Skip to main content

So, what happened in NorwichSouth?

So, what happened in Norwich South? I confess, I was gobsmacked by the result. I didn't expect that we would win - but I didn't expect that the LibDems would win, either. How come the LibDems won in Norwich South, while they gained hardly anywhere else, and had a shockingly bad night overall, losing seats in total, contrary to everyone's expectations?
I knew that we were losing some votes in our 'heartlands' to the LibDems, due to people voting 'tactically'; but I thought that we were more than making up for those with votes that we were winning off Labour, in its heartlands. And we did. I was right about that. And there was the clue. In retrospect, I should have seen it coming.
The BBC's graph of what happened to the four Parties's results in Norwich South told the story. The Tories and LibDems flatlined; in fact, the LibDem percentage actually dropped slightly! But the Labour percentage dropped catastrophically - by almost precisely the same amount that the Green percentage rose by...
Basically, Labour lost thousands of votes to the Greens, on the Council estates etc. of Norwich - and the LibDems were therefore victorious, without having to do anything except hold more or less steady.
So there we have it. Irony of ironies; a huge advance for the Greens; no advance for the LibDems; and yet they take the seat off Charles Clarke.
This is why the LibDems won in Norwich South, whereas they didn't win in much stronger targets of theirs around the country, such as for instance Oxford East, to name but one.
The Norwich LibDems are fortunate to have lucked out, benefitting from, not a LibDem surge (there was none) but a Green surge.
 

Comments

Anonymous said…
interesting result....I thought from reading your blog/twitter that the Greens had it in the bag. Anyhow if you didn't think greens would win and neither would the lib dems who did you beleive would win? Labour or Tory. Isuppose the thing to bear in mind is that people tend to vote differently in local elections than general elections, maybe they just didn't think the greens offered the right solutions at a national level. It must be said that Ramsey's comment about not easing the last bottleneck on the A11 didn't go down well with a lot of people i spoke to.

and finally a flippant comment...Ramsey was the only Norwich south candidate whose ears didn't stick out!

GS
7 May 2010 at 14:47
Anonymous said…
Excellent analysis, Rupert. I looked at the results this morning and came to the same conclusions.

The good news - we no longer have Charles Clarke as our MP. But the bad news is that we now have a Lib Dem.
7 May 2010 at 16:47
Rupert said…
I thought Labour would probably hold the seat, as did most observers and participants here (undoubtedly including Clarke himself).
I certainly never even remotely claimed that we had it 'in the bag'!
7 May 2010 at 20:30
Anonymous said…
i think it is an excellent result for us. It shows that Labour voters will vote Green. To be electable we have to show people that our policies make sense to them and they can identify with the Green party. We do not want to end up like New Labour and obtain power for the sake of it. Green politics is about a different mindset but politics is also about the art of compromise as well,yet not ofcourse at any cost.
7 May 2010 at 22:49
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more