likely that C&N is still moving incrementally in the Tories favour longer term.

I understand what the words mean your Grace and I can follow the concept, but give me a bit more context and explanation. What is the basis to the theory? Is it  suggested that in some (all?) by-elections where a seat changes hands that there is a tendency to overshoot by the winning party because of a bandwagon effect? And that that effect born in part of a euphoria of the moment unwinds with people returning more to their normal and habitual voting traditions?

I was out of the country for this by election and missed all the comment of the time. Am I to gather that another family member stood and was not a quality candidate and not perceived locally to be a good and sufficient choice? Would that effect be additional to a more general unwind effect or just part of it? Is this an occasional effect or is it well documented? How many subsequent elections would it continue? I can see a two year period from by-election to 2010 GE, but 7-years seems a long hang-over?

Yes to most of the first paragraph.

Sort of to the second.

The length of the unwind can vary.

[gwynthegriff]

Dec 29, 2016 13:53:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 29, 2016 13:42:14 GMT timmullen1 said:

Gwyneth herself always said that her seat would remain Labour as long as Crewe outvoted the Nantwich part, but a decline in the town's population as train building largely ceased as Bombardier regularly downsized the BREL railway yards, and a large growth of the South Cheshire commuter belt around Nantwich and Audlem has altered the dynamics. The by-election also wasn't Labour's finest hour as Gwyneth's daughter was hopeless on the campaign trail, and being an AM in Cardiff Bay could never shake the carpetbagger tag, especially as the Timpson family are well known, and fairly well liked local employers.

Interesting background comment Tim. On the basis of that why do you think there was a significant swing back to Labour in 2015? One would have expected a further trend towards the Conservatives because of what you report about the Nantwich-Audlem area.

Several factors:

Timpson's profile, I feel, declined between 2010 and 2015.

Labour changed their candidate from someone widely seen as a Labour Party apparatchik (with Spartist tendencies) to a local hospital consultant.

Lib Dem collapse in Crewe.

[Pete Whitehead]

The swing wasn't that significant anyway

[carlton43]

Dec 29, 2016 17:04:11 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

The swing wasn't that significant anyway

Well I think it was Pete within the context of the generality of swing in that type of constituency. There were not many where the majority and the share of poll did not consolidate to an improvement. The Crewes, Scarboroughs and Grimsbys are a bit of a rarity and worthy of a bit of study.

[Richard Allen]

Dec 29, 2016 15:20:08 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 29, 2016 14:12:57 GMT The Bishop said:

That was "by-election unwind", a long standing and well observed phenonemon. It is likely that C&N is still moving incrementally in the Tories favour longer term.

I understand what the words mean your Grace and I can follow the concept, but give me a bit more context and explanation. What is the basis to the theory? Is it  suggested that in some (all?) by-elections where a seat changes hands that there is a tendency to overshoot by the winning party because of a bandwagon effect? And that that effect born in part of a euphoria of the moment unwinds with people returning more to their normal and habitual voting traditions?

I was out of the country for this by election and missed all the comment of the time. Am I to gather that another family member stood and was not a quality candidate and not perceived locally to be a good and sufficient choice? Would that effect be additional to a more general unwind effect or just part of it? Is this an occasional effect or is it well documented? How many subsequent elections would it continue? I can see a two year period from by-election to 2010 GE, but 7-years seems a long hang-over?

By-elections can be strange affairs. Candidates are scrutinised far more heavily and therefore a bad candidate is more damaging than at a general election, local matters come to the fore and people feel able to cast a "protest vote" as they are not deciding who will be in government. These and other factors often result in a large swing that would not be seen at a general election. Naturally you then get some of that vote unwinding at subsequent general elections.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Here are the Census statistics for the wards in Copeland constituency.

	Area (ha)	White	Own Occ	Soc Rent	Prof/Man	Christian
Copeland wards
Arlecdon	2,118	98.5	84.2	7.1	32.5	79.2
Beckermet	5,104	99.1	83.8	8.9	36.0	74.1
Bootle	8,211	98.8	72.2	7.2	31.2	73.6
Bransty	361	98.1	86.4	7.1	36.2	79.5
Cleator Moor North	371	98.9	70.1	21.1	23.1	84.3
Cleator Moor South	822	98.8	63.1	26.6	21.6	81.6
Distington	1,738	99.0	65.5	26.0	20.4	78.8
Egremont North	855	99.1	69.8	21.1	23.4	80.5
Egremont South	478	98.5	73.6	17.6	26.9	79.5
Ennerdale	11,585	98.9	83.1	5.3	45.1	72.4
Frizington	843	98.9	72.8	20.0	24.6	82.2
Gosforth	8,939	99.2	79.4	4.0	41.7	76.1
Harbour	143	97.4	62.5	21.1	27.2	79.6
Haverigg	523	94.6	59.1	5.5	19.4	70.4
Hensingham	265	96.2	70.9	19.3	24.9	79.7
Hillcrest	66	98.8	94.9	1.7	35.6	84.9
Holborn Hill	206	99.5	72.7	16.8	23.9	77.5
Kells	159	98.9	75.4	16.2	21.5	83.1
Millom Without	13,559	99.3	81.7	2.7	37.4	73.8
Mirehouse	230	99.1	61.2	31.5	14.6	81.0
Moresby	691	99.3	76.7	11.9	36.6	81.1
Newtown	505	99.0	70.9	12.2	20.1	77.2
St Bees	1,487	96.2	80.8	3.6	48.0	74.6
Sandwith	784	97.9	47.6	42.3	15.8	76.9
Seascale	13,130	98.6	84.5	3.4	40.1	71.7
Allerdale wards
Crummock	19,070	99.3	75.5	2.5	44.8	68.3
Dalton	4,115	99.7	85.0	2.5	46.5	71.8
Derwent Valley	12,795	97.3	70.5	8.0	35.8	65.8
Keswick	7,350	97.6	62.2	19.7	29.6	66.1

[Pete Whitehead]

Some of those Christian %s are amongst the highest figures in the country, more typical of areas closer to Merseyside which also have a large Catholic population. The figures for Cleator Moor in particular reflect the large scale Irish immigration to the area in the 19th century. Henry Pelling, in his Social Geography of British Elections: 1885-1910, reckoned that around 50% of the town were Irish Catholic in the period he was discussing

[timmullen1]

Dec 29, 2016 13:53:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 29, 2016 13:42:14 GMT timmullen1 said:

Gwyneth herself always said that her seat would remain Labour as long as Crewe outvoted the Nantwich part, but a decline in the town's population as train building largely ceased as Bombardier regularly downsized the BREL railway yards, and a large growth of the South Cheshire commuter belt around Nantwich and Audlem has altered the dynamics. The by-election also wasn't Labour's finest hour as Gwyneth's daughter was hopeless on the campaign trail, and being an AM in Cardiff Bay could never shake the carpetbagger tag, especially as the Timpson family are well known, and fairly well liked local employers.

Interesting background comment Tim. On the basis of that why do you think there was a significant swing back to Labour in 2015? One would have expected a further trend towards the Conservatives because of what you report about the Nantwich-Audlem area.

I suspect the main factor was the NHS - there's considerable unhappiness at a combination of downgrading services and lack of investment in Leighton Hospital, leading to fears it's being lined up for closure, which Labour were able to maximise by running a Cardiologist from the hospital as their candidate.

[thirdchill]

Given the majority last time was 6.5%, a 1% swing from conservative to labour would take the majority to over 7.5%. As they are in opposition, anything less would be pretty poor.

[gwynthegriff]

Dec 29, 2016 22:51:35 GMT timmullen1 said:

Dec 29, 2016 13:53:12 GMT carlton43 said:

Interesting background comment Tim. On the basis of that why do you think there was a significant swing back to Labour in 2015? One would have expected a further trend towards the Conservatives because of what you report about the Nantwich-Audlem area.

I suspect the main factor was the NHS - there's considerable unhappiness at a combination of downgrading services and lack of investment in Leighton Hospital, leading to fears it's being lined up for closure, which Labour were able to maximise by running a Cardiologist from the hospital as their candidate.

Endocrinologist.

Lack of investment? Awful lot of money been spent there in recent years. If a Cheshire hospital is going to close in the near future it'll be Macclesfield, not Leighton.

But, yes, the Labour campaign did rather centre on the NHS.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2016 11:46:14 GMT thirdchill said:

Given the majority last time was 6.5%, a 1% swing from conservative to labour would take the majority to over 7.5%. As they are in opposition, anything less would be pretty poor.

8.5%

[Deleted]

If there is a swing to the tories this would be a very poor result for labour. Id the tories gain, should be the end of St. Jeremy.

[gwynthegriff]

Dec 30, 2016 19:25:36 GMT joe said:

If there is a swing to the tories this would be a very poor result for labour. Id the tories gain, should be the end of St. Jeremy.

No, no - a Tory gain would just emphasise how the Blairites have undermined Jeremy.

[An Sionnach Flannbhuí]

Not sure why anyone would think there would be a swing to the Tories at all.

On Labour's side, sure, their leader is anti-nuclear and nuclear is big in Copeland. But their party has learnt (ironically enough, from Blair) the magic of loyalty; all pulling behind the wheel, because "even Corbyn is not as bad as Tory rule". If the Labour candidate is pro-nuclear, expect pro-nuclear MPs to go and campaign for them, despite Corbyn; regardless of candidate, expect Momentumites to go and campaign for them as they did for McMahon in Oldham, to shore up Corbyn.

Tories don't take this approach. And, by train, it's 5 hours by train from Euston to Whitehaven via a long wait on a cold Carlisle platform and 5 hours back again, and use of the trusty battlebuses is now out given the hot investigations into their use. The horsey home counties set might go out to Notts or Norfolk or Gloucs in a General Election (particularly if there's a nearby hunt) - but not to Cumbria for a by-election.

[carlton43]

Dec 30, 2016 11:43:50 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

I've decided to add a prediction poll to this thread which will be taken down in the unlikely event that this by-election does not happen. I'm completely certain that I will be attending this forum on the night of/night before the by-election so I can lock it then

I like your polls approach but we need to establish a better convention on the percentage splits. If we take the examples you use on this thread there is ambiguity.

0-2.4%  followed by
2.5-4.9%  is more misleading than stating

0-2.5%  and
2.5-5%

On the latter there is the confusion of the 'same figure' break point, but that is of no consequence when one considers whether one is of the 'up to' or the 'over and above' persuasion.

On your model a whole decile of a percent point is lost altogether! If I think the result will be 2.45% which graticule do I tick? I need to go to a third place of decimal at say 2.451% and opt up to the next group of 2.5-4.9%.

Use of symbols for more than and less than would be a solution.

[carlton43]

I haven't voted yet because there is not enough information to make a sensible choice.

I want to look at, listen to and examine the background of the candidates first. The two principal choices will be important and perhaps pivotal?

This has been a very securely constant seat of low volatility and that counts in favour of Labour. It is 6-years into a Conservative term which aids Labour. It will be a very high profile Labour defence and I doubt the Conservatives will match the effort. For Labour it is must win but for the Conservatives a huge effort with no improvement might dent morale and pundit speculation?

The impact of LDs not likely to be important and probably also true of UKIP, but no way of knowing yet? I suggest lower TO than 15GE and result in proportion much the same.....so far! But race not started and runners undeclared!

[carlton43]

Dec 30, 2016 22:06:02 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

Dec 30, 2016 21:24:37 GMT carlton43 said:

I like your polls approach but we need to establish a better convention on the percentage splits. If we take the examples you use on this thread there is ambiguity.

0-2.4%  followed by
2.5-4.9%  is more misleading than stating

0-2.5%  and
2.5-5%

On the latter there is the confusion of the 'same figure' break point, but that is of no consequence when one considers whether one is of the 'up to' or the 'over and above' persuasion.

On your model a whole decile of a percent point is lost altogether! If I think the result will be 2.45% which graticule do I tick? I need to go to a third place of decimal at say 2.451% and opt up to the next group of 2.5-4.9%.

Use of symbols for more than and less than would be a solution.

I didn't take you for pedantic carlton!

I can edit the poll if that's what people want, though unfortunately all votes cast will be lost. I would have thought that in the example given everything at/below 2.44999...% would fall into the first category and everything at/above 2.45% would fit within the second.  

If you think that the result will be 2.45000...% then that's a dilemma you would face anyway if you believe that the result will be exactly 2.5000...%, faced with the choice of >2.5% or <2.5%. 

Oh yes, a fully paid-up pedant and member of the grammar police like so many on here.

Obviously we don't change any existing polls but I don't think your existing convention should remain. Making the divides is the cause of a very minor form of ambiguity for those faced with a prediction happening to fall right on that arbitrary divide. So I think/project/guess that it will be 2.5% which leaves me with a choice of two graticules? So, am I a soft or a hard 2.5%? No, problem there, we will all be one or the other and it is only an informed guess! So opt for the most sensible graticule to cover that guess.