Sean Fear’s Slot…
March 10th, 2008
The View from East Anglia
East Anglia is a part of the country that the Conservatives have increasingly come to dominate over the past 50 years. For many years after the war, Labour provided a real challenge to the Conservatives in this region, both in rural constituencies, like North, South, and South West Norfolk, Eye, and Maldon, and in urban areas like Norwich, Ipswich, and much of South Essex, with its new towns.
Labour’s (and pre-war, the Liberals’) rural strength was based on the agricultural workers’ unions. British agricultural areas all suffered from cheap imports of food, from the 1870s to the 1940s, and this was particularly acute in East Anglia. Unusually, this prompted a sharp shift to the left among farm workers in the region. At the same time, strong support among urban working class voters helped Labour in the towns, particularly in South Essex.
Yet, those props of Labour support have now largely disappeared. Far fewer people work on the land now, and those who do are not particularly Labour in their sympathies, while the region as a whole has seen its economy boom in the past 50 years, bringing in immigrants from the rest of the country, with new political sympathies.
At the same time, working class Southern voters are nothing like as Labour in their sympathies as they were 50 years ago. Thus, a Conservative lead of about 6% over Labour, across Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire (as it is now) and Essex (on its current boundaries) ** in 1955, when the Conservatives won, had become a Conservative lead of 14% by 2005, when Labour won. On the new boundaries, the Conservatives would have won 30 seats, in 2005, Labour 8, and the Liberal Democrats, 3. Here, as elsewhere, the Conservatives benefit from the boundary changes.
The following seats can be regarded as safe for the Conservatives: in Essex, Saffron Walden, Rochford and Southend East, Epping Forest, Southend West, North Essex and Harwich (formerly North Essex), Brentwood & Ongar, Castle Point, Chelmsford, Rayleigh and Wickford, Maldon, and Basildon & Billericay (formerly Billericay).
In addition, Braintree, and Clacton (formerly Harwich), which were both Conservative gains in 2005, have been converted into safe seats by the Boundary Commission. In addition, a new Conservative safe seat is created at Witham. In Cambridgeshire, North East, North West, South East, South, Peterborough, and Huntingdon. In Norfolk, Mid, North West, South, and South West, while a new safe Conservative seat is created at Broadland. And in Suffolk, Coastal, Central and Ipswich North, South, West, and Bury St. Edmunds.
For the Liberal Democrats, Cambridge, which they gained spectacularly in 2005, should be retained easily. North Norfolk, retained equally spectacularly, likewise. Colchester will be harder to defend, but with a majority 6,000 is one of their less vulnerable Tory targets, particularly as there is still a fair-sized Labour vote to squeeze.
Labour’s position is much tougher. Only two of their seats, Thurrock, and Norfolk North (where boundary changes assist them) can now be regarded as truly safe.
In Essex, neither Harlow, with a Labour majority of 97, nor South Basildon and East Thurrock (formerly Basildon), with a majority of about 1,500, look like bellwether seats any more. Labour could lose the first, and still retain its overall majority, and lose the second, and remain the largest party easily. In Great Yarmouth, the party has a lead of 3,000, over the Conservatives, and if this falls, the parties are likely to be roughly even in terms of seats. Further up the scale are the classic marginals of Ipswich (majority 5,000), and Waveney (majority 6,000). If these fall, the Conservatives will probably just about have attained an overall majority in the Commons.
The Liberal Democrats’ one hope of a gain is in Norfolk South, where Charles Clarke has a lead of only 3,000. It has a large population of students and academics, and a sizeable Conservative vote left to squeeze, making it a classic Liberal Democrat target but Clarke may be saved by the strength of the Green Party in the constituency, who tend to pick up votes that would otherwise go to the Liberal Democrats.
**One can’t give a precise figure as in 1955, some constituencies crossed the boundary of what is now Greater London and Essex.
Sean Fear writes a weekly slot on Politicalbetting
MessageSpace Advertising
“Sean Fear’s Slot”
I’ll be having nightmares for weeks. *shudder*
Apols for OT
BREAKING
Obama “gains” another 4 delegates in California;
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/delegate_count_swings_back_and.html
You know, I’m from Basildon, but at no point did I ever think of it as being in “Anglia”. Estuary, innit?
Is Basildon still considered the Uberbellwether seat it used to be?
The new Chelmsford constituency is very far from being a safe Conservative vote . The notional figures have the Conservatives under 40% of the vote LibDems 8% behind and a Labour figure of 26% to squeeze .
Pedant alert: Norwich South is the possible Lib Dem gain, isn’t it? There are those who would argue Norfolk South (from the Tories) and the new constituency of Broadland (?) are in fact also winnable, but that doesn’t seem too likely next time out.
4 oops shoud say safe Conservative seat not vote .
Thank for that Sean. Useful analysis as usual.
……………………
2 PC. I broke that ‘breaking’ news two days ago !!
But it’s good to see you young chaps trying hard.
Jack W is 105
Indeed in reality the gap has widened by eight delegates.
I was once told that another reason for the historic left/progressive vote in East Anglia was to do with the way their feudal system worked there, and the way it declined, which was different from the rest of England. Apparently, the proles were less deferential, and more inclined to vote against the oppressor boss class. Unfortunately, I was told this by someone who was a) a Marxist, b) drunk, and c) a Norwich City supporter, so I am not too sure about the quality of his unbiased scholarship.
Good article again Sean - quick pedantic point - I think that you’ve written Norfolk instead of Norwich when talking about the city’s two seats.
3. East Anglia is a region comprising the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Not Essex.
Hence why regional television used to refer to the “Eastern Counties” rather than “East Anglia”
3. I’d include Essex in East Anglia, but I accept it’s open to question when your’re on the edge of Greater London.
4. In the context of a likely swing to the Conservatives at the next election, I’d say a lead of 4,000 is fairly safe.
5. In very bad years for the Conservatives, possibly. But I think they’ll both be pretty safe next time round. Norwich South is the interesting one from a Lib Dem point of view, IMHO, although they face the problem of a big Green vote in that seat.
7)
Jack W
If I’m honest Jack, I do find you are regularly a poster of yesterday’s news - but you are pro-Obama/reality so I don’t like to pick you up on it - you are in one helluva senior moment being 105…
By the way Jack what did you think about the speculation that McCain actually had a stage 3 melanoma and that’s the reason why he has refused to release his medical records?
9 Well-spotted. I read through it twice and didn’t notice that.
Also how come Thurrock with a notional Labour majority of 5501 is “truly safe” yet Waveney with a notional Labour majority of 5936 is a “classic marginal”?
As HG points out, the seat in which Charles Clarke is vulnerable is Norwich South not Norfolk South. Likewise, the “safe” Labour seat is Norwich North (sitting MP Ian Gibson), though it may be a lot closer than suggested. Otherwise, I agree with Sean Fear’s analysis.
A factor which may have some influence in Norfolk and Suffolk will be the outcome of the local government structural review. Voting patterns may be disturbed temporarily by the imposition of an unpopular unitary arrangement.
3 Good grief, Martin, I have relatives in Basildon, though naturally I keepit quiet.
For tomorrow’s Mississippi primary, the gerrymandered boundaries work to hurt Obmama - even with a big popular vote lead, he barely leads the delegate count:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=861
However - the only way that Hillary can trumpet this also requires her to acknowledge that she lost Texas!! So the likeliest outcome is that Obama advances some in the popular vote tally, but makes little headway on delegates - although each State that Hillary doesn’t take 60:40 sticks a few hundred feet on top of her own personal Everest
Re previous thread…with apologies…
250 StJohn - If you or any PBer is thinking of backing THE LISTENER, phone me first. I have a line through to connections. So far, no decision has been made as which race it goes in.
15. Noted. It’s so easy to type “Norfolk” instead of “Norwich”, when you’re writing about Norfolk.
14. True, the Labour lead in Thurrock is only a couple of per cent greater than in Waveney, but the Conservatives have only held Thurrock once, from 1987 to 1992, whereas the Conservatives held Waveney from 1964 to 1997. I admit, Thurrock may be less safe than I thought.
12 PC. My betting chits are very pro-Obama !! and I’ve had a lot of fun and plenty of single malt vouchers watching the Hillary fans try and shake the ‘monster’ back to life.
The McCain medical speculation has been bubbling away for some time. However nothing authoratative has come to light. Now he’s the nominee he’ll be under greater pressure and if the rat pack begin to smell a rat then McCain will have to open up his records. The more so if Obama is his opponent, as the contrast between the two is stark. The latter will be a factor in the debates - A tall and striking Democrat against a small ageing Republican.
In contrast I am considered robust and extra mature ……. no not like an old cheese at all !!!!!
@16:
Well, I don’t live there any more. It didn’t even have a single gay pub or bar back in my day. It now has one such nightspot, but provincial gay clubs are the eleventh circle of hell as far as I’m concerned.
17. The delegate count is in the bag for Obama. So he probably won’t be too bothered by that. What he needs is a big turnout so he can increase that 600,000 vote lead before the reruns of Michigan/Florida.
But how that will happen I’m not sure as I read somewhere it would cost $18mn to redo Florida.
It’s already murky now its gonna get dirty real dirty…..but great viewing…
As for Jack W, surely he should be known as statto for his fine work…
The Lib Dems did pretty badly in the recent locals in East Anglia, didn’t they?
Wouldn’t be so sure that the Greens hurt the Lib Dems most. In a lot of places where the Greens are active (eg Lancaster, Oxford, Norwich, Brighton) Labour have relied upon people who vote Green at a local level to vote Labour at a national level.
Admittedly this behaviour declined in 2005.
8 East Anglia was certainly one of the centres of the Peasants’ revolt, and was a stronghold of Puritanism/Parliamentarianism in the Civil War, so there’s a bolshie history there.
3 As for its socio-economic make-up,and its propensity to larger than avearge swings,I would not regard Basildon as a bellwether any longer-it is perfectly mathematically possible it may go on a someheat-above-average swing,and yet Labour retain a single-figure overall majority-or are within < 10 seats of an overall majority,therefore being reasonably O.K to serve a full term
I think that Greens would tend to be ex-Labour, who would otherwise incline towards the Lib Dems.
Meanwhile …. Al Sharpton might make the Florida situation even more messy :
http://www.nysun.com/article/72572
3,26 It’s probably not a bellwether on its current boundaries, and definitely isn’t on its new boundaries.
23. Didn’t the Lib Dems lose about 50 seats in E Anglia in the 2007 locals?
25. Perhaps we could also speculate on the impact on current voting patterns of the Scandinavian settlement of the 9th and 10th centuries, which resulted in a large class of independent smallholders - ’sokemen’ existing in the region in early medieval times.
Or perhaps not…
29 As the redraw of the boundaries is 343-213,seats around 70 on the Tory target list would become ‘bellwether’ in their nature.
Not withstanding,it is more than likely some ultra-marginal southern Lib Dems will be casualties;say about 10,so the Tories will have a modest headstart from that
30 I can’t recall the precise number, but, yes, I think they did pretty poorly in 2007.
32. 50 councillors down, must have been a fair chunk of their councillor base, especially as they have very sparse representation in quite a few areas…
28 - It looks like both Michigan and Florida are moving to mail-in re-runs of their primaries (essentially all postal voting). That would be cheaper and resolve Sharpton’s issues.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-campaign_dorningmar10,1,6644878.story
Patrick (31), as a worthy citizen, non-smoker of 53 days’ duration - congratualations! - and West Ham fan - poor deluded fool! - so we bear in mind that your judgement is not perfect……
However,..
That said….
What are the ten seats in the South of England that you think that the Tories might take from the Lib Dems?
34. Were either of those primaries originally open to non-democrat registered voters?
Latest Rasmussen Primary tracker :
Obama 46% .. Clinton 44%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
35. 10 seems a conservative estimate (hahaha) - Richmond, Sutton, Carshalton, Taunton, Hereford, Somerton & Frome, N Devon, Romsey, Winchester, Torbay…got that many without drawing breath.
Probably one or two in Cornwall as well…
38…oh and I forgot Cheltenham which is a clear goner too…
You missed Eastleigh!(now how funny would that be)
38/39 Your guestimates here are as inaccurate as comments earlier on LibDem losses in East Anglia in last years’s local elections . Net losses in Norfolk and Suffolk were 27 seats 20 of which were on South Suffolk DC . There are still 120 LibDem district councillors in these 2 counties .
41 Sorry 20 of which were on South Norfolk DC .
So you lost 22% of your councillors last time out? Sounds like winning here to me.
239 previous thread.Have enjoyed reading the ravings othe Eurosceptic loonson Mr Clegg.
Since the Lib Dems are now offering an in/out referendum on Europe and sceptic loons want out I presume they will be voting Lib dem at the neaxt GE.Or are they going to beat up Dave the Camelion until he changes his mind promises the same?
On the Lib dem pollratinds question- splits in parties dont go dowm well so the issue is whether the awareness offset this.My hgess is unchanged ratings.But I think this is anyway a short term issue and expect the Lib dems to make some gains from Labour in the May locals.
rogerh
33 The Conservatives gained Uttlesford, and South Norfolk, from the Lib Dems, and South Cambridgeshire (where the Lib Dems were strong) from NOC. I think Cambridge is the only authority controlled by the Lib Dems in the region, now.
43 Sorry your Maths is as usual inaccurate 27 losses out of 147 is 19% .
36 - Florida was closed, Michigan was open. (I think)
45, Oh, and North Norfolk.
So you lost 19% and your still winning here?
45 LibDems are still strong in South Cambs , they only lost 1 seat and still have 18 councillors .
49 The vast majority of that was in 1 council so still winning here in many cases .
46: Mark, most people would see losing a fifth of your councillors as a really bad thing.
And that 3% would look so much better of one of the Libdems graphs.
So in a district council so with 46 councillors, you lost 20? And you now have seven? I guess the only way is up from their.
40. Oh yes! the list just keeps getting longer
41. That’s funny - why no inclusion of Essex and Cambs there, old chap? Uttlesford -12…etc etc
34. I think it is now clear that the Michigan and Florida delegations will not be sat on the basis of the existing contests. It’s either disqualification or new contests. Reruns won’t be nearly as big wins for Clinton (in fact Michigan could be very close), so even with bigger turnouts she isn’t going to overtake him on the popular vote.
I also think that once Obama crosses the most pledged delegates finish line, numerous superdelegates will endorse him. At that point the popular vote should swing behind him. Clinton is angling for a VP spot now.
Thats going to the libdems problem in the South at the next GE. They have a number of marginals and they have been losing councillors (even Mark admits that). They will struggle to deploy resources to defend them all. Its not by-elections after all.
Yooooooouuuuorrrite boy, oim a sugarbeat larry droiver, now lend us a lug then fella and oi’ll tell youse all about Norfick. Now it looks like em’s blue chaps is afront of the other lot out here but no one really minds who does what as long as us get sixpence down the post office for a coypu tail. Cor Blarst me when there was talk of it going down to thruppence well there was a right old row suffin savidge.
Interesting article by Larry Elliot in the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/10/budget.economics
Not often you hear the charge that Labour have allowed the producer interest to capture the public sector aired in the Guardian. The difference is that he says: “..the producers have big salaries, drive expensive cars and - so far at least - appear to have achieved the square root of naff all.”
In other words the waste has been on management consultants, PFI, IT and assorted “age-of-change” rubbish, rather than frontline services or salaries.
You would think this would provide an easy target for the opposition as cutting out the waste would let them cut taxes and increase public sector salaries at the same time…
McCain appeared on the Tonight Show three or so years ago, with the skin flap from his scalp still attached to make a graft on the spot where the skin cancer had been. He talked quite openly about it being serious but beatable. On TV the scar can still be seen sometimes on his left upper cheek.
51 Mark - to save you some time I’ve written you a little javascript function.
it asks for the current name of the LD leader and then creates a post for you about how scared tory posters are of said leader. You have had to manually create many such posts over the last couple of years and I think I can improve your productivity by about 74%.
Also saw this on BBC news today:
“Both need the support of a majority of the 796 super-delegates - the elected officials and party dignitaries who have special voting rights in the nominating process - to get the nomination.”
This manifestly untrue. If Obama is 150 delegates ahead, he can win the nomination with only 324 superdelegates - a minority. The BBC’s coverage of the US race has been so ridden with errors.
I hope the Lib Dems continue to do well in East Anglia, Mark (51).
The problem for the Tories is that they are counting all their held seats as safe - which they most certainly are not. A couple of days ago, I cited here my recent canvassing experience. People simply do not know what Cameron stands for - cynics say, whatever it takes to get elected - all they know for sure is that they have lost confidence in Brown and the New Labour project.
Which is why Nick Clegg is right to distinguish the Liberal Democrats from the other two traditional parties.
56: Lib Dem MPs can be very hard to shift as they often prove to be very good constituency MPs.
25 Sean, it’s always rash to attribute current political attitudes to allegiances in the Civil Car. The North and Wales was royalist but is hardly a conservative stronghold nowadays. Of course, you might subscribe to the view that backward-looking, semi-feudal areas in the Civil War would naturally find much in common with the current party of the big state, welfare dependency and unpopular taxes.
58. Management consultants are routinely targeted as scapegoats. If it weren’t for external consultants rescuing the project, the congestion charge would never have been completed either on time or on budget.
58 Timothy “In other words the waste has been on management consultants, PFI, IT and assorted “age-of-change” rubbish, rather than frontline services or salaries.”
My personal experience confirms that. The waste over the last ten years has been tremendous. It started with ‘Cool Britannia’ and all the luvvies slurping up the gravy. It went downhill from there.
55 - That is a plausible scenario but not an inevitable one. Rasmussen polled the Michigan and Florida a few days ago:
Michigan: Clinton 41 Obama 41
Florida: Clinton 55 Obama 39
That shows her winning Florida by 16 points, only one down from first time round. With a higher turnout a big win in Flrida could be worth at least 400k in terms of PV. Puerto Rico becoming a primary means a solid win for Clinton could add 50-100k (I realise some would contest including this in the figures).
The media and Democrats seem to see Clinton as justified in continuing. That means there is 6 weeks for the dynamics to change. The interesting thing about the Texas and Ohio results were:
1. Clinton won those who decided in the last week decisively - the first time that had happened. It indicates that it is possible for Clinton to win back Obama supporters, something that hadn’t been the case previously.
2. The independents split, rather than going overwhelmingly for Obama. Whether this was GOP mischief making or not it changes the calculus, suggesting Clinton may not be killed by the weight of Independent voters.
Don’t get me wrong Obama is the clear favourite and it would be a surprise if he lost, but Clinton is not quite dead yet.
64 Ferando The north of England and Wales are very conservative, that’s why they vote Labour. What they are not is Tory.
64 Though in the case of East Anglia, we were discussing past political allegiances. I admit, it was a bit fanciful.
56 - Oddly, though, they seem to be doing quite well in held seats. But if you take the region we are currently discussing there has been a lot of crowing from Tories about Lib Dem losses in East Anglia. But looking at the three seats they actually hold - North Norfolk, Cambridge and Colchester - they made no losses in any of these and control two (the third, Colchester, contains a lot outside the Parliamentary seat).
This is not uniform across the country - Torbay is a good counterexample although historically that Council seems to be a poisoned chalice - but generally a lot of Lib Dem MPs will be happy with their own local council situations. Some, like Huhne and Farron, will be extremely happy.
Mark,
You lost councillors overall last year. So in “Many Cases” you were not winning.
Also, the big unknown at the next election will be the tactical voting. The libdems will suffer if it does not occur (which I believe it won’t).
56 Although there has been a net loss overall of LibDem councillors in the South , there has in fact been a net gain in the areas with LibDem MPs and where they are challenging strongly . Even your Conservative poster HF has expressed concern at the inability of Conservatives to make inroads into the Hants LibDem seats .
62. Ah comical ali speaks - how to look through this mixture of bravado and cognitive dissonance?
At a rough guess, if you start saying your canvassing suggests Lib Dem voters are wavering or uncertain, I think we can safely predict a total wipeout next time.
So a contraction in the geographic area of support. Sounds like winning here to me.
[27] - Green voters might also be those who would abstain altogether, if faced only with the main three parties. I noticed that the turnout in Norwich South went up in 2005 by more than it did across the country as a whole, which might be because the Greens looked like a more realistic alternative after local election successes?
It’s a distasteful kind of arrogance for the main parties to behave as though they have first dibs in people’s votes, just because they “got their first”., or are “best placed to win”.
73 Canvassing here in Worthing shows it is the Conservative vote that is collapsing since last year . To be fair , this is as much to do with the behaviour of their councillors off the council as their incompetence in running it .
In my local area the lib dems have gone from hanging around to non-existant. They never got close to getting an MP, have given up on local elections and at the last european elections didn’t field anyone either.
77 The LibDems fielded a candidate in every seat in the last European elections .
67. What evidence are you basing the solid Clinton win in Puerto Rico from? I’m not denying it, I just haven’t seen enough evidence.
Clinton may not have been winning those who decided in the last week, but she has consistently won those who decided in the last two days. This is because most people started off Clinton supporters, and then started listening to Obama. Those that he appealed to went over to him about two weeks to one week before the vote, when he was making his pitch. Those that listened but weren’t fully convinced kept an open mind, before finally settling on their original choice would have been in the 7-1 day column. And of course those that listened to Obama but were never convinced never waivered from their original choice, and would say they decided a month before. I feel these statistics say less about who can win over the other sides supporters, and more about who was the original big candidate and how people make up their minds.
I think we thus need to be very careful about interpreting such statistics. It’s not that each column went for one candidate or another. But that the candidate they plumped for decided which column they ended up in.
As for Independents, I imagine Southern ones would always be much favourable to Clinton. Good ol’ boy dixiecrats and all that.
78. they did? oh yes, I just checked, the lib dems came fourth in the east midlands, after the tories, UKIP, and labour.in fact the lib dems got 12.9% of the vote, far lower than any other of the major parties (labout got 21% for instance) and got 1 MEP.
80,
Winning there as well!
80. Just to show that in PR, even constituency based versions, a party can absolutely tank and the party’s first placed candidate is still assured of his seat.
What’s clear is that Conservative/Lib Dem contests are different from the remainder.
In 2005, the Lib Dems saw their mean vote rise by 4%, but hardly at all in the 102 seats where both they and the Conservatives were in first and second place. There was an average swing of 1% to the Conservatives in seats where the Conservatives were in first place, and 0.5% to the Conservatives in seats where they were second. Thus, the Conservatives made a net gain of 2 from the Lib Dems, when they should have made a net loss of 5 had these seats shifted in the same way as the country as a whole.
I think that in a lot Conservative/Lib Dem marginals, the blocks of support for both parties are very strong (particularly where the Lib Dems have squeezed Labour hard) and there probably won’t be a very big shift at the next election. But, even a small shift to the Conservatives may net a respectable number of seats.
Worthing? as in the Worthing East and Shoreham seat? So do you think you will overturn the sitting MP at the next election?
This thread is turning into the usual, extremely childish, winning here/not winning here name-calling session. None of you are saying anything insightful about the subject of the thread which Sean has kindly set up (prospects in particular seats in East Anglia) nor on any other matter related to political betting. You should all take a good look at yourselves and find somewhere else to conduct your tiresome flame wars.
Lib Dem canvassers in Worthing were reporting that they were going to make gains last year. They didnt
79 - Puerto Rico is based on her success in the Latino community. Of course, that is no guarentee for her. But it gives her another opportunity to rece the Obama PV lead.
It is clear from the polls and the exits that there was a swing back to Clinton in the last week of the campaign. Previously the pattern had seen Obama gain as voting got closer. If that pattern no longer holds then we could see a change. It is a big if but it brings a degree of doubt that wasn’t there before.
If current voting trends continue Obama will win the popular vote, pledged delegates and the nomination. But they might not continue, there may be a swing to Clinton.
Also, Clinton is being helped by the improvement in the match-up numbers. They now show her competiting with Obama v. McCain. The ones which show her doing worse than Obama (like the Washington Post one of all adults) show both of them comfortably ahead, when it is close with McCain she is usually within 1 or 2 points of Obama. The SUSA poll showed him doing only slightly better, but Clinton was still ahead of McCain even if the map was more traditional. Whereas in February the match-ups were very bad for her.
86. Who could those canvassers have been? the same people who predicted minor losses over the whole country on this site and then came out with a variety of absurd arguments to claim the results showed ‘progress’ after the yellow peril actually haemmoraghed seats….?
86 True Peter , but the Conservatives can’t repeat the same ploy they used last year and their councillors have been busy fighting amongst themselves or facing criminal charges for the last 12 months .
Surely you don’t mean North Norfolk is a safe Labour seat? Norfolk North is Lib Dem. Norwich North?
85 But it makes a change from the EU Treaty.
90 Yep. Others have spotted the typo.
@James/85:
Why?
I tell you what, you start by saying something insightful about East Anglia, and we’ll either follow your lead or ignore you, depending on our whims.
@Sean Fear/91
It’s not really a change, though, is it? At the bottom of each discussion lies the fundamental issue: the arse-clenching wretchedness of the Liberal Democratic Party.
New projections; Clinton leads McCain but McCain leads Obama (raq data is included in pdf form).
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/clinton-but-not-obama-pulls-ahead-of-mccain/
87. Hispanics have been loyal to Clinton because she has actively courted their support and spoken out about immigration reform, which matters to those who are first or second-generation immigrants, or have family members who are. Puerto Ricans and their families are all already US citizens. People from the caribbean will think of themselves as being primarily as being of that island, rather than their ethnic group. It’s also worth noting that the Virgin Islands - a short boat trip off the Puerto Rican coast went 90% for Obama.
And Clinton doesn’t have to just be close to Obama in head-to-head polls, she has to show clear leads over him versus McCain. Remember she needs to win over 60-70% of the superdelegates with her argument, against the arguments of prominent red state Democrats.
Ha. Obama aide Daschle, regarding Clinton suggesting Obama would be her Veep:
“It’s really a rare occurrence, maybe the first time in history, that the person who’s running No. 2 would offer the person who’s running No. 1 the No. 2 position”
93. That’s not a problem they have in Winchester…
Caution… Peter Golds (86), so they say, is a professional spin doctor for the Conservative Party.
Believe him at your peril….
@99:
Oh yeah, cos we’re going to take the word of a (spit) Liberal Democrat, especially when they’ve just shown the nation how much their word is worth.
98. Peter Golds may be partisan but he generally posts sensible and insightful comments here, with some real local information.
Unlike your own banal, predictable and self-satisfied posts.
Hang about, YP (73). I’m a bit new at some of the jargon…. What is “cognative dissonance”? Can some of you Tories please explain to me what that is in English?
98: But the Lib Dems did predict gains and they didn’t.
98. So you are not a rabid Labdemer anorak and are entirely impartial and trustworthy of course..puhhlease…
re 82 Socrates - the abominable closed-lists foisted on us by New Labour are not - as you are probably well aware - a constituency based PR system.
98 Peter Golds is a Conservative councillor, not an employee of the Conservative Party. And the usefulness of his conbtributions is acknowledged by Dr. Robert Waller.
@101:
Do they not have Wikipedia in your Internet?
“Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true.”
Basically, it’s the way people feel and act when they know that what they believe is actually a big load of bullshit.
101. If you can’t even spell it correctly I doubt it’s worth trying to explain the concept. Needless to say it’s a common enough problem among the more swivel-eyed Lib Dem spinners.
I may be a bit of an anorak, my esteemed JH (03), but I hold no brief for the Labour Party. As you say, so eloquently, “..puhhlease..” I wonder if your post could be considered libellous…..?
I think it is generally known that I support the Liberal Democrats. But I am not on their payroll…
Somebody above stated that Peter Golds was a professional spin doctor in the employ of the Conservative Party. I do not know. But it would not surprise me in the least. He is very good at spinning in favour of the Tories.
And the essence of spinning - surely - is that other people take you at your face value. Peter Golds is very good. Worth every penny to the Tory Party, I would say.
I can’t let nonsense pass from the resident Lib Dem spinner in chief without providing the facts about the Council elections last year in the region.
The Lib Dems lost 63 district/unitary councillors taking them down to 297 (net loss 18%) The Conservatives gained 121 taking them to 975 (net gain 14%). There are six councils without Lib Dem representation, one without Conservative. The Conservatives control 25 councils, the Lib Dems two, and seven are NOC.
And I can think of seven councils in the region that the Lib Dems used to control but in their winning here marches of the last ten years have lost: East Cambs, South Norfolk, Norwich, Uttlesford, Colchester, Chelmsford and Rochford. There might be more.
“Losing here” seems far more apt.
ConPre Change ConPost Change% LDPre Change LDPost Change%
Cambridge 0 0 0 0% 29 0 29 0%
East Cambs 16 8 24 50% 17 -4 13 -24%
Fenland 36 3 39 8% 0 0 0 0%
Huntingdon 40 -1 39 -3% 10 1 11 10%
Peterborough 35 5 40 14% 5 -1 4 -20%
South Cambs 26 3 29 12% 18 -1 17 -6%
TOTAL CAMBS 153 18 171 12% 79 -5 74 -6%
Breckland 42 6 48 14% 0 0 0 0%
Broadland 31 4 35 13% 11 -2 9 -18%
Great Yarmouth 22 0 22 0% 0 0 0 0%
Kings Lynn West Norfolk 38 14 52 37% 7 -3 4 -43%
North Norfolk 13 3 16 23% 30 0 30 0%
Norwich 2 1 3 50% 12 -1 11 -8%
South Norfolk 19 20 39 105% 27 -20 7 -74%
TOTAL NORFOLK 167 48 215 29% 87 -26 61 -30%
Babergh 11 8 19 73% 18 -2 16 -11%
Forest Heath 23 -1 22 -4% 1 1 2 100%
Ipswich 19 1 20 5% 9 0 9 0%
Mid Suffolk 19 3 22 16% 12 -2 10 -17%
St Edmundsbury 28 8 36 29% 9 -6 3 -67%
Suffolk Coastal 42 2 44 5% 11 -2 9 -18%
Waveney 30 0 30 0% 3 0 3 0%
TOTAL SUFFOLK 172 21 193 12% 63 -11 52 -17%
Basildon 27 1 28 4% 3 0 3 0%
Braintree 27 15 42 56% 5 -4 1 -80%
Brentwood 26 2 28 8% 8 -2 6 -25%
Castle Point 29 -3 26 -10% 0 0 0 0%
Chelmsford 35 -2 33 -6% 19 5 24 26%
Colchester 30 0 30 0% 21 0 21 0%
Epping Forest 30 2 32 7% 12 -1 11 -8%
Harlow 11 1 12 9% 10 -2 8 -20%
Maldon 20 5 25 25% 0 0 0 0%
Rochford 34 -2 32 -6% 4 1 5 25%
Southend-on-Sea 30 0 30 0% 9 1 10 11%
Tendring 25 3 28 12% 13 -7 6 -54%
Thurrock 26 -2 24 -8% 0 0 0 0%
Uttlesford 12 14 26 117% 27 -12 15 -44%
TOTAL ESSEX 362 34 396 9% 131 -21 110 -16%
TOTAL EASTERN 854 121 975 14% 360 -63 297 -18%
109. I underestimated!!
I am not a professional spin doctor for the Conservative Party. I separate my personal, political life away from my professional life.
I am well known to many Liberal Democrats on a professional basis, none of whom woudl state this. As this is the second time this particualr canard has appeared I am curious to know who started this particular rumour.
I simply reported that the Liberal Democrat Party/spokesperson predicted gains in Worthing in the 2007 local elections. This had been stored in my memory and I went to the archive of Vote 2007 to confirm this very fact.
Perhaps Mr/Mrs/Ms/Cllr/Lord/Lady Tressage (MP) (MEP) could give an indication as to who he/she is. We may well find that you are completely impartial, with no axe to grind and genuinely farsighted as to the future successes of the Liberal Democrats
92 - I think I did at 70. My point was that the Lib Dems appear to have lost council seats in the East Anglia region as a whole but not at all in the three seats they hold, Martin. This suggests to me that they will do better than the polls suggest in seats they hold, but struggle to progress elsewhere (although the major involvement of the Greens makes it more difficult to read in Norwich as they seem to take votes from the Lib Dems but in most seats are poor at converting that to national success).
There you go - a tentative conclusion which may or may not prove correct but is at least firmly grounded on verifiable facts. It is the thing on which reasonable discussion is based.
108. Grow up for heavens sake..you spout hypocricy, as many other lefties here and you are called out on it..you’ll get over it.
95 Socrates
The Virgin Islands might be a short boat ride from Puerto Rico but its nothing remotely like it culturally. The vast majority of voters in the USVI would be black - its not really Hispanic at all.
109
So the reality is differnt to the Lib Dem rhetoric,there’s a surprise.
@115:
Liberal Democrats: WINNING HERE!*
*(N.B. Winning may involve losing)
For those who wonder who I am look at the second story
http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/content/towerhamlets/advertiser/trialbyjeory/story.aspx?brand=ELAOnline&category=trialbyjeory&tBrand=ELAOnline&tCategory=trialbyjeory&itemid=WeED17%20Jan%202008%2023%3A50%3A03%3A567
It really should be ‘whining here’, based on today’s comments…
Sean, I’m astonished to see the new Broadland seat as a safe Tory seat; our friends from Plymouth rate it as a Con / LD marginal. Also, I think you should be more careful about Cambridgeshire and the Western parts of Suffolk. The demographics are changing rapidly; sure, no threat to the Tories yet, but…
Sean, I have a map of the 1955 constituencies sorted by county. Would you like me to send you a list of the constituencies in 1955 that were in the pre 1997 East Anglia?
114. The Black-Hispanic split that exists in the continental US does not exist in anything the same way in the Caribbean. Puerto Ricans will think of themselves as Puerto Ricans, just as Virgin Islanders think of themselves as Virgin Islanders. The idea that they will follow the voting trends of defined ethnic blocks in American inner cities is absurd. All the evidence we have so far suggests the less Americo-centric the place is, the worse Clinton does.
Has anyone seen Martin Coxall and Martin Day in the same place?
Coxall posts inane anti-Lib Dem rantings during the day and Day posts inane anti-Lib Dem rantings during the evening (how ironic).
Can I claim my five pounds?
119 - I tend to agree with Sean on this. I think the best realistic hope for the Lib Dems in Broadland is a good second to put themselves within striking distance.
But Broadland is a bit of an example of the law of unintended consequences. Pre-2005, the Tories wanted to take strongly Lib Dem Fakenham out of North Norfolk to undermine Lamb. As it is, such was the 2005 landslide, that seat is lost to them for the foreseeable future so really they made Broadland unnecessarily tight for no real benefit. With hindsight, I am sure they would have argued for the Tory-leaning Hoveton end of the seat to leave North Norfolk (which would have been more logical probably in uniting the Norfolk Broads). Having said that, Broadland is unlikely to be under real threat if the Conservatives have a fair election nationally.
122. I don’t think Martin Day has such good knowledge of the Basildon gay scene.
@122:
Pah, I always find my Lib Dem baiting to be thoroughly ane.
Well, it amuses me.
@124:
You know, I wish I didn’t have first hand knowledge of Basildon’s gay scene. There are some things I wish I could unremember.
And a specific response to 41 “Your guestimates here are as inaccurate as comments earlier on LibDem losses in East Anglia in last years’s local elections . Net losses in Norfolk and Suffolk were 27 seats 20 of which were on South Suffolk DC . There are still 120 LibDem district councillors in these 2 counties .”
37 not 27
113 not 120
People in glasshouses…
Don’t be silly, Peter Golds (11). Of course I am not impartial. I am a Liberal Democrat, as you are very well aware. So that particular comment of yours was just Tory mal-intentioned spin and slur.
I do not know who may have started the “slur” that you are a professional Tory spin-doctor - if you are not, then I apologise - but I must say you do it very well, for an amateur.
I don’t think you made any other comments that merit a reply.
Does anybody know what’s happened to cause big changes in the London Mayoral Betting? Ken has moved in and is now the odds-on favourite again; Boris has moved out.
quite frankly sean fear’s slot becomes ever more a tory propaganda slot with a totally blinkered view on things - a shame as it used to be interesting when he kept his bias within something approaching moderation.
129 Mike S. ‘Roger’ has declared for Boris ….. and then the rest as they say …….
129 - Common sense has broken out?
@129:
Isn’t it just the absence of any reliable polls? In the absence of such, punters are falling back to their default positions until polls properly show what damage Ken has been dealt.
Also, I suspect that there’s been a significant amount of loyalty-betting from desparate Ken-groupies, and also punters seem to be rather bad at reading the second prefs in the few polls we do have, which means there has to lots of money to be made there.
18th March is when the election campaign for the mayoralty starts properly. It’s going to be a bloody one. I can’t wait. Though I’m going to expend a lot of shoe leather leafleting over the next five weeks.
Latest Gallup Primary tracking poll :
Obama 49% .. Clinton 44%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104878/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Recaptures-Lead-Among-Democrats.aspx
New Labour finally move beyond satire or parody
BBC News: Labour’s General Secretary named
‘City fund manager David Pitt-Watson is to be Labour’s new general secretary … expected to step down as chairman of Hermes Equity Ownership Services. Hermes is a Northern Rock shareholder … Mr Pitt-Watson, understood to have been Gordon Brown’s favoured candidate, will replace Peter Watt, who quit in the row over Labour’s donations by proxy.’ Crash Gordon does it again, it’s staggering just how far Labour has strayed from its egaliataian principles, the Blairite kleptocracy (sorry that would be ‘meritocracy’) lives on
Potentially huge story: Looks like Hugo Chavez provided support to a Marxist terrorist group in Columbia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429.html
Meanwhile II …. South Dakota’s Democrats may open their June 3rd primary to independent voters :
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/03/09/news/top/doc47d463f8637e7727897450.txt
127: To be fair you are talking about a larger area than he was.
129: Probably as Martin suggests when people lack information they move back to the favourite.
Meanwhile III …. Taxing questions come back to haunt Hillary :
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457&page=1
129
No real change overall. Bojo has been and remains evens @ corals.
I am sorry Tressage. I post as me, and can be identifiedas such. You do not.
You stated, based on nothing, that I am a professional Conservative spin doctor. In short this is a fact as reliable as yours or Mark Seniors’ canvass returns.
As you spin relentlessly for the Liberal Democrats and make untrue allegations against named persons, it would be interesting to know who or what you are.
134: Impressive Obama jump there - doesn’t look as though the continuing swing that Hillary needs is happening.
136: I have no idea if it’s true, but if so surely it’s no great surprise?
Sean F’s article deserves better than all the ‘we’re gonna thump you and you’re a party hack’ posts above. Why bother?
…a slightly friendlier CV for the new GenSec than post 135:
Dave Pitt-Watson, 51: David has for many years advised the Labour Party on issues of strategy, finance and operations and between 1997 and 1999 was the Assistant General Secretary responsible for Finance. For over twenty years he has advised leading Labour politicians on issues of industrial policy and organisation.
David is an experienced businessman who has been responsible for the establishment, development and growth of two successful businesses. David has also published numerous articles, his most recent book being ‘The New Capitalists’ which the UN described as a key text in responsible investment.
142 Nick P. Both trackers have moved back to Obama over the weekend. Better coverage for Obama and a closer analysis of Hillary’s prospects, claims and experience appears to have stalled her bounce.
Clinton’s expected drubbing in Mississippi tommorow will also not help.
143: Nick, whatever his links to New Labour it was very predictable that he would be reported as ‘City fund manager David Pitt-Watson’. The fact that he is also the chair of a company with shares in NR just adds to the fun journalists will have with this.
Gordon doesn’t have the ability to see tiger traps that Blair had does he?
142 - It’s not often I find myself agreeing with Mr Palmer, but hear, hear.
130 - Pimpernel, Sean Fear makes no secret of his Conservative support, but that notwithstanding he remains one of the most interesting and informative posters on this site. Go soak your head.
I’m not an expert on much of East Anglia, but I do have family in Colchester.
I concur with Sean’s verdict that Colchester should stay Lib Dem - MP Bob Russell is very well thought of and has a sizeable personal vote. His task is to minimize any adverse swing that a potential national swing from LD to Con may generate in order to give his successor (I heard rumours that he may make the next Parliament his last) the maximum chance of holding on.
Squeezing the remaining Labour vote will actually be difficult for either side - the voters who’ve stuck with Labour this long are bloody minded about shifting.
re 142. “Sean F’s article deserves better than all the ‘we’re gonna thump you and you’re a party hack’ posts above. Why bother?” Well said Nick.
re 144. JackW - aren’t you a bit too old to be supporting Obama? Your age group is all for Hillary.
New Insider Advantage poll for Mississippi :
Obama 54% .. Clinton 37%.
Note - Less than 400 polled. MOE +/- 6%.
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_310_271.aspx
136. “Assuming these documents are authentic — and it’s hard to believe that the cerebral and calculating Uribe would knowingly hand over forgeries to the world media and the Organization of American States”
What? That’s exactly what a cerebral and calculating President would do.
148 Mike S. ARSE’s American affiliate BUTT clearly indicates that the demographic of centenarian Jacobites is 100% Obama !!
136
One of Livingstone’s international icons supports & funds terrorists,what a surprise.
152. He’s in good company, then.
ELLIOT SPITZER - Govenor of NY and major Cllinton supporter linked to prostitution ring!!!!
154 - so the prostitute vote will be going to Clinton. Like old times!
o/t I wouldn’t bet on New York Governor Elliot Spitzer being on anyone’s VP shortlist after this breaking story…
http://www.nytimes.com/
153
Castro,Qaradawi and now Chavez.
136
It’s not new. There have been stories for years about this.
As The Columbian President is supported by the US I listen and read it all with scepticism.
And the articel tallks breathlessly about sanctions against Chavez and an oil embargo.
That’s just nuts and proves the journalist who wrote it don’t have a clue. A properly acting oil sanctions campaign against Venezuelan oil would raise oil prices $10 to $15 to over $120 per barrel and lead to shortages in the US..
Sure I can just see Bush doing that in an ELction Year: would ensure McCain lost properly.
Reinforces my view of US journalists… not that UK ones are any better…The Telegraph two weeks ago said war is coming Venezuela/ Columbia thn last week peace broke out:-)
138 - no, to be fair those are the figures for Norfolk and Suffolk only.
The figures for the four counties show an even greater decline.
158. WaPo editorials on Venezuela are particularly blood-thirsty. Not sure why.
And they wouldn’t even have the desired effect; China could tool up to process Venezuelan crude very rapidly.
The Tories could clean up in EA at the next election, but unless Cameron can get some votes in the North, it’s a waste of time.