Constituency Maps

[????]

well, I've quite enjoyed having a chat with prospective and sitting MPs rather than the TV or websites

[James Barber]

Hi Dulwich Resident,

The BBC website you mention. When was it last updated?

A lot has changed in the last 3-4 weeks.

I've explained to residents the Lib Dem chances in the following way.

In 2005 Labour received 19,000 votes, Lib Dem 10,250, Tory 9,000.

At that time Lib Dems in the national polls on 19% and we're currently much higher. Labour nationally much lower and Tories roughly the same (from memory). Even with border changes we can expect Labour to get fewer votes. In fact much fewer votes. Lib Dem many many more votes and Tories around the same.

Ignoring these siesmic changes would be bizarre.

Local wards. You've mentioned the council elections. With first past the post spreading our efforts in local elections across all seats would be plain stupid. So in local elections we concentrate on ward we can win. With a general election we have to put effort into all wards. This means we stand a really good chance of winning Dulwich Village ward from the Conservatives.

You would'nt happen to live in Dulwich Village ward and be a conservative?

[DulwichResident]

Hi James,

Thanks for your reply to this and other posts.

The BBC website has said for quite a while that the Tories notionally came second in 2005 (after boundary changes). It certainly does at the moment - I've just checked so that I'm not falsely accusing you of anything. (I also checked Ladbrooks last week and the odds on a Conservative victory in Dulwich and West Norwood were 5-1 I think, while a Lib Dem victory was 8-1).

My point isn't really that the Liberals don't stand a chance - I think they do, and with Labour's vote seemingly collapsing, a fair one. But to say that the Conservatives don't stand a chance is not being honest; both parties have about an equal chance, really, don't they?

[Administrator]

Can we keep this thread about "Constituency Maps" please.

[matthew123]

BBC notional indeed has Tories in 2005 as 2nd on 24.5% but the UK Polling Report has Lib Dems in 2nd on 24.1% (with Tories on 22.1%)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/b45.stm

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/dulwichandwestnorwood

Looking at the vote count for 97, 01 and 05 - the Conservatives have collected 11,038 (97), 8,689 (01) and 9,200 (05). The Lib Dems on the other hand almost doubled their vote between 2001 and 2005 to come second with 10,252 votes (at the last General Election). I don't think the redrawn constituency map will bring in any new Conservative voters but perhaps Labour has lost a few die hard wards who'd vote Labour even if a horse was the Labour candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulwich_and_West_Norwood_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

[James Barber]

Hi DulwichResident,

Yesterday Labour in Village ward put out literature saying Conservatives so strong they are the only real contender against them. Why would they do that unless they're desperate to stop people voting Lib Dem. Gordon Brown even visited 'safe' seats including dulwich at the weekend. Why when Labour are fighting for survival would he spend time doing that unless they're no longer safe.

The boundary changes will have an impact. But the Lib Dem in national polls being 50% higher than 2005 elections will have far more significant effect.

Labour actions are clear who they think are the real threat to them.

[DulwichResident]

James, I will say again, I am not saying that the Lib Dems don't have a chance - even with the new boundaries.

I am saying that it is disingenuous to say that ONLY the Lib Dems can win here.

[Penguin68]

But the Lib Dem in national polls being 50% higher than 2005 elections

The fact that the Lib Dems have improved since 2005 nationally is irrelevant - the issue is with this constituency, with its re-drawn boundaries. On the (reasonable) assumption that the Lib Dem vote is up, the concern must be whether that reflects a shift of former Labour or former Conservative voters (as well as an influx of former Lib Dem voters now within the redrawn boundary).

If the movement is from Labour to Lib Dem then the Labour view is correct - to keep the seat they need those Lib Dem sympathisers to return. However Conservatives moving to Lib Dem would be moving even further if they were to vote Labour - they would have to be harbouring a huge grudge against their former party if they were prepared to move that far. And previous Lib Dem voters now included in the constutuency following boundary changes are likely to wish to remain with their party - the more Lib Dems gain in the national vote, even where that doesn't reflect seats gained, the more their moral argument for a change in the voting system is strengthened.

I would note that in 1997 Blair entered Government promising electoral change, a promise reneged on by Brown who resisted it in cabinet. And now they are promising electoral change again. 'Vote Clegg, get Brown, don't get electoral reform' would match the track record here. But 'want Clegg, vote Brown' seems like lunacy.

[James Barber]

Hi DulwichResident,

I've never said only the Lib Dems can win Dulwich & West Norwood.

I've explained how talk about what I think MOST LIKELY.

I really do think it telling that Labour have delivered literature talking up the tories. They would only do that where we live IF they thought Lib Dems bigger threat.

[Penguin68]

They would only do that where we live IF they thought Lib Dems bigger threat.

Threat to what? If they see Lib Dems as capturing the swing vote then Lib Dems are the bigger threat, even where they wouldn't win the seat. Assume (I know these figures are wrong) 10% Lib Dem, 47% Tory, 43% Labour - Labour needs the swing Lib Dem votes to beat the Tories - but Lib Dems aren't, in themselves, a threat to Labour (Labour won't lose to them), but they would lose to the Tories without 'convinced' Lib Dems actually voting for them to keep the Tories out. PLEASE NOTE - FIGURES FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY!!