UK Election 2010

[afleitch]

Yes; we're on election footing too. I've been given word of our target seats (as opposed to simply a list of marginals) and have been told some interesting snippets that I will of course not be posting on a public forum

[afleitch]

Why would you want AV? It's an even less proportional system than FPTP.

Unfortunately I have seen many Labourites back this system thinking that Labour will always be seen as the 'least worst' option and benefit from AV. However on a forced choice ballot Labour haven't been performing well for quite some time...

[Harry Hayfield]

Yes; we're on election footing too. I've been given word of our target seats (as opposed to simply a list of marginals) and have been told some interesting snippets that I will of course not be posting on a public forum

This has always confused me slightly. In 2005, the media (Sky News) produced a list of Lib Dem "decapiation targets" which as we know only produced one hit in Westmorland. When the parties talk about their targets (as opposed to those suggested by the media) does margininity play any role or are they based on past local election results?

[afleitch]

Yes; we're on election footing too. I've been given word of our target seats (as opposed to simply a list of marginals) and have been told some interesting snippets that I will of course not be posting on a public forum

This has always confused me slightly. In 2005, the media (Sky News) produced a list of Lib Dem "decapiation targets" which as we know only produced one hit in Westmorland. When the parties talk about their targets (as opposed to those suggested by the media) does margininity play any role or are they based on past local election results?

A bit of both. The Tories have probably no chance of winning Westmoreland for example, but have other Lib Dem targets in sight (mostly urban/metropolitan) The Tories targets are less about simply margins and more about types of voters and therefore types of seats. You may see a pattern (not in terms of numbers of seats alone) closer to '79 emerging rather than say '92.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Tories targets are less about simply margins and more about types of voters and therefore types of seats. You may see a pattern (not in terms of numbers of seats alone) closer to '79 emerging rather than say '92.

I knew there had to be a reason for you going on about that all the time

I remember noticing in 2008 the strength of Tory performances in areas with lots of people with mortgages - there is certainly a '79ish echo in that (not in the specifics so much, as what such a pattern represents and where it tends to occur). And while European elections typically say very little, the Tory strength in high-growth areas was pretty striking (I mean, even more than usual). I wonder whether there might even be a correlation between areas where Labour did well in 2001 and areas with above-average swings in 2010. I mean, other than St Albans, obviously.

[Silent Hunter]

Why would you want AV? It's an even less proportional system than FPTP.

Unfortunately I have seen many Labourites back this system thinking that Labour will always be seen as the 'least worst' option and benefit from AV. However on a forced choice ballot Labour haven't been performing well for quite some time...

Personally, I favour a 50% PR, 50% FPTP system, similar to that in Germany.

[Franzl]

Personally, I favour a 50% PR, 50% FPTP system, similar to that in Germany.

I would favor such a 50-50 system, but that is not what Germany currently has. The party list votes determines the composition of parliament, and ALL 100% of the seats are distributed proportionally to that vote.

If a party wins, let's say, 250 seats due to the party list vote, and wins in 150 districts through the constitunency vote, those 150 people are taken away from the party list, and only 100 from the list make it through.

[Silent Hunter]

Personally, I favour a 50% PR, 50% FPTP system, similar to that in Germany.

I would favor such a 50-50 system, but that is not what Germany currently has. The party list votes determines the composition of parliament, and ALL 100% of the seats are distributed proportionally to that vote.

If a party wins, let's say, 250 seats due to the party list vote, and wins in 150 districts through the constitunency vote, those 150 people are taken away from the party list, and only 100 from the list make it through.

I knew that- mostly. I was thinking more of Scotland, actually.

[Harry Hayfield]

Here's a list of the 41 Con targets needed for an overall majority in 1979
Number   Name
1   Dunbartonshire, East
2   Galloway
3   Berwick-upon-Tweed
4   Lichfield and Tamworth
5   Rossendale
6   Bury and Radcliffe
7   Hemel Hempstead
8   Gloucestershire, West
9   Birmingham, Selly Oak
10   Welwyn and Hatfield
11   Southampton, Test
12   Moray and Nairn
13   Bristol, North West
14   Redbridge, Ilford, North
15   Sowerby
16   Nelson and Colne
17   Perth and East Perthshire
18   Oxford
19   Leicester South
20   Bolton, West
21   Ipswich
22   Portsmouth, North
23   Isle of Wight
24   Huddersfield, West
25   Gravesend
26   Peterborough
27   Coventry, South West
28   Rochester and Chatham
29   Northampton, North
30   Loughborough
31   Brighouse and Spenborough
32   Chorley
33   Stockport, North
34   Redbridge, Ilford, South
35   Preston, North
36   South Angus
37   Isle of Ely
38   Ealing, North
39   Kingswood
40   Liverpool, Garston
41   Berwick and East Lothian

And here are the 116 Con targets needed for a majority in 2010

Number   Name of constituency
1   Gillingham and Rainham
2   Crawley
3   York Outer
4   Romsey and Southampton North
5   Harlow
6   Cheltenham
7   Croydon Central
8   Portsmouth North
9   Battersea
10   Hove
11   Somerton and Frome
12   Eastleigh
13   Westmorland and Lonsdale
14   Milton Keynes North
15   Stroud
16   Dartford
17   South Basildon and East Thurrock
18   Ealing Central and Acton
19   City of Chester
20   Hereford and South Herefordshire
21   Colne Valley
22   Cardiff North
23   Hastings and Rye
24   Calder Valley
25   Stourbridge
26   Carshalton and Wallington
27   Milton Keynes South
28   Corby
29   Taunton Deane
30   Perth and North Perthshire
31   Vale of Glamorgan
32   South Swindon
33   South Dorset
34   Northampton South
35   High Peak
36   Loughborough
37   Aberconwy
38   Watford
39   Birmingham, Edgbaston
40   Stafford
41   Angus
42   Broxtowe
43   Chippenham
44   Burton
45   Brighton, Kemptown
46   Bury North
47   Redditch
48   Rugby 
49   Pendle
50   Wolverhampton South West
51   Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South
52   South Ribble
53   South Derbyshire
54   Bristol North West
55   Dumfries and Galloway
56   Tamworth
57   Torbay
58   Cleethorpes
59   Sutton and Cheam
60   North Swindon
61   Westminster North
62   Worcester
63   North Cornwall
64   Harrow East
65   Richmond Park
66   Great Yarmouth
67   Cheadle
68   Eltham
69   Brigg and Goole
70   Portsmouth South
71   Bedford
72   Stevenage
73   Hendon
74   Chatham and Aylesford
75   Brentford and Isleworth
76   Bradford West
77   Rossendale and Darwen
78   Hammersmith
79   Blackpool North and Cleveleys
80   Halifax
81   Lancaster and Fleetwood
82   Dewsbury
83   Dudley South
84   Northampton North
85   Edinburgh South
86   Warrington South
87   Truro and Falmouth
88   Wirral South
89   Southport
90   Lincoln
91   North West Leicestershire
92   Wyre Forest
93   Gedling
94   Halesowen and Rowley Regis
95   Nuneaton
96   Ochil and South Perthshire
97   Leeds North West
98   Brecon and Radnorshire
99   Camborne and Redruth
100   Warwick and Leamington
101   Dover
102   Keighley
103   Newton Abbot
104   North Devon
105   Poplar and Limehouse
106   Stirling
107   Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport
108   Dudley North
109   Elmet and Rothwell
110   Reading West
111   Tynemouth
112   Morecambe and Lunesdale
113   Pudsey
114   South East Cornwall
115   Ipswich
116   Bolton West

Does this mean we should look at the type of seat not the actual margininty of the seat?

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

Published on Tuesday
http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/426473/Greg-Callus%3BIain-Dale%3BAndrew-Hawkins/Guide-to-the-2010-General-Election

Ooooh.  To t'bookshop here I come.

[afleitch]

Published on Tuesday
http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/426473/Greg-Callus%3BIain-Dale%3BAndrew-Hawkins/Guide-to-the-2010-General-Election

Ooooh.  To t'bookshop here I come.

Worth a look.

[AMOLAK MANN]

Published on Tuesday
http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/426473/Greg-Callus%3BIain-Dale%3BAndrew-Hawkins/Guide-to-the-2010-General-Election

Will be intersting to what various pundits are predicting as th result in this book.Does anyone know if Reuters are doing a prediction panel of the great and the good this time?

[afleitch]

Published on Tuesday
http://www.politicos.co.uk/books/426473/Greg-Callus%3BIain-Dale%3BAndrew-Hawkins/Guide-to-the-2010-General-Election

Will be intersting to what various pundits are predicting as th result in this book.Does anyone know if Reuters are doing a prediction panel of the great and the good this time?

Perhaps. Others may keep their cards close to their chest. Pretty much in Tory HQ there is an elephant in the room with 'Landslide' painted on it's back. No one wants to acknowledge it's there.

[afleitch]

Take a look at Bury South. If I have tallied this up correctly the Tories polled more votes in the 2008 Locals than they polled in the 2005 General in thye wards that cover that seat. Its the movements like that, that are quite interesting.

[Harry Hayfield]

So does this mean (using that same logic) that North Warwickshire (ranked Con target 148) which is made up of North Warwickshire district (Locals 2007: Con 52% Lab 39% Lib Dem 6%) should also be a seat of interest?

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

Take a look at Bury South. If I have tallied this up correctly the Tories polled more votes in the 2008 Locals than they polled in the 2005 General in thye wards that cover that seat. Its the movements like that, that are quite interesting.

I grew up in Bury South, so I'd be interested to check this.

2008 locals in Bury South:

Party	Votes	%	Seats
Conservative	10862	39.0	4
Labour	8833	31.7	2
Liberal Democrat	6297	22.6	3
British National Party	1422	5.1	0
English Democrats Party	354	1.3	0
UK Independence Party	89	0.3	0

The English Democrats only stood in Besses (where they polled 13%) and UKIP only in Radcliffe West.  The BNP contested all three Radcliffe wards but didn't stand in Whitefield or Prestwich.

2005 general election result in Bury South:

Ivan Lewis	Lab	19741
Alex Williams	C	10829
Victor d'Albert	LD	6968
Jim Greenhalgh	UKIP	1059
Yvonne Hossack	Ind	557

However, the boundary changes slightly expand the constituency - most of Unsworth ward moves in from the Bury North constituency.  electoralcalculus.co.uk reckons this comes to an extra 5700 voters - since Unsworth is tightly fought between Lab and C at council level I think it's fair to say that on the new boundaries the Conservatives would have polled more than 10862 votes in 2005.

Some info on the candidates in 2005: Ivan Lewis has been the Labour MP since 1997 and has risen to junior minister status.  Alex Williams is a Trafford councillor, representing Altrincham ward at the other end of the tram line.  Vic d'Albert has been a councillor in this constituency for many years, representing Holyrood ward in Prestwich, and has stood for this seat several times.  Yvonne Hossack is a Northamptonshire solicitor who campaigns against care home closures and was named "Woman of the Year 2004" by the Private Eye column "Rotten Boroughs".

[afleitch]

So does this mean (using that same logic) that North Warwickshire (ranked Con target 148) which is made up of North Warwickshire district (Locals 2007: Con 52% Lab 39% Lib Dem 6%) should also be a seat of interest?

In a way. Norfolk North voted Tory in the locals and did again at the by-election. I'm just not a fan of the simply list of (notionalised) target seats; it's a totally different picture to where we stand now.

[Smid]

So does this mean (using that same logic) that North Warwickshire (ranked Con target 148) which is made up of North Warwickshire district (Locals 2007: Con 52% Lab 39% Lib Dem 6%) should also be a seat of interest?

In a way. Norfolk North voted Tory in the locals and did again at the by-election. I'm just not a fan of the simply list of (notionalised) target seats; it's a totally different picture to where we stand now.

In other words: "Uniform Swing is a Mythical Beast" - swings in some seats may be dramatically different to swings in other seats.

[Хahar 🤔]

Personally, I favour a 50% PR, 50% FPTP system, similar to that in Germany.

I would favor such a 50-50 system, but that is not what Germany currently has. The party list votes determines the composition of parliament, and ALL 100% of the seats are distributed proportionally to that vote.

If a party wins, let's say, 250 seats due to the party list vote, and wins in 150 districts through the constitunency vote, those 150 people are taken away from the party list, and only 100 from the list make it through.

It is, in the sense that half the members are PR and half are FPTP. I think.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Apparently, the tories are growing a brain (and maybe a spine).

Longish article from The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6832333.ece

[doktorb]

Labour would love to force AV onto the nation before June 2010, so they can have another term in office. It's typical, really, we LibDems get what we've always wanted but it's not under the circumstances we would like!

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I really think the UK should have at least four different systems to choose MPs, that way it's all totally convoluted and impossible to tell what's going on, giving the establishment (whoever they may be) a much easier path to ignoring the will of the people.


Seriously folks, relax, FPTP isn't broken, so stop trying to fix it.

[Frodo]

At a meeting last night with our local MP, he announced that he expects there to be a general election on May 6th 2010 with the formal dissoultion likely in either the middle of March or in early April.

Is this official? 

[Harry Hayfield]

At a meeting last night with our local MP, he announced that he expects there to be a general election on May 6th 2010 with the formal dissoultion likely in either the middle of March or in early April.

Is this official? 

A general election is never offical until either the Prime Minister leaves for Buckingham Palace on a day when he is not expected to meet her or when the press office give hints that an election is in the offing. That statement is only the view of our local MP but it is a view that several other people, (including a large majority of this forum's membership) agree with

[Harry Hayfield]

In other words: "Uniform Swing is a Mythical Beast" - swings in some seats may be dramatically different to swings in other seats.

It most certainly is (and it's not a new thing either)

National Swing
1951: 1.13% to Con
1955: 1.62% to Con
1959: 1.32% to Con
1964: 3.10% to Lab
1966: 2.69% to Lab
1970: 4.66% to Con
Feb 1974: 0.74% to Lab
Oct 1974: 2.05% to Lab
1979: 5.44% to Con
1983: 3.89% to Con
1987: 1.76% to Lab
1992: 2.06% to Lab
1997: 10.24% to Lab
2001: 1.80% to Con
2005: 3.17% to Con

And yet in every single election you will find gains beyond the national swing and holds within the national swing