How Labour switching to the LDs helps the Tories
December 23rd, 2004
-
Will Charles Kennedy put a smile on Michael Howard’s face
It’s said that Labour are going to campaign hard on the fact that if many of their supporters switch to the Lib Dems then the main beneficiary will be Michael Howard.
This is a tough one for Labour to get over particuarly as Charles Kennedy’s party will be seen to be pressing the Tories hard in such seats as Michael Howard’s Folkestone and all their rhetoric will be about them becoming the main party of opposition.
-
But the mathematics are correct - the more Labour supporters who switch to the Lib Dems the more Tory MPs there will be.
In a post yesterday Sean Fear observed: “If you try out predictions on Martin Baxter’s site, and do a straight switch from Labour to Lib Dem, with Conservatives unchanged, you’ll find the Conservatives gain 3-4 seats from Labour for each one they lose to the Lib Dems. “ The Baxter calculation is a simple mathematical formula that shows how many seats the parties get if you apply different percentages to what happened in 2001. This is based on a uniform national swing.
Doing the Sean Fear number crunching we get the following:-
Conservatives remaining constant at their 2001 vote share level of 32.7%
LAB 38.3% share of votes - LDs 19% = CON 176: LAB 389: LD 52 seats
LAB 37.3% share of votes - LDs 20% = CON 183: LAB 381: LD 52 seats
LAB 36.3% share of votes - LDs 21% = CON 186: LAB 373: LD 57 seats
LAB 35.3% share of votes - LDs 22% = CON 191: LAB 367: LD 58 seats
LAB 34.3% share of votes - LDs 23% = CON 201: LAB 356: LD 58 seats
The last calculation throws up of 27 extra Tory gains from Labour in comparison with the first line off-set by two Lib Dem gains from the Tories. All the changes are from Labour including 2 to the SNP and one to PC.
There is a lot wrong with the idea of a uniform national swing and we do not think it will produce the whopping majority envisaged for barely a third of the vote. It does not take into account the outcome of special targeting, regional variations, seat-specific issues and Martin Baxter has not yet produced a formula that would account for tactical vote unwind - a feature that many commentators believe might happen.
But the broad trend is there. A standstill Tory party will benefit much more from LAB-LD switching than the Lib Dems themselves.
The spreadbetting markets, meanwhile are unchanged. IG have LAB 348-356: CON 190-198: LD 69-73
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Looking at those figures, there’s not much to worry about from a Labour voter’s perspective - Blair’s majority is hardly threatened.
Also what it does not take into account is quite probable Tory-to-Lib Dem vote switch at the same time!
Zebidee - sure as you say “there’s not much to worry about from a Labour voter’s perspective….” except will the uniform national swing operate next time and will the incredible efficiency in which Labour got seats for votes cast repeat itself?
My rough calculation which has been discussed at great length here before is that the seats will split according to the UNS - LESS 12 seats for LD targeting from Labour and LESS 14 seats as a result of tactical voting unwind. There will be switches between the LDs and Tories over and above the UNS but they will balance themselves out.
That’s my forecast and what’s already produced for me substantial winnings on the spread markets which I have cashed. I bought the LDs at 58 seats and sold them at 72 seats, which turned out to be be top of the market.
You could have sold them at 74.5 at least on Spreadfair Mike
Mike, a point on your calculation methodology. Obviously you state that the polls overstate Labour and that is probably true when aggregated to a UNS. However in 2001 there was a national swing against Labour of 2% in the vote but in their 100 most marginal seats there was a national swing to Labour of 2%. As the marginal seats are the most likely to change hands, what you can say is that Labour actually out performed its poll rating.
“Tactical voting” is greatly, greatly overestimated.
There are however seats where LibDem [b]voters[/b] from 1997 voted Labour in 2001 to deprive the Conservatives of the seat. These are the seats that are at risk as a result of movement between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, GMW and Muslim voters’ movement towards the Liberal Democrats however is unlikely to have much of an impact in “marginal seats” and is unlikely to mean allowing the conservatives “in through the back door” as the Conservatives often start at such a low base in these seats or the LD may in fact be the challengers to Labour (such as is the case in Islington, Hornsey, Cardiff Central etc…).
The idea that LD voters from 1992 and 1997 will “come home” is flawed, the LD will regain some of these voters but the nature of support for the LD does not mean they would switch en-masse and nor does the likely movement of voters from Labour to the LibDems necessarily threaten marginal seats as many of the defections from Labour will be GMW, Muslim voters and tradition ideological left-wingers (although I’m not convinced many of the latter will plum for the LibDems in great numbers) and many of these voters are in traditionally solid seats where Labour is well insulated against even a big swing against it.
From the forecast I’ve been working on there are six marginal seats where in 2001 the LD went down and the Labour vote went up by a similar amount and as a result Labour was able to offset any increase in the Conservative vote, beyond these seats I just don’t see much impact from defections to the LDs from Labour especially in marginal seats. At most if these voters where not to back Labour, the Party would stand to lose 6-8 marginal seats to the conservatives, although in my own forecast (Still uncompleted) I award the majority of these seats (After looking at vote share of all three party’s in the 2001 and 1997 contests, looking at changes in the vote share and then looking at the situation in local government) to the Conservatives. But for six or seven seats it really does not have that great an impact.
Another point is your argument that LD targeting means that on top of a national swing that would see the LDs gain Cardiff Central and Brum Yardley the LDs would gain 14 seats from Labour through “targeting”… this and I’m sorry to say this is risible! There are only about ten seats in the entire country that the LDs could win from Labour this time around and while more are sure to be targeted the LD are unlikely to win all 10 my own prediction is there are around six potentially eight of these seats that could go but in all likelihood six. On top there are about five LD seats which are vulnerable to the conservatives and could well fall, at the same time there are a number of Conservative seats which are very vulnerable to the LDs, a friend of mine (party member) claims Letwin is still in big trouble in his seat there and could well lose. In short Mike, I’m afraid you’re overestimating the LD by a big margin… the LD will not take 16 seats from Labour, there just aren’t sufficient seats that are Labour/LibDem marginals or even not very marginals in the case of Hornsey, Cambridge or Durham take into account the likelihood that the Conservatives will take some LD seats and while the LDs will proably gain seat it will not on the scale some like to entertain.
Ben,
We’ve gone over the tactical voting issue before - basically I agree - the 97/01 votes were not tribal voters moving on en masse from one party to the other, these were as often as not “soft Tories” who in rejecting Major after Black Weds voted for the strongest local anti-Tory candidate. If they are going to vote against Blair there is no “natural home” for them to go to - their vote will scatter. To a large extent I expect them to keep with Labour, but with Labour’s overall % slipping because of losses from its core Muslim & GMW vote. Where I disagree is that I think there is a danger that core defections to the LibDems could hurt Labour in marginals Lab/Con because there are enough working class, Muslim & GMW areas in some of those seats to allow the Tories to come through. I haven’t done the leg work to say accurately how many seats that might be - but your estimate of 6-7 seems to underestimate it a bit.
IMHO there are a dozen or so Labour seats that are vulnerable to the LDs but I would agree there are realistically about 6-8 or so I would expect to fall. (Leaving aside the by-election gains - there are no LD seats vulnerable to Labour). There are about 6 or so LD seats vulnerable to the Tories, but again I can’t see them picking up more than 3-4 of those at best, while the LibDems can entertain realistic hopes in about 20 Tory seats I can’t see them taking more than a dozen and quite possibly as few as 6 or so.
Bullseye where agreeing too much, I demand Clear Red Water between our view points!
…in furtherance to this I agree with you except on the issue of underestimating the effect on marginal seats, I don’t think there is a great deal of erosion in Labour’s working class base (if indeed working class is still the right word) and the effect of GMW and Muslim voters in marginal seats however in a few, such as Redditch where traditionally the small Muslim community has provided a significant part of Labour’s base, they will have an impact but there are really not that many.
Steve - to 4 - the performance of Labour in the 100 most marginal seats last time was impressive - the result of good organisation and more tactical voting. But could it be that this just stores up more problems for a future election - maybe the next - because there is so much more to unwind? The anti-Tory mood is still there but it does not quite have the same power as it did in 97 and 01 - time has moved on and so has trust in the Blair government.
My sense is that the public mood is for a return of the Labour Government but with its wings clipped. There are less worries about a hung parliament and I think that Alan Milburn’s attempt this week to revive the fears of “Thatcherism” starts to look a little old hat. Labour needs to be more than just the party that is not the Tories.
Jon - good point on Spreadfair. I’ve been looking at them recently and certainly the prices are much better than the conventional spread firms. They’ve asked us to become an affiliate which would produce an income stream for us to help defray some of the site costs. My spreadbetting has been with IG and SI - how have you found Spreadfair?
Mike - as has been pointed out before the main problem for the LDs is that they are third in far too many seats. To make any kind of breakthrough they need to be in second place, and a good second place. A swing Lab to LD could well be what is required to do this but not for maybe one or two elections. In the mean time, that makes the aim of killing off the Tories more difficult to attain because as you rightly point out they will gain in the short term.
What might be interesting though, is whetehr a short term revival might cause long-term problems for the Tories. A third catastrophic defeat would hasten the arrival of the George Osborne tendency and a Balir-style remodelling of the New Conservatives (Oxymoron? :)).
If they were to increase to around 220 seats or so then this would be viewed as a “success” and would diminish the push to modernise, thus further preserving the party in aspic. Meanwhile, the LDs move into second in many more Labour seats and are well set for the future.
Thuis ends my Christmas fairy tale
Gosh Ben we agree on something:)
I was chatting to the former Lib dem agent for Cambridge in the 1974 elections…..although its many years since he ran elections there(or anywhere else) his judgement is one that I rely on for most things….
He still has contact with Cambridge Lib dems and says that most of Cambridge now has good regular “local campaigning” but he is not aware if this has been developed in the way it needs to be to win the seat. He is due to chat to people over Christmas and will feed back…but although he thinks the Lds could win I am inclined to think they will come up short.
I think the main threat to Labour is having to defend a lot of marginals with a reduced activist base. I have posted before about how the election will be different in Wales and we are now looking at Council tax bills raising by 10%+ on top of the revaluation (worst hit are pensioners and “hard working families”.) given NHS waiting lists, housing crisis etc I think Labour may be in trouble. If my own Party was better organised then Labour would be in very serious trouble.There are some local issues that will tip some seats…eg Mp retiring all women shortlist etc As I am bored here is a list of seats I think Labour will struggle to hold….
Ynys Mon
Clwyd West
Conwy
Pembroke
Carmarthen west
Llanelli
Cardiff Central
Monmouth
Vale of Glamorgan
Cardiff North.
Bleanau Gwent (due to very strong Independent candidate)
Also a big swing away from labour in
Swansea West
Gower
Pontypridd
On a very bad night Labour could lose 11 in Wales….more likely 5/6….
Mark
I’m not convinced by the special targetting adjustment being the same value in all circumstances Mike. Taking the Lib Dems as an example, they will make a special effort to capture seats that they have a good chance in (I’ll leave others to decide which ones). If the National Swing barely changed then there would still be a chance that targetting strategy would bring results, say a total of 10 gains from Labour. If however there was a swing to the Lib Dems from Labour, the seats that have been specially targetted would be falling to the Lib Dems anyway and the next tier wouldn’t have benefitted from targetting to they would stay Labour, for a total of about the same 10 gains. In fact, special targetting could actually cost the Lib Dems seats if there was a big swing to them, the first tier and the second tier of seats would be gains, but some of the next tier wouldn’t reach the National Swing level because their activists are busy working in the special targeting seats.
An example would be Labour in the South West in 1997, our targets down here were Exeter and Falmouth & Cambourne, if we hadn’t targetted Exeter, it would still have gone Labour, but we might have picked up South Dorset and even Bridgwater with the activists left in their own constituencies.
Have I got a point?
Tabman Steve
Are you seeing your folks in Rhos over the holiday period? If you are will you need to escape for beer?
Preseli Pembrokeshire, Monmouth, Clwyd West, Cardiff Central and Ynys Mon are highly vulnerable, the first three to the Conservatives, Cardiff Central to the LDs and Ynys Mon to Plaid. The Vale of Glamorgan will be a game of turnout, but Labour should hold it so long as the turnout in Barry is good and I doubt that rural disquiet in the seat will be anything worse than that which was mustered after foot and mouth. There is the opportunity for a Labour pickup, but I’m not certain and after my Gill remarks I not going to say anything that could be leading
Mark what state is the Welsh Tory Party in after seven years of Morgan’s “socialism” (that’s what its called right?
)… how fares the revolution?
The Tories did well in the assembly election and Nick Bourne is a very good leader. The Tories think that Monmouth and Clywd west are in the bag…..I think they may win Pembroke as Jackie Lawrence is standing down(there was a big swing from labour there last time to Plaid) Plaid has a very good candidate in pembroke this time but not sure how active the party is there….
On the Labour pick up….you can only mean Carmarthen east or Caernarvon. Caernavon was held on a reduced majority last time despite Dafyyd Wigly standing down (we lost Ynys Mon due to”chanageover”) so the new MP Hywel Williams has had four years to dig in….the council tax issue is big in Gynedd as is housing etc I cant see Labour this time but the boundary changes present Plaid with an opportunity and challenge…….
Carmarthen East was won for the first time in 2001…..I am sure Labour would love to beat Adam Price but a combination of Labour now running the local council, the fact that he has a huge national and local profile and he beat a sitting MP I think makes it difficult for Labour to gain….
On the Gill issue:) I see Parmjit has started to get press and I suspect they now have a proper press operation in place….:)
Monmouth is certainly in the bag, and I should think Clywd West and Preseli Pembrokeshire are very likely gains as well.
Does anyone know how the Conservatives and Lib Dems are faring in Brecon and Radnor?
Parmjit did get some press recently, its gone quite again … but he was voted the biggest disappointment of the year by the Mercury
Disagree with premise of main article. If Labour lose votes to Lib Dems, it’s their own fault and will benefit the Lib Dems. Agree with one post from Mike that Labour need to be more than just not the Tories to win a third term. Also agree sort of with electorate would like to see a Labour Govt re-elected with its wings clipped. I don’t think that’s what they want really. I think they still don’t want the Tories to win. Howard has too much baggage for them.
Ben….yes I saw that I hope it gives him a wake up call as I would like you to be kept as busy as possible in Leicester South:)
Sean
The Plaid view is the LDs will hold Brecon and Radnor as the very good tory candidate last time is not standing and Roger Williams has been in for four years. Also last time they thought they were safe and diverted effort into ceredigion where they made no progress (based on the 2000 by election) and nearly lost B&R so dont think they will do the same………as you may have noticed I have a hearty dislike for the Welsh LDs so I would not shed any tears if the Tories won B&R just dont thinks its likely…….
On Clywd West the biggest threat to the Tories might have come from a stunningly brilliant Plaid candidate but sadly said candidate applied after deadline day and was not shortlisted
Well I am off now and not likely to post much over Christmas….
Seasons Greetings to all political activists …anyone of the regulars here is in North Wales over the next ten days should post here for my attention and I might even buy you a pint….yes even the Labour ones…..:)
Here’s my Yankee for next election - should make a tidy sum for £30 outlay
Tories gain Monmouth
Lib Dems gain Hornsey & Wood Green and Ceredigion
PC gain Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South
Anyone know if Marek is likely to stand in Wrexham at next GE ? Might be worth a punt if he does ?
DM Andy
You make a very good point about targeting diverting resources from “second tier” seats - the ones that are possibly wins the lection after next. That’s why the libDems have 2 levels of targets -The A-list target seats, which get the bulk of money, attention & support and what they call “starred” seats which get support & advice but no money. As local parties make gains in Council elections, show they have a good level of local campaigning they move up into being starred seats and if they get a decent swing in the General will become targets next time.
That leads me to Tabman Steve’s point, I think there will be a lot seats with Labour MPs which are on the LibDem hitlist both as targets and starred seats after the next election. Although I’d only expect half a dozen or so LD gains from Labour, there could be anywhere between 50 &100 or so seats where the LibDems are around 20% or so behind Labour - striking distance in targeting terms for 2009/10.
Even if the Tories recover and become contenders for government under Osbourne or anyone else the LDs are succeeding in developing a pattern of support which means that they are likely to stay above 40 seats. The days when their vote was so evenly spread that they could only hope to win 20 or so seats are now long gone. At the very least its a 2 1/2 party system from here on in.
Bullseye - excellent post. At least from mid 90’s on, there has been a change in the landscape. When the Tories economic competence was blown out of the window - rightly or wrongly, at least 2 and a half party politics was born. Being an optimistic LD, taking 1 as a benchmark, I suspect the proportions are more 1 Labour, 0.75 Con, 0.67 LD. I just cannot see scenario where the Tories make massive gains at the enxt election, maybe 20 plus but not massive gains. I can see a couple of scenarios where the LDs make 30 or so gains.
Right, I will shortly be going drinking and then attempting to catch a plane to Newcastle tomorrow for Christmas. Merry Christmas and thanks to everyone I’ve debated with over the year, and especially to the Smithsons for all their hard work on the site.
Mike - spreadfair have been very good - much better than betfair since they actually seem to listen to what you say to them. I have not asked them yet to put up respect but maybe I should! They are also very reasonable with the credit - they gave me £20k without a fuss.
Mark - just returned from a looooooooooooong lunch
Sadly I won’t be in Rhos over Xmas, it being the turn of the “out-laws” in Lytham this year to be graced with our presence. I next expect to be up there late Jan / early Feb so maybe we can catch up then. Have a great Christmas and bad luck on the deadline 
Bullseye - your post at 26 touches on a wider point, I think. The electorate has become much more sophisticated in the 20 years or so since the re-emergence of 3 (or 2 1/2) party politics. This is also linked to a more consumerist approach, and also to a drop in turn-out.
Generally speaking people are now more inclined to look at a constituency and say “Do I like what’s on offer, and does it have a chance?” If yes, they vote for it (marginals have higher turnouts), if no, they either vote for an alternative or more likely stay at home.
I don’t have any figures to support it but my gut feel is that LD support has now clustered, and strengthened in seats where it already put up a good fist of things, and whithered where it hasn’t. This does not necessarlilly make for the possibility of a breakthrough without a hung parliament and PR.
Do I take it that largely its up to individual constituencies to bootstrap themselves up the list? Does the party do no demographic analysis of seats where voters fit the right profile to be won over in the future? I have a specific seat in mind but don’t want to discuss it in public.
I agree about Brecon and Radnor staying Lib Dem. If you look at the assembly elections the Lib Dems won by a surprising large margin. Don’t know much about Ms Williams, but the voters clearly like her- and Roger Williams is an incumbent.
Interesting talking to a senior Lib Dem recently. Very positive about Brum Yardley- but sure that a south-west seat will be lost. Also interesting hearing the persons view on a certain Leicester South MP;)
Tim - there are around half a dozen SW LD seats that look shakey IIRC. The Tories seem to think Bath will go back to them, if you look at the local site.
I think Bath is a bit far fetched. Don Foster is popular- even though the council isn’t. It isn’t even in their top 180 targets I beleive. Don has over 50% of vote.
For me, shakey Lib Dem seats in the SW are Weston S-Mare, Cheltenham, Teignbridge, Torbay and Torridge.
I’m not saying they will all be lost, but I think a few of them will be.
I must admit it did surprise me but wondered if there were any local issues that might have prompted this view.
Interesting debate, my instincts are to side with Ben as his logic is impeccable however my heart tells me that Mike does have a point in his version of tactical voting – the electorate seem to have a soft spot for the LD’s (but not for their policies) and appear to vote for them even when logic says they won’t. I think this is a bonus of being perceived as a nice –person party.
Technically the parties should be rated 1: 0.32: 0.10 which shows how much the LD’s have to do, however, I do now think that a LD vote cannot be considered a wasted vote.
Mike, thank you for a wonderful constructive site – Happy Christmas.
Tabman - yes you have to get yourself into the frame first before you can become a target seat. Personally I think this is not very smart as the LDs are targeting a number of seats which will never be won unless the Tory party folds up.
Tim - I’d be intrigued to know which one it was. I fancy Richard Younger Ross to hang on now in Teignbridge as UKIP are fighting hard but otherwise your list looks the same as mine.
Interesting development on the hunting bill. The Government will have to carefully manage the media otherwise this delay could well look like caving in to the CA. Giving how the departure of Blunkett has played out I fully expect them to handle it… but you never know.
Tabman- yes there is a local issue in Bath regarding the new spring baths- they are overdue, over-budget and riddled with errors. The tories and labour have managed to turn it into a case of Lib Dem mismanagement- though it was actually a cross party decision and the fault lay with the poor quality buiders. Very long story.
Jon- I agree about Younger Ross- although he does have the dad of Boris as the tory candidiate. I think Torbay could be a shock tory gain- but I don’t know what sort of personal vote Adrian Sanders has.
Adrian has a big personal vote but the Libdem group in Torbay has been opening fire on its feet with such abandon it may not be enough. UKIP will be powerful there though which may well save him.
Living in the Devon, I can not see the LDs losing either Torbay or Teignbridge. The Labour vote is very soft and will come out for the LDs if it looks like a Con win.
Cheadle, Norfolk North, Weston Super-Mare, Shrewsbury and Atcham, and Torridge and West Devon are all very vulnerable IMHO… by the same token Eastbourne, Maidenhead, Surry South West, Taunton and West Dorset (and some would quibble on that one) are all very vulnerable to the LDs…
Re 38: Believe it or not, there are some people who will decide between UKIP and LD (they don’t want to vote Labour or Tory). So the UKIP presence could hinder, not help, the LD.
If you are looking at vunerable Lib Dem seats to the Conservatives then Hereford is top of the list. Paul Keetch is the anomoly amongst Lib Dem MPs in that he really is a poor constituency MP. The Tory challenger was reselected soon after the 2001 GE having cut the majority from 7000 to 1000 and I can’t see any other result than a comfortable Conservative win
In an interview, Paul Keech said that his local party had taken Hereford for granted in the last election- and sent their activists elsewhere. He said that they wouldn’t do that again- and he will be much more high profile.
From what I hear Cheadle’s Lib Dem MP is very good, hardworking and high profile. If that is the case- it must favour her for re-election.
But Ben I agree that Shewsbury is a definate gonner- as is Weston.
The Lib Dems have shot themselves in the foot in Cheltenham, very expensive dispute in council and then a messy selection saga involving the Cheltenham Town football chairman being turned down.
Everyone said Brian Cotter was a gonner in Weston Super Mare in 2001 due to council annihilation and a general view that the local Lib Dems were is disarray. In Hereford, Paul Keetch may well be a rubbish MP, but presumably he was also a rubbish MP in 2001. North Norfolk and Cheadle have small majorities but are there any other specific reasons for thinking the Tories are better off there than last time?
What you have to ask yourselves about these seats is “what has actually changed in the past four years?” If nothing, and the national swing is static or slightly Tory-Liberal, why shouldn’t these people hang on? Of course, such seats are more likely to go than Truro or wherever, but that’s just number crunching rather than local insight - we can all take the figures and produce a list of the ten most marginal seats between any two parties.
Somewhere like West Devon is different as something has changed - the MP is standing down. Shrewsbury is obviously different as the Lib Dems didn’t win it (or even come close) in 2001.
Less important than the size of the majority may be whether a seat swung very heavily to the Lib Dems or Conservatives last time, and whether there has been a subsequent swing in local elections
I think people may have a point about Cheadle, the LDs will be targeting Oldham East and Saddleworth, Rochester and Manchester Withington so there will be plenty of recourse in that bit of the country and no doubt some will go to defending the seats tiny majority, added to this Cheadle is very like Sheffield Hallam with a large number of middle class voters and this can only help the LDs here. So the Seat is more likely to stay LD than fall to the conservatives despite its slender majority.
Norfolk North was the subject of a huge degree of targeting and from what I hear the conservatives are making a big effort here, there is a temptation to overstate the activity of Iain Dale simply because he has a regularly updated Blog, but I have heard that that aside he is working the seat effectively and will have a great deal of backing from the national machine and unless the LDs sacrifice resources to help keep Lamb in place, as they did to put him in, he could well be unseated.
Torridge and West Devon is a goner for the LDs IMHO, the pro hunting MP John Burnett stepping down and the conservatives have reselected Geoffrey Cox, who fought a very energetic campaign back in 2001 and come close to taking the seat. This time around with the rural vote very energised and without facing an incumbent he will all most certainly be able to take the seat.
Weston Super-Mare was like many of the potential Conservative gains from the LDs very close last time and was the subject of a fierce Conservative challenge last time on the back of gains in on the council however they just fell short. Since 2001 the Conservatives have made further gains at the local level and if they target the seat once again there is no reason to think that they can’t win the seat this time around.
re 16 - Caernarfon please hold the ‘v’.
Wigley was always a lock for Plaid, and much missed as a good MP.
Can´t really comment on the new guy yet, but Blair and his cronies are utterly loathed in these parts. If there was betting on this one Labour would be 20/1 in my book.
Ben - intersted in your comment that Cheadle has a large number of middle class voters like Hallam, which would help the LDs. I suppose it depends on what you classify as Middle Class. Do you mean mangerial/professional middle class (A/B)? Is there any data on how party allegiance splits out by social classification?
Hallam has the highest per-capita income of any seat outside of London. This would make you think instinctively it would be Tory, but it isn’t. Why do you think this is?
Tabman, the simple answer is the collapse of the Conservative Party in Urban Britain in recent memory the Conservatives could rely on a clutch of prosperous seats in the big seat to return Conservative MPs, Halllam, Newcastle Central, Manchester Withington, and seats in Liverpool and Bristol.
In the case of Hallam, the LD win in 1997 owed a lot to Labour voters clarifying the situation and switching to the LDs, but it was foreshadowed by the growing strengthen of the LDs in the local government largely replacing the conservatives. And in many areas this was replicated with the conservative base in the cities largely collapsing and either turning to “new labour” or the liberal democrats but the first signs of this can be traced even further back. Newcastle Central was won in 1997 from the Conservatives and as with an increasing number of seats in urban Britain is now “solidly labour” with the LDs having taken or edging towards taking second place.
The Conservative plight in the big cities is something they would appear to be seeking to address and strangely in Leicester South, they proved fairly adept at hanging on to what they had, but unable to expand their base at all. In Leicester at least they have slowly but surely improved their potion of the council and are now menacing the LDs in some of their traditionally solid wards in the leafy suburbs of the city. I don’t know if this is the same elsewhere but from what I have seen and heard it is not.
There was an article in the Economist a while back which basically said that the Conservatives should split their resources half to fight the election the other half to rebuild their base in the cities… I guess it could work, but it would be a big sacrifice for Howard and I doubt that he’d want to do it.
Re 45 … James - The Tories’ Virginia Taylor in Hereford is very high profile - in the local paper every week - and has lived in the area since her selection before the 2001 GE. She managed to cut Keetch’s majority well above any national swing then,. and her speedy readoption meant she has been working the seat for the last six years now. Keetch may well have thought he took the seat for granted, but my Hereford Lib Dem contacts tell me the local party hates him and have not been making anywhere near the efforts they did in 1997. My reasoning is therefore based on the local Lib Dems having given up the ghost already.
Ben - thanks for your analysis. There is a very interesting story there, and it makes me wonder about the wider sociological picture. Essentially, what is it about urban areas that makes middle class people that you would expect to be instinctively Tory turn either to Labour or the LDs? I’m sure there’s a PhD thesis there (if there hasn;t already been one).
Perhaps its something to do with the fact that the concentration of people in a city makes it much harder to ignore social problems than living in the countryside. Ther was an article in the Guardian recently exploring the Blair’s house moves since the late 70s that made this very point: New Labour policies have been shaped by the proximity of their leading lights to pockets of urban deprivation through their moves up the gentrification ladder in the last two decades.
I look forward to what Ben has to say on this, but here’s my take on it. The clue to Sheffield Hallam’s being LD (since 97, and a Tory marginal at previous elections) is that (as the sitting LD MP has boasted) it also has the largest number of postgraduate degree holders outside London. The ‘intellectual’ middle-class (as with the public sector middle-class tend to be non-Tory (many of them, after Iraq, may also turn non-Labour).
Cheadle is slightly different (more private-sector middle-class) but has fallen victim to the Tories being squeezed out in Greater Manchester (only Altrincham and Sale West remains) and the LDs digging themselves in. They won neighbouring Hazel Grove (also in Stockport Borough) in 97, and then went to work on Cheadle (enjoying good local election results in wards there, which led quite a few papers to talk it up - correctly - as a potential LD gain).
I knew it would be close last time when I went through there on a replacement bus service, and saw the competition in posters (not always an accurate guide, thanks to shy Tories wary of having bricks thrown through their windows, but certainly accurate on that occasion).
Returning to both the eclipse of the Tories in Greater Manchester, and the intellectual/public sector vote, Manchester Withington combines all these themes. The Tories lost it in 87, thanks to both the intellectual and the public sector vote (easily combined, of course, when many intellectuals work in higher or further education). Some people here have speculated that the intellectual vote (or chatterati’s) falling out of love with Labour re. Iraq could see the LDs take the seat.
It is, of course, also one of the university seats (students living in Didsbury) which have been the subject of much discussion here.
The Guardian website has full splits for its monthly ICM poll on its website. Last poll was split as follows (Con, Lab, LD, Other)
A/B: 31, 31, 24, 14
C1: 33, 41, 17, 9
C2: 31, 40, 22, 7
D/E: 29, 39, 23, 9
Huge pinch of salt though as it is based on a very small number of people for each group so there is a massive margin of error.
Ben, I am biased in relation North Norfolk but would like to balance your points: 1. North Norfolk is geographically isolated and the LDs in the seat have never relied heavily on national support - same with funding. 2. It has been a bit of a cult of personality seat - All three parties have held it in living memory but Lamb was the first (I think) ever to take the seat from an incumbent and even then the Tory MP saw a big rise in his vote and only lost narrowly on Labour squeeze. 3. Labour has imploded totally (from largest party on council as late as 1998 to no councillors and no activity today). 4. The previous Tory MP had huge backing from the party machine (he was vice-chairman and was known to be at risk) so the new bloke is not likely to be doing much better in that respect than in 2001.
James, what’s striking about these figures is how similar the split is between social classes, when you would expect there to be a bigger variation in split between D/E and A/B. But it does reinforce the point about wining the C1/C2 vote.
Ben posted while I was writing my post. I agree entirely, but surely, Ben, you mean the Tories lost Newcastle Central in 87 rather than 97? Piers Merchant lost it in 87, then won (or, rather, held) Beckenham as a re-tread in 92.
Re. Liverpool, the Tories lost their last seats there (Wavertree and Garston) in 83. This may, admittedly, have been connected with boundary changes (the two sitting Tory MPs, Malcolm Thornton and Tony Steen, ‘chicken-ran’ to Crosby and South Hams, the latter of which is now known as Totnes)
Some of the Tory collapse in urban areas (certainly in Liverpool) is explained by middle-class flight to the suburbs (with many middle-class Tory voters moving to areas outside Liverpool such as Formby and Heswall). It was an indicator of the scale of Labour’s victories in 97 and 01 that the seats which contain such areas (Crosby and Wirral South) also went Labour.
Richard - thanks again (I am constantly amazed by the quality and depth of knowledge on this site). I am fascinated by the phenomenon of the “squeeze” - is this a cumulative effect, whereby fall in councillors leads to a fall in activists and a wider perception among the electorate that although their instinctive preference might be for a certain party, there is no point in voting for them as their local profile is so low as to make the vote “wasted”? In which case are these people making conscious decisions to change allegiance, or voting tactically, or staying at home, or a combination of all three?
It’s certainly the case that the Conservatives have largely lost the vote of the public sector middle class, partly due to a general decline in support, and partly due to a decline in class-based voting. These days, the Conservatives are much more likely to recapture places like Stevenage or Harlow than they are to recapture Manchester Withington or Newcastle Central.
It’s also worth bearing in mind, that given the general decline in urban populations, the Conservatives can win a very comfortable majority without winning back such seats.
Certainly, one can get into a cycle of decline (as in Manchester or Liverpool) where people never see a Tory activist, and get out of the habit of voting Conservative.
Interesting point Ben made about the Tories needing to spend resources this election in the urban seats. There is a danger for the Tories that the Lib Dems will position themselves as the anti-Labour party in too many constituencies (the constituencies that the Tories will need to achieve a majority) and if that happens I can’t see the Tories ever forming a majority government again. We could be at the beginning of the great reversal in British politics, where we’re back to traditional two-party politics, but with Labour on the right and Lib Dems on the left
Sorry Richard i did mean 1987, the alcohol from last night’s only just wearing off it would seem
Don’t think Labour on the right and LibDems on the left is very accurate, much as it loathes me to say it Kennedy comment about Liberal vs Authoritarian (or “Illiberal” as he calls it) could be eerily prophetic.
On Economic issues Labour still stands to the left of the LibDems, the new deal, the minimum wage, trade union legislation but on social issues is far more authoritarian, ASBOs, ID Cards, even issues of where politics and morality combine like drugs and pornography so I think the Socialist vs. Capitalist divide might be giving way to a situation which could be characterised as Libertarian vs. Populist/ Authoritarian and at the moment none of the main parties fit into either camp very comfortably, although leading figures in both parties could be linked with one wing or the other the coalitions that make up the main parties might be greatly revised over the next few years.
There is a greater degree of concensus in economic matters (at least among the ruling elite of the three parties) than there is in other areas, the Libertarian/Authoritarian split.
This is part of the problem for the Tories, I think. The leadership is chasing the same Authoritarian vote (the C1/2s) that Labour is, but are not viewed as competent as Labour byt eh wider electorate (yet). I hope they don’t, but they could carve out a more distinctive niche for themselves by embracing a distinctive liberal/libertarian agenda.
I think its important to consider what we mean by ‘urban’. The Tories were able to win a landslide victory 1983 despite barely holding more than a few seats in Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Newcastle combined. I think spending money in working class urban areas would be pointless. Its sad to say but in the same way Labour doesn’t need the countryside the Tories don’t need the inner cities. Where Ben’s point is very relevant is the need for the Tories to rebuild in places like Brum Edgbaston, Hall Green (where the LD’s seem to be doing well) and Northfield, Leeds NW & NE and Pudsey etc which are more sub-urban than urban. They are unlikely to win these sub-urban seats in 2005 but they need to be treated as longer term projects.
The situation may not be as dire as people suggest. The Tories seem to be improving their council base in some of the above mentioned seats and have of course a victory to point to in Edinburgh Pentlands (where intrestingly the Tories allways remained strong at council level). And if the Tories are doing as well in London as Sean believes then perhaps the Tories can look for a few pick-ups their next year.
Just out of interest does anyone know how the new boundaries for the election after next will effect the outcome in the above seats?
DM Andy at 59 & Sean at 58 - it depends upon what you classify as urban
If you mean inner city then I’d agree with you. However, I’m not sure what the percentages are, but if you add up all the seats in metropolitan areas, it must be close to half the total?
The List of vulnerable LD seats should include Newbury, I agree that Cheadle & N Norfolk are safer then they look but should still have question marks by them. So my list is:
Hereford (Keetch is indeed useless - and its a surprised he has held on so long)
Newbury - (Very good Tory candidate & Council revival, steady)cutting of LD majority
Devon W & Torridge - (incumbent standing & down strong Tory candidate)
Cheltenham - (incumbent standing & down strong Tory candidate)
Weston-super-Mare - (fairly weak incumbent & strong Tory targeting)
Possible surpises include:
N Norfolk
Cheadle
Eastleigh
Torbay
Teinbrige
Bullseye, by that reckoning then the LDs are going to have a job breaking sixty seats!
While they stand good chances in 4-6 Tory seats and outside chances in another 10 or so, the best they can hope from Labour must be 7-8 seats as there are just too few marginal Labour/LD seats to make up for loses to the Conservatives.
I remember there was a computer program that was mentioned in the Guardian or the Observer near the beginning of the year which had predicted the election for the Welsh assembly to within 1% of the vote share and had got the seat distribution spot on and at the same time predicted a general election would have produced a Labour majority of 35… the same program predicted a Labour majority of 113 in any election held in May 2005 but with the LDs on only 52 seats despite some turnover including winning in Dorset West.
I’d say it’s even more complicated than that, Ben. It’s perfectly possible to be pro-ASBO (as I am, having seen how anti-social behaviour often affects the most vulnerable in society, like middle-aged women living on their own in social housing, and being terrorised by teenage yobs who live in the same social housing, ie housing association flats), but opposed to ID cards and the utterly futile ‘war’ on drugs (the pre 71 situation, where heroin addicts could get heroin or methadone on prescription, and thus not resort to beating up old ladies and burgling other people’s houses to fund a habit made expensive through prohibition, has a lot to be said for it).
There are, indeed, inconsistencies (even dilemnas). For Labour, it’s the rhetoric (and, with ASBOs, actions against) yobbery, but at the same time promoting 24/7 drinking (as I may have said before, Italian drinking hours will not make the British drink like Italians - we’ll always be northern European binge drinkers). For the LDs, their members vote to ban children from being given goldfish as prizes at fairs, but many of their MPs vote to continue foxhunting. They’re anxious about the harm done to children by smacking, but have voted to allow 16 year olds to work in the porn industry. As for the Tories, many Tory MPs talk about the right of people to do what they want, and not be banned from doing things by the state, but then they vote against lowering the age of homosexual consent and against civil partnerships. Similarly, gay Labour peer, Lord Waheed Ali, has taken issue with what he considers to be his own party’s inconsistency, arguing that the freedom to have same sex relationships implies the freedom to hunt foxes. Now that foxhunting is banned, should angling be banned? Or is Labour afraid of tackling a far more numerous group of people practicing what many would also consider to be a cruel sport? Should halal meat be banned? If that’s to be ruled out on the grounds that it would offend against a minority, or culture, then doesn’t that argument (and description) also apply to foxhunters in the countryside?
Then, of course, there’s the split on the left over the religious hatred bill, with Guardian comment editor (and Trot) Seumas Milne in favour, and sneering at those on the left who dared point out that Livingstone’s new found chum, Qaradawi, has spoken in favour of beating women (as long as it’s done lightly with the hands) and violence against homosexuals.
Re. 57, the squeeze on the Tories in many urban areas reminds me of Labour’s plight in the South in the 80s (though winning the South was/is more important). Once you’ve lost your MPs in such regions (or almost all of them, as Labour did in 83 and 87), it’s easy to lose touch with the concerns of voters there through not having an MP to hear such concerns via an MPs postbag (or, indeed, blog). That, in turn, makes it difficult to win the seats, and elect the MPs, to hear such concerns via their postbag, so it’s almost Catch 22.
I remember John Denham was elected as one of Labour’s few MPs for the South-East, in Southampton Itchen, in 92 and - because he knew the concerns of people in the south-east through his postbag and surgeries - was an outspoken moderniser, even during John Smith’s leadership. He had some interesting things to say in the Guardian fringe meeting at the party conference this year.
Re. 63, strictly speaking, while the Tories do need to win Edgbaston and Hall Green (two bellweather marginals), they probably don’t need to win Northfield. They lost Northfield in 92, but still won an overall majority. Losing it in the by-election of 82 (if only on a swing of 0.5%) was an unpleasant surprise for them (just months after winning Mitcham and Morden, the last time they won a seat from another party in a parliamentary by-election), but winning it in 79, 83, and 87 was more a happy bonus for the Tories than a ‘must have’.
It’s rather like (Greater) Nottingham, where winning South and East (as happened in 83 and 87) would be nice for the Tories, but the must have seats are the suburban ones of Broxtowe and Gedling.
I think the idea of the Conservatives devoting funds to build up constituency organisations in place of blowing everything on advertising next May is a sound one. But rather than concentrate on the cities per se, it would be better to concentrate on those of the 340 or so seats they need to win a working majority where they are organisationally weak.
Do the Tories currently have a Denham figure? I’d be interested to hear what he had to say Richard. Do you have any links with Nottingham?
I don’t think you can look at the decline of the Conservative public sector middle class without including Thatcher into the equation. In the 80’s a Conservative government (and the attack on the state that went with it) was bad from a self interested perspective for this group in a way it wasn’t in earlier decades. I think this partly explains the disproportionate fall in support.
I think there are other things which caused Tory decline amongst graduates. Thatcher’s party was very anti-intellectual, continuously attacking the professions and the universities. I recall the BMA poster - what do you call a man who ignores doctors’ advice? Mr. Clarke.
Incidentally once the leadership contest got down to Duncan Smith vs Clarke I was very optimistic (for the LDs) for that reason. IDS was plainly useless and I think Clarke would have been hated by the professions as well as most of his own party.
I don’t thik the fallback against the LDs will be that bad (p.s. am NEVER going to vote LD, so am not bias). I think that…
North Norfolk - Dale to gain from LibDems. LDs seem too interested in South Norfolk. Don’t believe the won in 2001 with no help from London.
Weston - LibDems gone for sure. No doubt.
Torridge - 50:50, but my guess is Tory gain
Hereford - Keetch to be slaughetered
As for other LD marginal seats (like Cheadle, Guildford), my gut feeling is that they will move to being safe LD seats. They’ve been well worked. LD to lose 4 to the Tories, but that will IMHO be offset by gaining a few - though I get the impression not May, Letwin or Davies seats.
May is in serious trouble in Maidenhead and my betting is she’ll go as with Surry South West, I think Letwin’s position is still precarious and he is also in danger, but that said he could be in the same position as Davis and the LDs may have done as well as their going to do…
My betting on what happens with he LD is…
4-6 seats LD-CON
4-5 seats CON-LD
4-6 seats LAB-LD
…also I think both Leicester and Brent are vulnerable, Brent might be held but the laws of political gravity mean that IMHO (and a lot of people will disagree) Teather is in big danger… that said both races will keep the local Labour party busy as Mark had been hoping.
And with that I’m off for Christmas… have to go to mass tonight, I hate organised religion! How can something that’s meant to be so good be so dull?
Re. 70, I lived there for three years as a student.
What Denham said was that we’ve constantly got to guard against becoming disconnected from people, of not talking their language. As he did in his Prospect article, he noted that a lot of criticism of government policies from his constituents is rooted in ‘It’s not fair’. This struck a chord with me. For example, it’s good that people have got money from the tax credits, but it’s not fair that they’re means-tested (often to the extent that one beneficiary of the working tax credit has to stop himself from doing overtime, which isn’t fair when it’s his natural impulse to do it so he can buy a few more things for his partner and child), not fair that they have to struggle with complicated forms, and certainly not fair that they had to put up with the administrative chaos which accompanied the introduction of the Child Tax Credit last year (again, I saw people who vote Labour because of the tax credits driven to despair - and but for their parents lending them money, near-penury). What would be fair is taking those earning under £10,000 out of income tax altogether.
I’m generally impressed with Denham when, despite pulling no punches over his opposition to the Iraq war (over which he resigned), he doesn’t follow the route taken by other ex-ministers, which is effectively ‘The government’s crap (now that I’m not in it)’. It’s good to see some constructive criticism from an ex-minister.
How many LAB-CON & CON-LAB do you think Ben?
I think Teather has a much better chance of holding a seat than Gill- I think she may surprise some people and keep it. Gill is a gonner- and as a Lib Dem I still say it is no waste. I personally have never liked Keetch- apparently a friend of Kennedy which helped him through the ranks. Cotter gone- North Norfolk in the balance. Lamb alos seems to have some money to back himself up- and a decent organiser. Torridge has a Lib Dem hotshot media man- I don’t know how that will go down.
Interesting that nobody has mentioned Somerton and Frome. I think it will stay Lib Dem- but that is justfrom my knowledge of the seat. Council has moved tory (although it has just been branded worst in the area).
I agree with Georgie. I think Cheltenham is gone- but I think Lib Dems will gain enough to be 10 or so ahead by the end of election night.
From talking to people on my fathers side of the family, I think the middle-classes in the northern conurbations did gradually come to blame the Conservatives for the (relative) impoverishment of their cities in the Thatcher period. It was a slow and very long-term turning away from the Conservatives (which had already happened twenty years before in Scotland for different reasons). At first they blamed the unions but over time the Conservatives suffered from the perception that they had no answers for the northern cities, indeed seemed to regard their decline as inevitable.
BTW, I remember one economically-literate (and very civilised LOL) Tory at university who was genuinely concerned at what was happening but could think of no answer except a separate currency for the North so that it could set its own, lower interest rates!!!! (He argued that every time the UK economy grew for more than four years, the SouthEast over-heated to the point of needing interest-rate rises, before the recovery had properly rippled out to the north. So the industrial north was fated to miss out every time).
Anecdotes aside, its surely inevitable that voters in whatever part of the country is doing worse will turn against a long-serving government. You could argue that northern Tories stayed with their party more loyally than did voters in the Home Counties towns who largely escaped the 81 recession but then turned massively against the Conservatives after just one recession in the early 90s.
Mike that would be telling
But I have been making a forecast of my own, me and some of folks at the other regional offices are having a competition, my god where sad! However UKIP could mean one or two bizarre results this time around if Kilroy or another strong UKIP candidate runs in Boston-Skegness Labour could well take it, if the “orange one” does not himself. At the same time Beverley and Holderness could be an upset, though I doubt it….
Conservative gains from Labour IMHO will be in the 20-30 region, with the Conservatives likely to target London and the West and South West, though I agree with some posters here that the Conservatives could do well in London.
I should warn people that I’ve had a pint or five as I’m staying with folks and have just been to see family friends after mass and as always its been me in the kitchen with the other offspring from ages 16-25 all getting slowly more merry
so my apologies.
Ben,
I don’t expect the Tories to win more than 4 or 5 of the LD seats I listed in 65, that’s at very best. In particular although the Tories are trying hard in N Norfolk - it as well as now Norfolk South has built up a real fighting machine independently of the party.
Bullseye beat ne to it …. Happy Christmas everyone
Ben,
re: your comment at 74 - why do you say that May is doomed?
I’ve recently moved to Maidenhead, so I’d like to know how to judge these things (Compared to some here, I probably move around in a haze of political ignorance).
I do know that the Council is Lib Dem (at least, I think it is?), but she’s got a majority (from electoralcalculus.com) of over 3,000, with 45%+ of vote share - so the Labour+Other (last time, “Other” had just over 1,000 votes) vote would have to get squeezed below 10% to do it. On UNS, with polls being spot on, she’s OK at the moment on the Martin Baxter site (predicted a slip from 8.6% majority to 5.3% at the moment).
Which leads me to think that you’ve got some reason other than the National Swing behind your opinion. Is she particularly unpopular? Or is it the Lib Dem council?
P.S. Merry Christmas, everyone!
Ben, you say the Tories will target London, South West and the West. I would be intrested to know what you think will happen in the West Midlands and yorkshire Lab/Con marginals. I’m pretty ignorant about these areas and thought you might have a bit of an insight.
Max, firstly posting on Christmas day! What can be the excuse? What ever it is being in a house with family is enough to drive a man to the computer any way so there ya go…
I think the Conservatives will target London, the west midlands and the southwest for the simple reason its where their best prospects lie, there are a number of Yorkshire seats they could take back, places like Selby, Elmet but places like Brigg and Goole will no doubt be safe for Labour this time around and so there won’t be that much energy ploughed into that area.
Seats in the west both Labour seats like the Forest of Dean and Stroud and LD seats like Torridge and Weston Super-Mare must all be inviting prospects, though slender majorities from 2001 do not always that the incumbents in these seats are weak.
In the West Midlands I think they will target the area, but do poorly, places like Wolverhampton South East will stay Labour (Just look at the local council, it’s a funny thing when Labour can lose Birmingham but hang on to Wolverhampton) the sad thing is it’s a place the Conservatives have to be able to do well in and while in the adjacent welsh border country they may do well in the West Midlands they will struggle.
London has seen the Conservatives rebuild some of their old strength both in terms of the local organisations and in terms of campaigning effectively (if some Conservatives could comment I would be interested), in these suburban and commuter belt constituencies marrying Conservative campaigning on tax with local issues could go down well and as they where never Labour territory the peripheral seats in London are not going to have a large activist base, or so I would have thought, 6-10 seats in London are winnable for the Conservatives this time around though I expect them to get around 7 or 8.
Thanks for that Ben, a hang over that hasn’t gone from last night and 7 cousins under the age of 13 running around the house is enough to drive me to a nicely darkened study! Have to agree the council results in Wolverhampton were very odd given what happened in Birmingham, Dudley, Walsall and Coventry. It’ll also be intresting to see how an Asian candidate plays in Eonoch Powell’s old seat.
I’d say the real target for the Tories is not Wolverhampton South-East (where the genial Dennis Turner is fairly safe), but Wolverhampton South-West, represented by Messrs Powell and Budgen till 1997, and where the Tories now have their Asian female candidate.
They also held Wolverhampton North-East between 87 and 92 (Ken Purchase lost it for Labour in 87, but then won it for Labour five years later at this second attempt). The only Labour seat the Tories gained in 87, and held in 92, was Battersea - all the rest (Ipswich, Thurrock, and Walthamstow) reverted to Labour (though Labour lost one of its Scottish gains from the Tories in 87, Aberdeen South). By contrast, the Tories held all the seats (Cambridgeshire North-East, Colne Valley, Stockton South, and the Isle of Wight) which they’d gained from the Alliance in 87.
92 also saw Labour take back its one loss to the SDP in 87, Greenwich.
Richard I think Ben probably meant South West rather than South East. Looking at the council elections in the Midlands it might be expected that the Tories will do well in Stourbridge, Edgbaston, Coventry South and the two Dudley seats. Allthough I very much doubt they’ll actually win in any seat other than Stourbridge they should at least improve their position in the other seats I mentioned.
Having corrected Ben on his Wolverhamptons (an error made only in drink, I’m sure!) I think much of what else he says at 84 is spot on. Greater London, after all, provided the Tories with two of their five gains (Romford, Upminster) from Labour in 01 (the other three gains being in the South East, East Anglia, and the East Midlands). Their overall failure to advance, though, was summed up by not regaining any of their more surprising losses to Labour from 97 in those classic marginal-rich regions, the West Midlands (eg Warwick & Leamington, Sir Anthony Eden’s old seat), and the North-West (Morecambe).
What about the South-East, Ben? I’ve have thought there are quite a few seats the Tories could pick up there, not least the more implausible Labour gains from 97 (Milton Keynes North-East, for one).
Re Max’s query at 83, my own take on Yorkshire and Humberside is that Labour may well hold the bellweather marginals such as Brigg and Goole, but the Tories would hope to gain (again) some of their more surprising losses in 97, such as Pudsey and Selby. On the other hand, they might just lose David Davis in Haltemprice and Howden (which I’d be sorry to see happen, as he’s one of the few Shadow Cabinet members I’ve got any time for, and I’d like to see him succeed Howard).
I agree with you on Selby but I think Pudsey is unlikely to go back to the Tories untill the election after next election. Shipley is probably a better bet where I think the incumbent Chris Leslie is actually a minister. Think the Tories would also hope to gain Calder Valley allthough the Tory candidate appears to be making the wrong kind of headlines which wont help the party in that area. I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on David Davis though. As a Tory I wouldn’t shed too many tears if he lost his seat, but I think he’ll probably retain it.
Re 88, I’d say Labour would be worried if the Tories do so well in Dudley North as to win it, when it’s largely based on the old Dudley East, which Dr John Gilbert held even in 83 and 87. A Tory win in Dudley South would be almost as worrying, when the Labour by-election victory there on a swing of 28% just before Christmas ten years ago was a sign of how Labour was on course to win the 97 election (in which it gained the newly created Dudley South compared with 92).
As for Coventry South, the Tories held the Coventry SW seat (on which its partially based) from 79 to 92. On the other hand, Rallings and Thrasher calculated that it would have been Tory by only 2,000 or so votes in 92, so for Labour to lose Coventry South (even as a one-off, like the 9% swing to the Tories in Romford last time) would be a blow.
On the other hand, I’m slightly sceptical as to whether the local successes Max mentions will necessarily translate to the parliamentary level. The next GE may well be different to 01, but I well remember the Tories having hopes of winning Hyndburn (from Labour) and Torbay (from the LDs) on the basis of success in the local elections the year before. As things turned out, the LDs greatly increased their majority in Torbay, and there was a mere 1% swing to the Tories in Hyndburn.
Then again, the same election saw Tory local election success in Rossendale in 2000 translated into a 4% swing (and a halving of the Labour majority, from a safeish 10,000 to a marginal 5,000) at the parliamentary level. So the Tories may, or may not, translate their local election success in the Black Country and Birmingham to the parliamentary level next year.
It’s interesting, Max, to see that the Tory dislike of David Davis doesn’t just extend to his parliamentary colleagues.
Yes, Chris Leslie is a minister, as is John Grogan at Selby. Even if the Tories reduce the government’s majority as sharply as Labour did in 92, one of the other memorable features of that election (the unseating of numerous junior ministers, 9 in total) will probably be repeated. It wasn’t much consolation for losing, but Labour stopped in their tracks three possible Cabinet appointments through unseating Francis Maude in Warwickshire North, David Trippier in Rossendale, and John Maples in Lewisham East (while the LDs did considerable damage through derailing the move to No 11 of an existing Cabinet minister - Chris Patten as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster).
Para 2 should read ‘Even if the Tories do NOT reduce…’ - I didn’t drink all that much yesterday, either…..
Richard, sorry I did get the seats confused… expect it was the beer’s (no time for sickly bourgeoisie festive fair
) fault.
I doubt the Conservative’ will cut Labour’s majority by as much as Labour did the Conservative majority in 1992… though I agree with Max that the Conservatives should improve their positions in parts of the west midland such as the Dudley Seats and even in Coventry but not sufficiently to win them (seats like Redditch and Warwick+Lemington are far more likely conservative pickups) the Gloucestershire seats could also be tricky for Labour and Stroud is a pretty likely Conservative gain.
In Yorkshire seats like Elmet and Selby are very vulnerable to the Conservatives but such seats are natural conservative territory anyway and seats like Brigg and Goole, Keighley and the Calder Valley should be retained by Labour. I’d also expect David to hold his seat (I still think that May will go and Letwin is in trouble) and his position will be very powerful if, as I anticipate, the conservatives comes back with under 200 seats and Howard goes a short time afterwards.
I’d also imagine that the Conservatives will target the South West, as well as Labour’s vulnerable seats in Gloucestershire seats, the LDs are at risk in Weston Super-Mare and Torridge and to a lesser extent in other seats in the region, such targeting may help Letwin, but I still think his position to be a weak one.
Ben, I don’t think Letwin will be in trouble for the following reasons.
1. The Lib Dems made a very big effort in 2001 and managed only a 0.3% swing to them.
2. The Lib Dems seem to be targetting Wells and Taunton more than West Dorset and they have to defend Mid Dorset & North Poole as well.
3. Letwin’s profile will be higher now than it was in 2001.
4. Around here, a lot of the remaining core Labour vote would be resistant to voting Lib Dem, if they were going to tactical vote they would have in 2001.
5. There’s a quite active Stop the War group in Sherborne, they had George Galloway down to talk with them just before the Euro Elections, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a RESPECT candidate standing to siphon up any anti-war left-wing votes.
Balancing that, there was no UKIP candidate in 2001 and I could imagine one getting 4-5% but I don’t think even that would unseat Letwin.
Andy i was going on what a friend of mine had reported about Dorset West, that said I was arguing he could lose rather than he would lose, but I agree when Billy Bragg can’t swing a seat
it will probably stick with Letwin though I’d have though UKIP could cause more trouble than you seem to think, also Letwin’s position as shadow chancellor will make little difference few people can recognise the leader of the opposition and fewer still will recognise Letwin as the Shadow Chancellor even if they know he’s their MP… May on the other hand is in deep deep trouble.
But I’m beginning to think that LD gains in terms of seats will not bring their total up to much more than 60 over all, despite an increased share of the vote, in so many LD/CON marginals they seem to have reached their upper limit and while Taunton is a probable pickup along with a handful of other seats they stand to lose at least Torridge and Hereford to the Conservatives while the potential for pickups from Labour can’t be more than 5-9 seats in total and some of those are very dicey prospects much as some would like to think otherwise.
If Redditch goes, that’s another junior minister (Jacqui Smith) gone. Staffs. Moorlands Tories want to claim recently appointed junior transport minister Charlotte Atkins’ scalp, and are talking in the local papers about being in a good position to win Staffs. Moorlands, but their returns (even if correct - they’ve trumpeted excessively optimistic canvass returns before, most notably in 01) are (as they say themselves) from Leek. OK, it’s the centre of the constituency (until 1983, in fact, the constituency was known as Leek) but there are other towns (Biddulph and Kidsgrove) in the constituency, where Labour have done well in recent local elections (two seats held, two gained, in Kidsgove in June). As long as the national swing against Labour is less than 6% (in the last two elections, Labour’s result in Moorlands has been 1% worse than the national swing), Atkins should hold on (particularly when a well known Leek councillor with a gift for self-publicity is standing for UKIP).
Labour are probably heading for 37-38% of the vote, the Conservatives may well stand still but still gain seats and the LDs will be in the 20-22% range… that just my expectation
One seat where a junior minister will be fine is Enfield Southgate, while Enfield North has been trending towards the right since 1997, Southgate, thanks in no small part to Twig’s devotion to the seat, has trended toward Labour slowly but surely and he got a very good swing in 2001 and may well hang on to firm majority around the 5,000 mark this time. But the Tories will do well in London, I would say they stand to win 5-10 seats in the capital.
I’m not sure Twigg is as safe as you think. He did very well in 2001, yet Labour were 25% behind the Tories in the local elections of 2002, in the wards that comprise Southgate(compared to only 2% behind in 1998). While it’s true that Enfield’s former Labour council was unpopular, the Tories were still a long way ahead in Southgate in the London Assembly and Euro elections in June.
Twigg’s personal vote may well enable him to hold on, but it will be tight.
Overall, I expect 8 or 9 net Conservative gains in London.
IMHO gains in London are going to comprise around almost third of the Conservatives’ gains nationally (about 7 seats are likely to be won in the capital as a whole from my reading of it) and despite setbacks at the local level Twig will be fine, the Conservatives are going to fall short however in seats like Putney and Hammersmith and Fulham from what I know of the activity in both the conservatives would struggle to win either of those two I mention.
Re 96, the LDs won Torridge & West Devon in 97 on a swing of only 5% (even with Burnett, a candidate thought to be well tailored to the constituency). Even the much derided Keetch achieved a swing of 9%.
Re 100, if you’re right, Ben, then the Tories will do as well (or badly) as Labour did in 87. It’d certainly be an irony (though one they’ll enjoy) if the Tories pick up 21 seats standing still next year, whereas a swing of 2% last time earned them a net gain of just 1 (and, had Martin Bell stood again in Tatton, they wouldn’t even have had that).
Richard
I think the Tories will in all likelihood do as well/badly as Labour in 87, if a bit better, I think a seat gain for the Tories in the region of 25-30 is most likely, Despite standing still in terms of vote share (I see no indicators which show they are recovering in anyway 34% tops IMHO).
As for the LDs despite a likely share of the vote in the 21-23% range I don’t see them getting more than 60 or so seats, targeting or no. The size of some of the majorities the LDs would have to overcome in a general election campaign in seats such as Durham, Islington South, Cambridge etc… are just too great. David Davis majority of 7,000 and Theresa May’s majority of over 11,000 where to big for the LDs to overcome in 2001 and Labour in 2005 cannot be likened to the Conservatives four years ago and what is more Iraq has not damaged the government to the extent the Conservatives where hammered during the 1990’s and the polls attest to this.
There are some true LD-LAB marginals and in these seats the LDs stand very good chances but beyond theses seats there will be few if any LD gains from Labour.
Sean, which seats do you think the Tories wi