Copeland

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 24, 2017 11:00:01 GMT The Bishop said:

Feb 24, 2017 10:50:10 GMT Richard Allen said:

I would guess that some experienced activists on the ground has an idea what was going on but in such cases it is in everyone's interest to claim that it is close. The trailing party don't want to demotivate their supporters while the leading party don't want complacency.

I think the scale of the Tory win, if not the fact they won, came as a surprise to many in both camps tbh.

Congratulations to Trudy Harrison anyway, now you have to live up to all the promises that were made during the campaign. And also the fact this constituency is going to be dismembered in a few years if - as I expect to happen - the forthcoming boundary changes get passed.

(this would also have been an issue for Troughton had she won, of course - but as she is older maybe not so much of one)

I wonder if she will follow the small part of the constituency into the far more promising Barrow seat and therefore remain your MP) as Whitehaven & Workington would not be winnable even in this by-election. As I observed elsewhere, Sue Hayman may be secretly rather pleased as there is now no sitting MP rivalling her for the nomination for the new seat of which her current seat will form a minority

[The Bishop]

Yes, I agree the redrawn Barrow seat would be a good prospect electorally (though she has far less affinity with south of the Duddon)

[The Bishop]

Despite his personal foibles, it is certainly arguable that Snell fought the more effective Labour campaign.

Given the scale of the Tory win it probably wouldn't have made any difference, but I wonder if Holliday might have been a better choice for our standard bearer in Copeland - not least because her past involvement in the nuclear industry might have protected our vulnerable flank there a bit.

(but of course, some couldn't see past the "Corbynista" label)

[Deleted]

Feb 24, 2017 11:46:45 GMT The Bishop said:

Despite his personal foibles, it is certainly arguable that Snell fought the more effective Labour campaign.

Given the scale of the Tory win it probably wouldn't have made any difference, but I wonder if Holliday might have been a better choice for our standard bearer in Copeland - not least because her past involvement in the nuclear industry might have protected our vulnerable flank there a bit.

(but of course, some couldn't see past the "Corbynista" label)

No, your candidate was ok. The leadership is 100% to blame.

[The Bishop]

She was perfectly OK, never said she wasn't. She would have made a very good MP.

Corbyn bears a great deal of responsibility, not least for his barely coherent interview on nuclear matters when he ventured up here playing into Tory hands.

[Lord Twaddleford]

When I went onto the BBC website, on its front page it had "Copeland by-election: Tories beat Labour in shock win", not really a shock to me to be honest. Initially I had this pegged as a very narrow Labour win, but over time the doubts set in, so when I finally went online to see the damage, I didn't even blink at that title (and carried on sipping my tea whilst I was at it).

I think I may be a tad jaded at this point...

[carlton43]

Feb 24, 2017 4:12:51 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Feb 24, 2017 3:46:47 GMT pepperminttea said:

I notice that only 2 people predicted correctly on the poll. wonder who they were.

carlton43 was one of them, i think.

I fear not Georg. I was a 2.5-5.0% from the start and did not waver.

[Devil Wincarnate]

The Graun live blog has some interesting vox pops with former Labour voters in Whitehaven. I'm sure there's an angle but they all blame Corbyn.

[Richard Allen]

Feb 24, 2017 12:29:37 GMT The Bishop said:

She was perfectly OK, never said she wasn't. She would have made a very good MP.

Corbyn bears a great deal of responsibility, not least for his barely coherent interview on nuclear matters when he ventured up here playing into Tory hands.

An outrageous slur against the Dear Leader when clearly the fault lay with the local party's failure to correctly implement the grand plan.

[Devil Wincarnate]

order-order.com/2017/02/24/thornberry-corbyn-opposing-nuclear-fake-news/

[justin124]

What I found rather irritating from the commentariat was the constant repetition of 'this has been Labour for 80 years' message. In truth , the constituency has only existed in its present form since 2010 - when the town of Keswick and three rural wards were added to the predecessor seat. It is far from clear that the Tories would have won the seat yesterday on its pre-2010 boundaries. Equally the Tories would have won the seat on its present boundaries in 1983 - and probably 1987.

[Pete Whitehead]

Feb 24, 2017 13:42:05 GMT justin124 said:

What I found rather irritating from the commentariat was the constant repetition of 'this has been Labour for 80 years' message. In truth , the constituency has only existed in its present form since 2010 - when the town of Keswick and three rural wards were added to the predecessor seat. It is far from clear that the Tories would have won the seat yesterday on its pre-2010 boundaries. Equally the Tories would have won the seat on its present boundaries in 1983 - and probably 1987.

There's less than 8,000 voters in the Allerdale wards. Even allowing for a higher turnout in that area than in the Copeland base you are looking at about 4,500 votes being cast there. We know this is the main source of Lib Dem support in the constituency and where they concentrated their efforts so I expect they got at least 500 votes there with a similar number going to UKIP and the other parties that leaves about 3,500 votes which means the Conservatives would have needed to outpoll Labour by around 4 to 1 (2,800 to 700) here for it to account for the whole of the Tory majority. Seems very unlikely to me - I estimate the Tories outpolled Labour in that area by about two to one in 2015.
1983 and 1987 are possible but you can hardly expect the commentariat to have at their disposal a comprehensive set of notional results covering every set of boundaries for every historical general election and it can only be entirely speculative anyway. The fact remains that the area (90% of it anyway) has been represented by Labour since 1935 regardless of what might have been on slightly different boundaries (and for that matter the Keswick area has been since 1950 except for a brief period 1976-79)

[The Bishop]

I've done some number crunching in the past and concluded that the Tories would have won the present seat in both 1983 and 1987.

Probably a knife edge Labour gain in 1992.

(and that it might not have voted Labour in the 1980s as it is now shouldn't be that hard for political journalists to grasp tbh)

[Pete Whitehead]

Looking at the official notional results for 2005, the addition of the Allerdale wards reduced Labour's majority from 6,320 (18.7%) to 5,157 (13.2%), reduced Labour's share from 50.5% to 46.7% and increased the Tory share from 31.7% to 33.5%. Effectively a 'swing' of 2.5% and given higher turnout and a stronger Tory performance in the area in the 1980s that probably does suggest it would have gone Tory then (but does not suggest that Labour would have held on last night on the old boundaries). Did any Labour spokesmen point out this 'fact' though to any politicla journalists? I didn't hear Barry Gardiner make that point last night though i did nod off for a little while. Why do you expect political journalists to do your spinning for you?
Lets face it this is a minor change to what is fundamentally the same seat as has existed since 1918 and it's been acknowledged that though Labour have always held the seat since 1935 they have often done so narrowly. This is not like discussing the post 1983 Kettering seat as if it was the same seat that existed before then

[The Bishop]

Its a relatively small change but still a significant one given the old seat wasn't always massively safe for Labour. You may or may not agree that a more egregious example was "TORIES GAIN GOWER - LABOUR SINCE 1906!!!" in 2015, given it has the same name as previous incarnations but not that much else in common.

And if Labour people weren't briefed about the Copeland change, that doesn't say a great deal good about things internally either.

[justin124]

Feb 24, 2017 14:21:02 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Looking at the official notional results for 2005, the addition of the Allerdale wards reduced Labour's majority from 6,320 (18.7%) to 5,157 (13.2%), reduced Labour's share from 50.5% to 46.7% and increased the Tory share from 31.7% to 33.5%. Effectively a 'swing' of 2.5% and given higher turnout and a stronger Tory performance in the area in the 1980s that probably does suggest it would have gone Tory then (but does not suggest that Labour would have held on last night on the old boundaries). Did any Labour spokesmen point out this 'fact' though to any politicla journalists? I didn't hear Barry Gardiner make that point last night though i did nod off for a little while. Why do you expect political journalists to do your spinning for you?
Lets face it this is a minor change to what is fundamentally the same seat as has existed since 1918 and it's been acknowledged that though Labour have always held the seat since 1935 they have often done so narrowly. This is not like discussing the post 1983 Kettering seat as if it was the same seat that existed before then

Why is it so unreasonable to expect senior professional journalists to know their stuff? The fact is that on present boundaries this seat would almost certainly have had a Tory MP for at least 9 years until 1992. The truth has effectively been significantly distorted - 'Seat goes Tory for first time since 1992' sounds much less dramatic.
I always recall being appalled at the time of the July 2009 Norwich North by election - my own seat - when I came across a Guardian article written by Martin Kettle - whom I would have expected to know better. He was making comparisons between the very safe inner city Norwich North seat represented by David Ennals from 1974 to 1983 with the much larger seat created by the Boundary changes of 1983 /1997 as a result of which the constituency had become suburban and 65% in the Broadland District.No mention was made of these massive changes. He revealed his own ignorance and frankly treated his readers with contempt by writing such garbage.

[Sibboleth]

Feb 24, 2017 13:02:43 GMT Lord Twaddleford said:

When I went onto the BBC website, on its front page it had "Copeland by-election: Tories beat Labour in shock win", not really a shock to me to be honest.

The word 'shock' is one of the most overused in journalism.

[Sibboleth]

Feb 24, 2017 12:29:37 GMT The Bishop said:

Corbyn bears a great deal of responsibility, not least for his barely coherent interview on nuclear matters when he ventured up here playing into Tory hands.

That issue - and the way in which he mishandled it - is probably what doomed you completely. Solidarity on what must be a very, very sh!tty day; not your fault or of the local Party in general.

[Tom]

I think the Tories would have a good chance of winning Workington if the boundaries remain unchanged. Presumably there are lots of Sellafield jobs there too.

(In The Guardian, the independent mayor Mike Starkie has predicted Workington will go Tory)

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/24/the-view-from-copeland-lifelong-labour-voters-want-corbyn-out

[right]

Feb 24, 2017 14:25:24 GMT The Bishop said:

Its a relatively small change but still a significant one given the old seat wasn't always massively safe for Labour. You may or may not agree that a more egregious example was "TORIES GAIN GOWER - LABOUR SINCE 1906!!!" in 2015, given it has the same name as previous incarnations but not that much else in common.

And if Labour people weren't briefed about the Copeland change, that doesn't say a great deal good about things internally either.

Really appreciate your analysis. I've been through some bad results and it's really, really unpleasant.