Comments on: Eltham

By: Joe James B

Joe James B — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:53:35 +0000

Yes of course.
I’m not sure 44.9% (43.9% UK) was ever that likely in 2010
because
much as I’d like it to be true
there isn’t that core vote for the 2 main parties that
there still was in 1979 where they could both do well
at the same time.

But I acknowledge we should have hit 40.

I think you’re a little bit disparaging about some of the increases we got though, and the candidates who did well.

Of course, we seem to be heading back towards a bigger two party vote at the next election,
although it would still be a surprise if it hit more than about 76% with the number of others,
and I also believe the LDs will hold about 15-16%.

By: richard

richard — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:13:21 +0000

“Labour’s vote also stood up nationally very well in 1979.”

It did but there was a big increase in the Conservative vote.

Compare with 2010 when Labour nearly collapsed but with only a small Conservative increase.

An indication there of how poorly Brown and Cameron did compared with Callaghan and Thatcher.

It really was a clash of the pygmies.

By: richard

richard — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:10:19 +0000

Fascinating that two people who didn’t vote Conservative in 2010 are so sure that Cameron was such a great eletoral asset.

Well he didn’t work his charms on them did he!

By: sbjme19

sbjme19 — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:54:14 +0000

The Tory candidate also had to contend with a higher BNP/UKIP vote here than in Hammersmith, Westminster North and Tooting.

By: Pete Whitehead

Pete Whitehead — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:58:26 +0000

I agree with HH. I questioned the notional results some time ago upthread on the same grounds and the result here and in Greenwich & woolwich did seem to justify this to some extent

By: Joe James B

Joe James B — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:30:16 +0000

The Labour vote stood up well, or increased for the very reason that they were in deep trouble.
I always doubted seats like Westminster North and Hammersmith would come off because they are blocks of opposing support where differential turnout matters more than swings.

Labour’s vote also stood up nationally very well in 1979.

By: LBernard

LBernard — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:06:15 +0000

I think half the problem with the selection of candidates for 2010 was that Conservative HQ underestimated how well the Labour vote would hold up. There seems to have been a view (in my opinion)that because Labour were so unpopular nationally we would naturally benefit in places like Westminister North, Hampstead and Eltham. I thought allowing Shaun Bailey to stand in Hammersmith made sense considering his West London routes but Gold was certainly not a good choice for this seat.

By: H.Hemmelig

H.Hemmelig — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:55:49 +0000

The notional figures for Eltham in 2005 do not make sense for me.

IMO the addition of solid Labour territory from Greenwich & Woolwich should have added 1000-1500 to Labour’s majority here. According to the notional result above, the majority barely changed.

This partly explains the poor performance of the Tories here (and their relatively good performance in Greenwich & Woolwich).

By: Tim Jones

Tim Jones — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:39:03 +0000

‘If the Conservatives hadn’t had their candidates in Eltham, Tooting, Hammersmith and Westminster N (possibly Hampstead as well) handpicked by Cameron and instead had chosen a good local councillor what would the results have been?’

That’s quite possible although I think they still would have been tight

Daniel Gold was perhaps a poor choice for a socially conservative seat like Eltham, Shaun Bailey seemed out of his depth on any issue outside his area of youth issues and Joanna Cash was simply a rotten candidate

Had they picked more suitable chandidates they might well have swung it

By: Robin Hood

Robin Hood — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:38:19 +0000

@ Tim Jones

Agreed.