Chesham & Amersham...

[diable rouge]

The Hartlepool by-election got its own thread, so why not C&A, after all it's arguably a much bigger, unforeseen shock.

So why did it happen, is it simply a one-off due to distinct local factors, or perhaps a sign of a much more permanent Post-Brexit shift in the political tectonics of the old established north/south/labour/conservative orders?

Tories unsurprisingly have been trying to spin it as solely down to the local issues of HS2 and planning reform, but this conveniently ignores that these are long-term issues going way back over the past decade, with the Tory vote consistently holding-up during that time.

Roland Smith has been quoted on here a few times and he actually lives in the constituency so I was interested in his take on the result.

He's a Tory voter and also voted for Brexit, yet voted for the LDs.

It appears for him it was more about the incompetence of what he calls this Vote Leave Gov. That Tory voters in the Blue Wall are less inclined to 'factor in' Johnson's lies and attempts to shoehorn in a cultural war at every opportunity. That they are not happy that the once party of business is now seen more as the party of spivs, shady deals, and cronyism.

In his Twitter feed he references a thread by a Lib Dem with their take on the result, as some of you don't like clicking on links I've copied it over...

First, obvs, it?s a by-election, the message that ?this won?t change the Gov?t but can change how they see us? resonated, and the Libdems had a brilliant candidate, good recent local elections and a ton of helpers piling in. Tories seemed complacent, voters like to be wooed.

NIMBY issues were part of the campaign - impossible to ignore HS2 locally and it affects the Tory villages more than the towns. Planning concerns showed here - as across SE in May?s elections - but far from the whole story.

So what else was going on? Issues I got on the doorstep and from my family in Amersham were varied but pointed to the Tories being complacent locally and ?nasty? or incompetent nationally.

People here care passionately about education. Many families move here for the (grammar) schools and pay a premium to do so. The impact of the Government?s handling of Covid on schools and exams, and university experiences, has left them livid.

It?s also an older than average demographic - lots of care homes, lots of elderly households. The shockingly incompetent and callous treatment of care home residents, freshly highlighted in election week, undermined the core Conservative vote.

Chesham and Amersham voted Remain. #Brexit may no longer be the main issue but a lot of people work in City, locally-based global tech & pharma companies, lots of educated professionals. Nationalist rhetoric not very popular here.

People did not like the nasty party aspects of today?s Tories. This is an area where there?s a big annual Christian Aid fundraiser, people unhappy about cuts to international aid. Also some disgusted by treatment of well-respected next door MP Dominic Grieve.

Boris was not a hit here either, he?s perambulated around adjacent areas (Henley, London, Uxbridge), seen as unreliable, selfish, a disappointment - and out of touch eg by small business owners, which is a big dent in his brand.

Plus @calibdems have had hardworking councillors in the two towns for years, building up base and tactical votes. People readily understood that only the #LibDems could beat the Tories, and this time they wanted that to happen.

So my take is that if the Conservative Gov?t continues to pursue nasty party policies while taking educated Home Counties for granted, we can expect more election upsets to come.

Although there's no official 'Progressive Alliance', it does look like that those voters who consider themselves to be of that persuasion, took matters into their own hands, with Labour and Greens, together with this substantial swathe of disgruntled Tories, all voting for the Lib Dems. I read somewhere that the LDs are 2nd in about 80 Tory seats, and C&A was considered one of their safest.

One thing that's not been mentioned which I think is an important factor, is that the bogeyman of Corbyn has been removed, thus making it much easier for disgruntled Tories to place their vote elsewhere. At the last election a lot of Tory voters despite being against Johnson/Brexit etc, held their nose and voted Tory. They don't have to do that now...

[Sephiroth]

I agree with pretty much all of what you write rd

But personally, I have to stop myself from reading too much into a single mid term by-election result.

I want it to be the moment we can look back on as when the country started to come out of the trance. But I?ll need to see many more results like it

[alex_b]

I thought that it was interesting in two aspects. A collapse in Green and Labour vote, perhaps people are more open to cooperation post Corbyn. And a similar shift from Tories to LibDems, possibly due to a shift of working age middle class professionals who seem less likely to vote Tory than similar voters a decade ago. Perhaps a third factor is that maybe the taint of the coalition in general and tuition fees specifically is coming off the LibDems.

Not reading too much into a low turnout by election but if Labour and the Lib Dems vote tactically and there?s a shift of middle aged professionals away from the Tories this puts most of the South in play. The challenge for Labour remains that without Scotland and the North there?s no route to a majority.

[BrandNewGuy]

By-elections are easy for people to vote tactically. In general elections, the national noise makes it almost impossible for large numbers of people to see how their local vote can affect the 'bigger picture'. The chances of an anti-Tory Lab/Lib Dem/Green voting agreement are tiny, alas.

[alex_b]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> By-elections are easy for people to vote

> tactically. In general elections, the national

> noise makes it almost impossible for large numbers

> of people to see how their local vote can affect

> the 'bigger picture'. The chances of an anti-Tory

> Lab/Lib Dem/Green voting agreement are tiny, alas.

It was pretty common pre-coalition. The Labour vote in Lib Dem/Tory seats like Bath or Twickenham was tiny and getting tactical votes was a core part of Lib Dem campaigning. Hence all the ?Labour can?t win here? dodgy bar charts that adorned all Lib Dem literature. Whether it?s repeatable in today?s media environment - who knows.

[BrandNewGuy]

But not a national voting agreement, constituency by constituency. The Lib Dems in the past picked up several seats in general elections due to local tactical voting, but that's quite different.

[alex_b]

You?re right. I was referring to your second sentence about the difficulty of large numbers of people (by which I read voters) seeing the bigger picture. I wasn?t referring to a voting agreement between the parties which is almost certainly impossible.

[diable rouge]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn?t referring to a voting agreement between the parties which is almost certainly impossible.

What makes you think this?...

[alex_b]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> alex_b Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I wasn?t referring to a voting agreement between

> the parties which is almost certainly impossible.

>

> What makes you think this?...

Experience? I would love for it to happen but I have little faith that the parties would be able to reach agreement to stand aside for each other.

[diable rouge]

I assume by ''experience'' you're referring to May's time as PM and the subsequent GE'19 when there were calls for the opposition parties to formally work together over Brexit, and even calls for a Gov of national unity?

Ignoring the useless leadership and intransigent nature of both Corbyn and Swinson, that was always going to be a difficult thing to pull off because Brexit crossed party lines. Brexit can now be put aside electorally, whether we rejoin or not is a battle for another day. This is about trying to oust an incompetent and divisive PM and Gov.

I'm not saying a formal alliance will happen, but Starmer and Davey come across as much more rational, pragmatic politicians, so I think it's more likely to happen than previously. There's certainly scope for an unofficial agreement judging by Davey's comment at the weekend when asked if LDs should back Labour in the upcoming Batley by-election, and he replied ''Political parties campaign where they can win.''

Whether it happens or not, this John Redwood tweet shows that the prospect of an alliance worries some in the Gov, especially those like him in vulnerable Blue Wall constituencies...

If Labour were to seek a deal with Greens, Lib Dems and even with SNP for a left wing alliance it means they cease to be a national party fighting every seat to try to win a U.K. majority.

[alex_b]

My view is actually from the same article you?re quoting where Davey also says ?Voters are far smarter than people give them credit for. Liberal Democrat voters may well notice that this is a Labour-held seat with the Tories in a close second, and they?ll draw their own conclusions. But that shouldn?t be stitched up in a back room by party leaders.? I think this rules out parties standing aside for each other.

[diable rouge]

Yep, in a formalised arrangement, but there are ways around it i.e. the campaigning reference, even the Tories dropped back on that front in the London Mayor election. There would also be justification for the LDs not to field candidates in certain constituencies what with them being a much smaller, less resourced and financed party. laboUr not so as I'm fairly sure there's something in their constitution that says something along the lines of they will field a candidate in every constituency in order to give every Labour voter a voice...