119 Responses to “Chatham and Alyesford”

1. Pete Whitehead

   “Labour did gain neighbouring River ward recently, so they’re picking up a little from the election”

   While more pertinent than a parliamentary by-election in a Labour/Lib Dem marginal in Oldham, this is not exactly telling us much either. The seat they gained was one they actually held in 2007 (on of few in Medway) and which they then lost in a by-election earlier in 2010. The Tory coucnillor elected then resigned in rather bizarre circumstances and Labour narrowly regained it. There was actually a swing to the Conservatives in that by-election relative to 2007

   January 14th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
2. akmd

   ‘Labour should be able to compete in workimng class towns like Gloucester, Swindon, Dover, Bedford and Plymouth’

   I’m not so sure about Dover. While the others are viable targets, I think Dover has gone too far the other way to be won back on a lowish average swing. Even if they get a 5% swing next time, Labour would still just miss out on winning it.

   January 14th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
3. Warofdreams

   Yes, the circumstances were all rather complex, but Labour regained the seat they had lost earlier in the year, closer to the general election, which was the substance of my comment. If the figures on Local Authority Byelection Results are correct, the swing from 2007 was actually to Labour from the Conservatives, but it was only about 1.6%.

   Given the surrounding circumstances, I suppose there may have been other reasons why the Tories lost the seat – also, UKIP stood in the second by-election, but not the first.

   January 14th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
4. Tim Jones

   The swing in Dover was huge but it has always been quite a competitive seat and I’d expect that to continue although the boundary changes once AV has been rejected might make many of the target seats in the south even harder for Labour to win

   January 14th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
5. Frederic Stansfield

   A reduced number of Westminster seats could help Labour in Medway, depending on the boundary changes.

   I think previous posts overlook just how many seats Labour lost in the South. They cannot afford to write off half the country – as Ed Milibdand recognised when he came to Gillingham after he had been elected leader. This is not just a matter of electoral calculus – we cannot go on having England so divided. And frankly, many from the North of England and Scotland are positively vindictive against the South. They forget areas like Medway that are far from rich, with many unemployed. And perhaps they would have the kindness to realise that being unemployed in somewhere like Medway or Sheppey is actually worse than being unemployed in the North because prices and housing costs are higher.

   With respect to Labour’s position in this part of the world – Medway and Kent – I think we will find come the local elections that Labour will take back a lot of the tactical vote that had diverted from the to the LibDems. This may not help Labour, because it suggests they may get a higher swing in hopeless seats than in former marginals. There are a number of seats in Kent (e.g. Canterbury) which the Conservatives have held for generations whilst rarely getting half the vote.

   January 15th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
6. akmd

   You make a good point regarding Labour’s status in the south outside London, Frederic, but the problem is that Labour did so poorly here even a swing to them of 5% would not give them that many more seats in this part of the country. They would end up gaining 18 seats in the southern and eastern areas outside London which is certainly a significant improvement on there current situation but they would still be absent in places like Kent, Surrey, Dorset and West Sussex so they would be unrepresented through a good deal of that part of the UK.

   January 15th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
7. Warofdreams

   Although noting Labour would be unrepresented in Surrey is much like noting the Conservatives are unlikely to win a seat in Sheffield. Labour haven’t won a seat in what is now Surrey since Spelthorne in 1945, and that was only because the seat included much of what is now Hayes and Harlington, and Feltham and Heston.

   January 15th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
8. Frederic Stansfield

   Sheffield Hallam used to be a safe Conservative seat. Things can change.

   If a seat is lost at one election, the party losing needs,, before we consider the effect of other parties (which are not a big issue in a seat like this at present) the same swing to regain it as was achieved by the party that took over the seat. Which is obviously not unachievable because it has been achieved.

   The real trouble for Labour is not just the swing, but their long-term decline in the South. This is partly for economic factors, which Labour is effectively trying to address when they keep on talking about “New Labour” etc. But they never achieve it, and they are never going to achieve it, whilst they are full of introspective tribalism and what comes across as vindictiveness against not very well off Southerners who have never done them any harm. This is not addressed by well-meaning but excessively local issue orientated backbench MPs in the North and Wales, almost chosen for their blandness and therefore lack of ideas and innovation. I am leaving aside Scotland where lack of real responsibilities for MPs leads to even worse.

   Given the involvement of the LibDems in the Coalition, until some realistic moderate left alternative emerges in places like Kent and Dorset there will be serious problems for English democracy.

   January 17th, 2011 at 9:52 am
9. Tim Jones

   I suspect much of the problem for Labour stems from the fact that many working class voters in the south misguidedly see themselves as middle class and thus vote accordingly

   You wouldn’t expect Labour to do well in counties like Surrey and Buckinghamshire but when they are unable to win a solitary seat in counties like Essex and Kent – which have scores of working class (and in some cases industrial) seats, then one can see how grim things are for them in the south

   I don’t see any alternative left-of-centre emerging to challenge the Tories in the south as the Comnservatives are too well entrenched and I suspect the emergence of highly Euroskeptic, immigration disliking Tory MPs – who can connect with working class voters – will only hinder Labour further

   January 17th, 2011 at 10:51 am
10. BT SAYS...

    In a way it’s a bit like Scotland for the Tories, where many areas are ‘natural Tory’ territory for them but who turned against them since the 60s. Labour are at least in with a shout in many seats in the South and South-east where they will likely achieve 2nd place and become the main challengers after the next election (unless the tide massively shifts back to LDs by 2015), excepting the South-west of course where they are a country mile off.

    January 17th, 2011 at 11:30 am
11. Tim Jones

    ‘Labour are at least in with a shout in many seats in the South and South-east where they will likely achieve 2nd place and become the main challengers after the next election, excepting the South-west of course where they are a country mile off.’

    The South West has always been a poor area for Labour (especially the rural parts) but they did at least hold seats in Plymouth, Bristol and Exeter – which was better than their performance in the South East where they lost plenty of urban and working class seats

    January 17th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
12. Andy JS

    The Conservative MP for Chatham from 1918-29 (and Wallasey from 1929-31), Lieutenant-Colonel John Moore-Brabazon, was the first British person to fly an aeroplane in 1909 and the first to become a qualified pilot in 1910.

    March 23rd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
13. Andy JS

    Something drastic must have been proposed in this constituency because the UKPR notionals give the Tories a majority of 14,947 compared to 6,069 at the last election. The name of the seat remains the same however.

    September 19th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
14. Warofdreams

    Without looking into this too deeply, neighbouring Gillinham and Rainham goes the other way – a majority of 8,680 for the Tories in 2010 is cut to a notional 4,714, making that the third best Labour target in Kent (after Dover and the new Margate & Ramsgate).

    September 19th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
15. Andy JS

    I think the Luton & Wayfield ward is one of those which is making the difference here.

    September 19th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
16. Pete Whitehead

    Yes Luton & Wayfield (strongly Labour) is being exchanged with Gillingham for Hempstead & Wigmore. IN addition the even more strongly Labour Chatham Central is moving to Rochester while Rochester south moves the other way. So Gillingham lose a Tory part of Gillingham to Chatham in exchange for a Labour bit of Chatham and Rcohester loses a Tory bit of Rochester to Chatham in exchange for another Labour bit of Chatham. It sounds like an utter dogs breakfast and that the name Chatham would hardly any longer be justified for this seat

    September 19th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
17. Andy JS

    So the centre of Chatham is no longer going to be in the Chatham & Aylesford constituency, a bit like the centre of Gloucester no longer being in the Gloucester constituency.

    September 19th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
18. LBernard

    A Chatham seat without the centre of Chatham included in the seat just does not make any sense.

    November 8th, 2011 at 9:13 am
19. DJ

    “A Chatham seat without the centre of Chatham included in the seat just does not make any sense.”

    It’s worth nothing that the current Chatham seat doesn’t actually have the centre of Chatham in as it is. Chatham High Street isn’t in Chatham and Aylesford!

    November 26th, 2011 at 7:56 pm