I'm sorry but from what I've read and learnt, Crewe and Nantwich is anything but a safe labour seat.
Labour have declared that Gwyneth Dunwoody's daughter will take her place as candidate at the by-election. Now surely that isn't very Labour of them. Select someone for a position of power based purely on their ancestry and not their ability and who also lives over 150 miles away from the constituency whilst their mother is still warm.
Personally, this sly tactic will most likely not wash with the public and I suspect that Labour will lose this.
1 hour ago
6 comments:
It's Labour's 135th most marginal. So that's kind of safe territory. An 8% swing for the Tories to gain it is slightly twmpy.
Newport West is more marginal. John Redwood's Wokingham seat has a 15.4% majority over the Fib Dems, whereas Crewe has a 15.5% majority over the Tories. so by your definition John Redwood's seat is a marginal.
You Tories are rattled. You thought this seat was a cert after the local elections. You all fained false disgust about the timing, the family approved, so that stole your thunder.
Then a Tory topped the poll in Crewe West. The west end of Crewe used to be called "little Moscow"
So you all prayed for some faceless new Labour clone. what you got is the only person who could retain the seat. I'm not saying she will, but she's the best bet.
Look, I think I spoke for both of us when I said I wouldn't try to change my blogging (basically, I wouldn't turn the blog into a page of Tory spin) after joining the Conservative party, and I like to think that is the case. My post regarding Gwyneth Dunwoody was purely a personal thing, I decided to write it as soon as I heard the news. Ben and I actually discussed this blog before he posted it, and we decided that it was simply a case of poor reporting.
Nothing partisan here, I know it is not a marginal, but then again it is not a safe seat either. Pontefract and Castleford is a safe seat, Crewe and Nantwich is not. I suppose it all comes down to how we define a safe seat, but that is hardly an issue that splits down party lines, is it? :P
As for the by election itself, I am worried, yes. Look at the balls up that happened with Tony Lit, and I fear that failing to gain the seat would cause similar publicity. Is that fair? Not really, after all, it is not especially marginal, and we are crap at by elections. Is it a fact? Yes, without doubt.
Arnie. Sorry, the jibe about the timing wasn't aimed at you.
There have been a lot of Tories and Fib Dems who have been banging on and on about this elsewhere.
Actually, the Fib Dems are the worst. The day the writ was moved for the by-election they ditched their old candidate and replaced them, new website up complete with the misleading graphs showing they could win. Then they complain about the speed of things.
I have a high regard for many Lib Dems, but a more two-faced party it would be difficult to find.
Oh one more thing.
Labour only held Crewe & Nantwich in 1983 by 290 votes. The seat had had some boundary changes since then. Rural areas to the west of Nantwich have gone into Eddisbury, Haslington has come in from Congleton and most recently Audlem has gone to Eddisbury. Haslington voted Labour towards the end of the Major government, but Tory other times. An improvement on Wrenbury, where a supporter is classed as someone who lets a Labour canvasser run down the (very long) drive before releasing the dogs. Helps your hurdling practice though!
So the 1983 majority would have been about 1,000 I imagine, and had it not been for Gwyneth Dunwoody probably a Tory majority of about 8,000. (The notional majority for the new seat in 1983 was 3000 Con) But of course, that was an apalling year for Labour. So the definition of safeness is a sliding scale ;-)
Certainly, by-elections tend to make safeness void.
If Labour win this seat at the by-election then I think it will be even tougher for them at the general with no sympathy vote.
There is always a bigger vote for an incumbant politician. The focus won't be on just that seat at the General Election and people will be voting for who runs the country rather than to kick the government.
Up until 1992, most by-election gains from the Tories were reversed at the next election, and most near misses went back to their previous level of safeness.
Here's the list of gains that went back to the Tories in 1992:
Langbaugh, Kincardine & Deeside, Monmouth, Ribble Valley, Eastbourne, Mid Staffordshire, Vale of Glamorgan.
Richmond was won by William Hague with a majority of 2,634. At the next General election his majority was 23,504! Epping Forest was held by Steve Norris with a majority of 4,504. At the next General Election it was 20,188. Kensington, by election majority: 815, GE Maj: 3,548
As they say on the financial adverts, past performance is no guarantee of future gains, but it's an interesting discussion anyway.
Of course, if the Lib Dems were to win it, as they used to do in the 80s & 90s, then they could be in for years. Look at Newbury, Berwick, Truro, Rochdale to name but a few.
Post a Comment