Hazel Grove - General Political Discussion

[Duke Fame]

I may be wrong but I suspect Haward and Darran are talking at cross purposes? I am sure that the Lib Dem newsletters where they say one thing in one part of the country, and the diametrically opposite point of view in a different constituency, are funded by the Party.

However, the propaganda newspapers (with multiple photos of the leading Councillors), published by Councils across the country, are indeed paid for by Council Tax payers. Strange how we can still afford them, really, what with the swinging cuts, austerity, cost of living crisis, back to the 1930s, blah blah blah.....

Over in Manchester, they aren't having a 1/2m pop concert for D list celebs and council nobodys this year. It really is 1930's spending kicking in but they still have a bigger budget than Stockport (& pretty much every other council in the country) .

[sgk]

...I'm led to believe that David Cameron himself was in Chadkirk yesterday.

Yep -> David Cameron describes Stockport as a 'vital' general election battleground

[Middle wood]

Clearly the Conservatives feel that they have a chance with the Hazel Grove constituency as I'm led to believe that David Cameron himself was in Chadkirk yesterday.

It was, after all, in Conservative hands with Tom Arnold for many years. I've had telephone canvassers on the phone just this week from them too. One downside for Marple residents will no doubt be endless leaflets from the Tories and Lib Dems. These never sway my decision but a necessary evil of elections I suppose. Thankfully no UKIP have come my way yet.

[Duke Fame]

And you have made no effort to keep in touch since.

That's a little unfair, I know he & his good lady have stood for election before but there is no obligation to access the electorate via every portal. If that were a guide to electability, i would be MP straight away (although it's not a bad idea)

[Howard]

I've been following the discussions but didn't want to get involved. However I thought you may want to see the European election results for the Hazel Grove constituency. They are the most recent National election results.

UKIP.    28.14%
Con.     23.85%
Libdem 20.28%
Labour. 15%
Other.   12.73%

Plus people are well aware that the Euro elections are a form of proportional representation and the national elections are FPTP where they tend to vote tactically.

[Duke Fame]

I've been following the discussions but didn't want to get involved. However I thought you may want to see the European election results for the Hazel Grove constituency. They are the most recent National election results.

UKIP.    28.14%
Con.     23.85%
Libdem 20.28%
Labour. 15%
Other.   12.73%

I know you polled well in the Euro elections but so you should, it's your top issue. Your problem is that the logical vote ito achieve  UKIP's aims is to vote conservatives. The only party that can deliver a route out of Europe is the conservatives even if they will not actually be supporting a split with the EU, it's the only way to get an EU exit on the cards.

[DarranPalmer]

I've been following the discussions but didn't want to get involved. However I thought you may want to see the European election results for the Hazel Grove constituency. They are the most recent National election results.

UKIP.    28.14%
Con.     23.85%
Libdem 20.28%
Labour. 15%
Other.   12.73%

[ringi]

I am now thinking that only the Tories can keep Labour out, as the Lib Dems may make a pack with Labour….

[Bowden Guy]

"Only the Liberal Democrats can keep the Tories out here"...... (accompanied by dodgy histogram illustrating suspiciously small Labour vote in 2010)

[Dave]

the [Lib Dem] majority will certainly be reduced (to around 5 or 6%?).

That's my gut feeling too - I think Ms Smart will probably scrape home, unless Mr Taylor manages to attract some disgruntled Lib Dem voters, in which case it could be 'vote Taylor, get Wragg'! 

[Duke Fame]

Interestingly, it seems that Conservative Central Office have included Hazel Grove in a list of 40 target seats to win in the forthcoming general election. See http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/05/by-mark-wallacefollowmarkon-twitter-in-october-cchq-announced-that-it-was-launching-a-4040-strategy-aimed-at-winning-the.html

With a Lib Dem majority of over 6,000 at the 2010 election, that can't be because it's regarded as marginal, so it must presumably be because they think they are in with a chance because of Sir Andrew's retirement.   

So no doubt we can expect a much more visible Tory campaign, with bus loads of canvassers coming here, and lots of money thrown at leafleting and postering etc.

6,000 is a sizeable majority to overturn, so on the face of it it seems unlikely, but stranger things have happened!  And Mr Wragg, unlike Ms Smart, is a genuinely local candidate; that will no doubt count for something with some voters.

I think Michael is also counting on the stunell retirement factor, I think that why he chose Labour over the other more suitable political vehicles and I think he's been quite calculating.

Not sure of his opening gambit. He says wages falling behind cost of living with fuel at its lowest for yonks, 1930's spending (which was rather high, war prep and mass house building). The two sticks labour have have snapped.

[Melancholyflower]

With a Lib Dem majority of over 6,000 at the 2010 election, that can't be because it's regarded as marginal, so it must presumably be because they think they are in with a chance because of Sir Andrew's retirement.   

Bang on. There's always a bit of a vacuum when long-term MPs retire, and Stunell's majority isn't that big really - a quick look at the stats shows his share has been eroded steadily since 1997. The Tories have targeted this for a good reason.

[Bowden Guy]

If the Conservatives were to take Hazel Grove it would result in the Lib Dem parliamentary party being reduced to the size of the Liberals in the 1970s. The table below shows the Lib Cem constituencies ranked by size of majority.....

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Lib.htm

Personally, I can't see it happening, despite Lord Ashcroft's dosh but the majority will certainly be reduced (to around 5 or 6%?).

[Dave]

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Tories got in..... Someone mentioned party organisations earlier, and I do feel that this has a disproportionate effect in marginal seats. The Tories concentration and funding on these seats in 2010 was pretty crucial.

Interestingly, it seems that Conservative Central Office have included Hazel Grove in a list of 40 target seats to win in the forthcoming general election. See http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2013/05/by-mark-wallacefollowmarkon-twitter-in-october-cchq-announced-that-it-was-launching-a-4040-strategy-aimed-at-winning-the.html

With a Lib Dem majority of over 6,000 at the 2010 election, that can't be because it's regarded as marginal, so it must presumably be because they think they are in with a chance because of Sir Andrew's retirement.   

So no doubt we can expect a much more visible Tory campaign, with bus loads of canvassers coming here, and lots of money thrown at leafleting and postering etc.

6,000 is a sizeable majority to overturn, so on the face of it it seems unlikely, but stranger things have happened!  And Mr Wragg, unlike Ms Smart, is a genuinely local candidate; that will no doubt count for something with some voters.

[Duke Fame]

Getting back to the original thread subject, as I've only lived in Marple for 2 years, I will be very interested in the outcome of the election in Hazel Grove.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Tories got in. Lib Dems have come out the worst of the coalition partners, and the Tories have more campaign funds - it could make a difference.

Forgive me for going on about the voting system, but I really do feel voters missed a huge opportunity to give British politics a shot in the arm when they rejected AV. Like it or not, it would have ensured a much more closely fought election in much more parliamentary seats than is the norm with the usual marginals.

Someone mentioned party organisations earlier, and I do feel that this has a disproportionate effect in marginal seats. The Tories concentration and funding on these seats in 2010 was pretty crucial.

I'm all for PR but didn't vote for the AV as I simply thought it no better than PFTP.

Ironically, the Lib dems will retain 30 odd seats despite having a falling % of the vote. UKIP voters will of course be under-represented.