Boundary changes for our constituency (Debate)

Fri 21 Jun, 08:22

Is Count Binface related in any way to Screaming Lord Sutch

Wed 19 Jun, 08:47

Count Binface has now been endorsed by the Daily Star.
Meanwhile, The Guardian has been out and about in Bicester……

Mon 17 Jun, 21:24

I think Count Binface might have played delta blues one Saturday night at the R&C. But I was probably on the Old Rosie so may not be a reliable witness.

Mon 17 Jun, 20:34

I am delighted to hear it! And as far as I know, I have never met Mister Binface (unless he frequents The Rose & Crown).

And if Wallace and Gromit are to be knighted for Services to Wensleydale, then the little grocer's shop on the corner opposite The Greyhound in Corfe should also be knighted for Services to Dorset Blue Vinny, IMHO England's finest cheese!

Mon 17 Jun, 20:25

Charlie, you will be pleased to know that your policy on requiring politicians to live within the constituency has been taken up by the leading contender to be our next Prime Minister. I refer, of course, to Count Binface.

(Wait. Has anyone ever seen Charlie and Count Binface in the same room?)

Mon 17 Jun, 19:04 (last edited on Mon 17 Jun, 19:04)

While I really am in two minds about the desirability of PR, I can't think of anything more retrograde than imposing localised residential requirements.

What they'd do is prevent someone in, for example, Manchester from standing in Liverpool (or vv) - unless they're rich gits who can afford to buy a new house to secure a nomination. Meanwhile, a rich dunderhead living in Notting Hill can easily afford to keep a house in - say - Dean to secure a nomination in West Oxfordshire. Because that's essentially how most of our recent MPs came to be able to nurse potential seats round here.

Not, of course, that any of the affluent Tory nominees before Mr Courts were dunderheads: Charlbury MPs used to be ill-advised, but till 2016 they were all damn sharp. They had access to loadsa their own, or their partner's, dosh though. And the Oxfordshire. Cotswolds constitute, as we all know, precisely the kind of place people with dosh want to keep a second house in.

The problem with the gene pool of our MPs ISN'T people representing seats 25 miles away from where they've lived lately: indeed the proportion of MPs  representing where they live is actually growing. The real problem is the bizarre, and still growing, lack of diverse experience among the 650 of them. To be honest, I doubt PR would do much to change this - but residence requirements would ossify this problem for even longer.

Mon 17 Jun, 10:28 (last edited on Mon 17 Jun, 11:29)

"Get Voting" has now made its tactical voting recommendation for Banbury.

Why vote Labour in Banbury?

Banbury's boundaries have changed and demographics have shifted, making it a Labour target for the first time. The Conservatives narrowly led in the May 2024 local elections, with Labour second and Lib Dems third. The latest general election voting intention polling shows the Conservatives leading by less than one percentage point. Neither the Lib Dems nor the Greens are targeting the seat, but their vote share could split the progressive vote and allow the Tories to hold the seat. Tactical voting could be crucial in Banbury.

Sun 16 Jun, 17:43 (last edited on Sun 16 Jun, 17:44)

Charlie, I agree. I am in favour of certain types of PR, but find most types of PR too anonymous, with the areas represented by a specific elected representative far too large. And, despite what Claire Wilding says below about the party-listed Green MSPs, the Scottish electoral system seems to me to be one of the better versions of PR. 

Both the Reform and Lib Dem candidates for Banbury fall outside your suggested 10 mile limit. Winchester (Reform) is obviously the furthest away; but the Lib Dem candidate lives about 25 miles north of the northernmost part of Banbury constituency. All the other candidates seem to be local. 

If Westminster went for something like the current Scottish PR system, I think the area covered by each MP would probably need to be somewhat larger than at present. By the way, the equalisation in the numbers of voters after the boundary changes was pretty accurate -- at least at a particular moment in time -- but the downside is that we now have constituencies that don't make much sense in terms of the demographics and also the public transport links. Banbury is a case in point, since Banbury town has many of the urban problems of drugs, crime, unemployment etc., and the challenges facing rural North Oxfordshire are very different. 

I understand that very few potential voters locally are declaring their intention to vote for Reform when asked on the doorstep -- although there remain lots of "don't knows", as well as "Banbury? What on earth has that got to do with us?". And, of course, not all answers are necessarily honest. Things can also, of course, suddenly change with what Harold Macmillan famously described as  "events, dear boy, events".

Nobody in the Labour Party (locally or nationally) believes that the huge poll lead for the party can be relied on, especially since the opinion polls have been in the past spectacularly wrong about the likelihood of a Labour success, including in 2015 and 1992. 

Sun 16 Jun, 15:55

When people glibly talk about "PR", it is - to me at least - utterly meaningless! There are probably as many different versions of PR as there are days in the year! And many versions of PR carry just as many defects as FPTP.

We are told that the latest boundary changes were intended to even up the number of electors in each constituency; whether or not this has worked is not something that I have been able to examine.

My personal preference would be for constituencies to remain the same size; otherwise you end up with MP's who are not familiar with large areas of their constituency. And so this would probably mean a parliament of 1800 MP's at a minimum, which is clearly not practical, at least in the present building. 

I would also like to see candidates only permitted who live within the constituency or (say) within 10 miles of its borders. It is time that the so-called "main" parties stopped foisting candidates upon the electorate who have no loyalty or history within that area. For example, I believe that the Deform Party candidate for our constituency lives in ... Winchester?! 

Anyway ... just a few rambling thoughts ...

Sun 16 Jun, 11:05

PR sounds good in theory, but Scotland demonstrates perfectly how PR takes away power from the people and hands it to political parties. All of the Green Party MSPs are “listers”.  They have been selected by their party not the public, and they don’t have to worry about answering to their constituents. One of the most memorable moments of the 97 election was Michael Portillo unexpectedly losing his seat. That will never happen to listers, it’s an ideal way for career politicians to get into Parliament and Government regardless of how unpopular they are.

Sun 16 Jun, 09:20 (last edited on Sun 16 Jun, 09:29)

I am certainly not holding my breath when it comes to Labour following up on their party conference decision to introduce PR.  Especially if they win a massive majority.  So we are stuck on this binary treadmill, and I will forever maintain that this is not what the electorate deserves. 

Sat 15 Jun, 21:21 (last edited on Sat 15 Jun, 21:22)

Emily - I have consistently said that Liz Adams is the best candidate.  I have pointed out the Labour candidate’s record, and highlighted Labour’s dishonest campaigning locally.   You are aware that I am campaigning hard to beat the Tories in places where the Lib Dems are strongly placed to beat them.  I’ve been in Bicester and Chesham today.  If that’s supporting a Tory government, I’m a banana.

Please point out where I have made a claim about the likely winner in the Banbury constituency?

(I’ve pointed out that different polls predict different outcomes.  I’ve also pointed out Survation’s poll findings are out of line, and indeed they remain so)

I don’t believe for one second that Sean Woodcock would vote in favour of PR.  It would mean working with others, something which he has consistently shown himself to be utterly incapable of doing.

It’s funny how Labour members seem to feel they have a territorial claim on how other people vote, while being very happy to help the Tories in places they don’t stand a chance. Emily’s scenario 1 is an exemplar of that.  Woodcock (other, better Labour options were available) could have voted in a progressive administration in Cherwell last year; but instead of the Lib Dems, he chose the Tories. Why on earth would any Lib Dem or Green want to vote for someone who describes them working together as “back room deals that treat the electorate with contempt”?

Meanwhile Labour continue to lie in Bicester, claiming this poll means they are the challengers when they are clearly in third place.  Why should we believe what they say?

Sat 15 Jun, 20:29

Richard - you can vote for who you want. I never suggested otherwise. Whilst I can understand you not supporting Labour's policies, you not supporting their priorities is astounding to me given that their main priorities are the NHS, housing and the economy. Do you not think these are worthy priorities for an incoming government? Regarding, the LD candidate for Banbury, no we haven't received leaflets etc. but Liz and Gareth have both been pushing her on the Forum as the candidate likely to win Banbury, even though the polls show otherwise.

Liz - condescension doesn't look good on you. I'm not sure what Labour has to do with the LD's failing time and time again to remove both David Cameron and Robert Courts as our MPs. Charlbury was repeatedly told to vote LD as the only "real alternative" to remove both Cameron and Courts. You failed. Repeatedly. And when the opportunity arose to not help the Tories, your party glady got into bed with Cameron, so don't lecture me on morals!

Gareth - I've agreed with you privately and publicly that Labour should tone down its campaigning in Bicester and Woodstock. Obviously central party HQ doesn't allow either the LD's or Labour to remove candidates from areas where they are unlikely to win. If they did, I would say Labour remove itself from Bicester and Woodstock, and the LD's from Banbury. 

None of you answered my questions, but it leaves me with no doubt that the LD's would rather see another 14 years of a Tory government than even think about supporting a Labour one, who, let's be honest, are the only real opposition party in our current electoral system. If we change to PR, this might change, but right now the choice is binary. 

Sat 15 Jun, 16:41 (last edited on Sat 15 Jun, 16:42)

The only leaflets that you are likely to see are the election address, which every candidate is entitled to send via the post, and a Thank You leaflet from me.  

Sat 15 Jun, 16:13

Emily – the LibDems’ plan is not, as far as I can tell, “beating Labour in various seats”. There is only one seat, out of 632, which is a LibDem/Labour battle and that’s Sheffield Hallam.

The LibDems are not campaigning for the general election in Banbury. I haven’t received a single leaflet, nor have I seen any canvassers, nor a market stall in any of the towns. What less would you like them to do?

Yes, the party is standing a candidate in the seat – as it is in every other seat. Just as Labour, the Conservatives and the Greens are. Some of us will be voting for her because we don’t agree with Labour’s policies and priorities. Surely you can respect that?

Sat 15 Jun, 14:29 (last edited on Sat 15 Jun, 16:44)

Goodness, Emily, it's a great pity you and others haven't been asking yourselves these questions in relation to Labour in all the years we have been trying desperately to get rid of Robert Courts!

The polls indicate a huge majority for Labour.  I don't think anyone should worry that if the Lib Dems were to win in Banbury or anywhere else it would mean a hung parliament. There will not be the slightest need for the Lib Dems to form any kind of an alliance with Labour, nor, given our previous experience, would we want to.   But if  the Lib Dems win a few more seats, and are able to form a sensible opposition, it can only be a good thing for democracy

Sat 15 Jun, 11:48 (last edited on Sat 15 Jun, 12:08)

Emily - your scenario 1) has been answered by Labour in Bicester & Woodstock whose campaign is designed to split the anti-Tory vote to let the Tories in.  I will show you some of their literature sometime.

What do we make of the fact they aren’t helping in Banbury, even though they stand no chance in B&W?

Sat 15 Jun, 10:43 (last edited on Sat 15 Jun, 10:48)

A couple of questions for the LD's:

Scenario 1

The polls are correct. Labour are the likely winners. However, the LD's split the vote and Victoria Prentis triumphs in Banbury. Would the LD's be content with that result?

Scenario 2

The polls are wrong, and it's the LD's who are the likely winners. The LD's get in in Banbury and Bicester/Woodstock. The result being that Labour don't have a majority to govern and need a coalition, but also the LD's don't have a majority either. Would the LD's be content to go into coalition with Labour?

These are genuine questions, because I want to know what the LD's long-term plan is besides beating Labour in various seats where Labour is the favourite. The LD's are not going to govern the country, so I would like to know what the LD's hope to achieve.

Fri 14 Jun, 21:50

There is an excellent and eloquent article today from the always sensible Jonathan Freedland that touches on many of the issues raised here about Labour’s restrained campaign and what they might actually do in office:

Is Keir Starmer really a political robot? Maybe he is, but he’s been programmed to…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 14 Jun, 15:47 (last edited on Fri 14 Jun, 23:11)

At the risk of reptition, I agree 100% with Mathew when he says:  "We will only see a change in direction if people actually turn out to vote and vote tactically." 

It is incredibly rash to rely on opinion polls predicting that one party 'will win anyway'.  Remember 1992!  Labour certainly do, which is one reason why they are not over-promising or being complacent.  Personally, I'd like to see them being more radical (esp on 'green' issues) but I understand they don't want to scare the horses - they're getting enough false scare stories as it is (including some on here).  Another reason at a guess is that KS is a lawyer and therefore instinctively cautious!  Which in present circumstances I think is no bad thing - there are no instant solutions.

A national result I would be happy to see, being realistic, would be Labour as the largest party but in need of support from others (LDs, Greens etc) so where one of them has the best chance of beating the Conservatives eg Witney, I'd go for it.  Possibly the closest we could get to PR in a FPTP system??  But whatever happens nationally, the short point here is, by all means vote for A N Other party in Banbury if you don't mind having a Tory MP again - because that's the risk you run in doing so.

That said, with the wild card of Reform now seriously in play, nationally it's looking ever more difficult to call - but at least we can say these are intesting times even if we're not inspired by the manifestos.

Fri 14 Jun, 15:27

Richard is right, of course.  Labour has committed to embed austerity, so those banging on about stuff that happened over a decade ago should look at themselves in the mirror.

(And don’t mention illegal wars…..)

Fri 14 Jun, 14:18

Liz Adams does indeed live near Warwick. Having a candidate who lives outside the constituency is not at all unusual.  David Cameron did not live here when he first stood to be MP, and though he did buy a house in Dean, it was not his primary home and he certainly did not work in the area. I remember a Labour candidate in Witney when I stood who lived in Oxford, and most of the candidates in the 2016 by-election had no roots in the constituency.  I was myself a candidate in Hampshire in 2010. Nothing unusual in any of that as far as parliamentary elections are concerned.

Fri 14 Jun, 14:07

I used to write to Robert Courts now and again. Always got a reply but not usually the one I wanted! MPs take notice if they get a lot of letters on a particular subject. Hopefully a Labour MP will be more open to progressive ideas and concerns, etc in their postal box, particularly if they are in a marginal seat?

I'm a bit worried that everyone has already accepted that Labour will win nationally and get a big majority. They actually need one of the biggest swings in history to get a majority of one. It is also very close here in the Banbury constituency between Labour and the Conservatives. Complacency, low turn-out and scare tactics over a big majority could have an impact. We will only see a change in direction if people actually turn out to vote and vote tactically...

Fri 14 Jun, 14:04

I am rather surprised to discover that Liz Adams, the LibDem candidate for Banbury, does not live in our new constituency or even in Oxfordshire. This is especially surprising given that the LibDem national manifesto states: "Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to elect a strong local champion who will fight for a fair deal for you and your community."

As far as I can see, Liz Adams still lives in South Warwickshire, near Warwick, which is where she was based when she stood as a LibDem candidate for Stratford upon Avon in 2015 and 2017. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I found her own bio page lacked any information about where she now lives. This is unlike her Stratford candidacy page for 2017 which makes much of her local links: https://www.voter-info.uk/candidates/14682/

I realise that South Warwickshire shares many of the same issues as rural North Oxfordshire, so people in Charlbury may not think it matters that much. But central Banbury has crime, housing and unemployment problems which are not shared with either Stratford or Warwick, and I do think it would have been helpful to have had a bio that was clearer about where she now lives.

I pointed out in an earlier post that the Reform UK candidate lives in Winchester, and feel I should also point out that Liz Adams is also not local to our area. 

I have also managed to discover that Liz Adams now works in Birmingham as a barrister, but again that wasn't made clear in her new online bio. This doubtless means that she will be more familiar with some of the types of problems that plague Banbury town than might otherwise have been expected, but it also means that she is likely to have restricted hours in the constituency if she continues to practice as a barrister and is also successful in her bid to be elected to the Banbury seat.

Fri 14 Jun, 12:57

Some years ago I was working with a Westminster-style government in a Commonwealth country that had good cause to worry about the state of its economy; one of the many actions they had to take was to reform its public service.   I did an interesting piece of work analysing the skills sets of Ministers and senior public servants (I'm an industrial psychologist) and the conclusion - very broad brush - was that Ministers wanted two things from their public servants: good policy advice and no nasty surprises.   

However, turning the spotlight on the public servants (the equivalent of our civil service) they were also concerned to deliver good policy advice and no nasty surprises, but a good deal of their attention was also taken up with leading and managing their departments - and here they got very little help.   So we did some serious work with programmes developing these skills - ie management and leadership, nothing on policy analysis - and they began setting up their own training centre. 

I can see parallels in this country - there's a good deal of grumbling about the lack of project management skills, procurement skills, etc.   We used to have a pretty good Civil Service Training College in Sunningdale, but thar's long gone and its functions haven't really continued elsewhere.   One of the things that attracts me to Keir Starmer is that he was, by all accounts, a darned good leader and manager of the Crown Prosecution Service, and it looks as if quite a few of the shadow cabinet have similar skills.   (Mark Carney, who was Rachel Reeves's boss at Treasury, was quite a find - defended Canada from the worst excesses of the financial crash).  Which cannot be said of the recent lot of ministers - best described as a bunch of shopping trolleys quarrelling like rats in a sack (if I may mix metaphors).   

So I wish that as well as announcing policies Labour could also promise effective management.   Fingers crossed and vote posted.   

Fri 14 Jun, 12:51

Sure. But how do we “put pressure on the government to go further”? Given that I don’t own a newspaper, I can only see two ways of doing that – through internal Labour party politics, or through the ballot box. I don’t have any ambition to get involved with Labour politics so I’ll be making my point through the ballot box.

I’m confident that the Tories are on the way out whatever happens, and the only question is the size of the majority. You may be less certain of this in which case you will no doubt cast your vote accordingly!

Fri 14 Jun, 12:29 (last edited on Fri 14 Jun, 13:42)

Ed Miliband said he would raise taxes (mansion tax) and was defeated in 2015. Theresa May said she would raise taxes in 2017 (dementia tax) and lost her majority. Corbyn came up with lots of expensive policies in 2019 and Labour had their worst result in since the 1930s (not the only reason he lost but one of them).

Under the FPTP system dominated by the right wing media you need to play the game or what some call the "ming vase" strategy. It's disappointing that Labour aren't being more ambitious in their published plans but their number one policy is "Get the Tories out!". This can actually be achieved on 4th July if the majority vote the right way/tactically and the Banbury constituency can play its part. 

On the 5th July we can then start putting pressure on a more progressive and competent government to go further. Don't blow this precious opportunity to not only get the Tories out but also punish them for the chaos, incompetence and corruption of the last 14 years.

Glad to see this discussion has now broken through post number 100 btw!

Fri 14 Jun, 12:27

Richard, in 1964 Harold Wilson famously spoke of “Thirteen years of Tory misrule"; this time round, it's been even longer. And the state of the country is incomparably worse. I am under no illusions that Starmer's hands will be tied. So many issues need to be addressed. But at the end of the day we should end up with a government that does not act just for the privileged few. 

What do I desire from the next government that the previous government failed to provide almost universally? Easy ...

HONESTY.

Fri 14 Jun, 10:38 (last edited on Fri 14 Jun, 10:40)

This is not 1997. The country has never been in a worse state (thanks Cameron and Clegg who got the ball rolling). I wish Labour was being bolder, but given that they probably know more than us about what mess they’re about to inherit, maybe there is a reason for caution.

I found this comparison of the Labour and Tory manifestos by a consulting company. Interesting reading (and yes, there is a bias): https://1e792e0f-4228-492d-b18d-e7a8a213bbf6.usrfiles.com/ugd/0153d3_5d437a415d41418caed99ad88e7f9b6b.pdf

Fri 14 Jun, 10:29

Tactical voting analysis of boundary changes and latest polls can be found at StopTheTories.Vote 

Shows Labour is our best bet for removing the Tories.

Other tactical voting websites suggest the same. 

Fri 14 Jun, 10:29

I agree, Charlie, it will be great to finally banish the scourge of austerity brought to us by Cameron and abetted by Clegg. Let’s see what the Institute for Fiscal Studies says about Labour’s manifesto:

“The public service spending increases promised in the “costings” table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial.

“Almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. Definite promises though not to do things. Not to have debt rising at the end of the forecast. Not to increase tax on working people. Not to increase rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT or corporation tax.

“Delivering genuine change will almost certainly also require putting actual resources on the table. And Labour’s manifesto offers no indication that there is a plan for where the money would come from to finance this.”

Oh.

I’m as delighted as you are that the Tories are finally getting the boot, but please don’t be under any illusion that Starmer is going to do anything other than futzing round the edges.

Fri 14 Jun, 08:45

"Progressive Government"? From a "power-at-any-price" party that sold our country down the river just to get their leader Clegg into the position of "assistant something-or-other"? You're having a laugh!

For longer than I can remember I had to vote for them as the only practical alternative to the Witney Amoeba. I did so. And with (moderately!) good grace. 

But now the boot is on the other foot. Labour has a reasonable chance of defeating the Tories in Banbury. The Liberals do not. So your Liberal correspondent should stop throwing their toys out of the pram and do what us Labour supporters have had to do for so long. 

Thu 13 Jun, 22:10

Gareth Epps - please can you explain how Nick Johnson has proved "that in so many ways, there is literally no difference between Labour round here and the Tories. Except, perhaps, in the nature of the hypocrisy exemplified." ???

Thu 13 Jun, 20:55

Nick, thank you for proving that in so many ways, there is literally no difference between Labour round here and the Tories.  Except, perhaps, in the nature of the hypocrisy exemplified.

Thu 13 Jun, 18:38

You won’t get progressive government by voting for someone who votes with the Tories. The only way you will get real change is by voting for Liberal Democrat. 

Given the Libdems were in coalition with the Tories and remain equally responsible for the period of austerity which is the root cause of the mess we're in now, that's quite a statement. Bit rich, even for you, Gareth.

Tue 11 Jun, 07:12

My grandchildren remind me that I told them that I voted for the Monster Raving Looney Party last time out - and look what you got Grandad - Boris Johnson. So sometimes you get it right.

Sun 9 Jun, 13:40

Thanks for posting that Liz. Makes the situation even clearer for those who want to vote tactically.

I’m looking forward to seeing what the Best for Britain tactical voting guide comes up with. It will be released on 17th June and is certainly one to look out for.

Also, there was an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday about tactical voting in blue wall seats in Hertfordshire. It seems to be a bit less tribal down there between the Lib Dems and Labour!

Sun 9 Jun, 13:14

You won’t get progressive government by voting for someone who votes with the Tories.  The only way you will get real change is by voting for Liberal Democrat Liz Adams.

Sun 9 Jun, 09:53

Here is a link to the latest New Statesman article Who will win the 2024 UK general election? which corrects their last poll, now shown to be based on flawed methodology.

If you click on Banbury on the graphic, you'll see it's now in line with other predictions showing Labour on 37.4%, closely followed by Tories 31.3%, then a big gap to Reform at 11.6%, LibDems 10.2%, Greens 4.9%.

So it's clear what we need to do to get progressive government in our new constituency of Banbury & Chipping Norton!

Sat 8 Jun, 17:17 (last edited on Sat 8 Jun, 18:52)

Exactly, Emily. And that is good enough for me. What the hell happens in Woodstock and Bicester does not interest me (although I would love the Labour woman to win there for a totally different - and Charlbury-related - reason!). To all intents and purposes, Banbury is a new seat, and I will take the sources that you quote as my basis and vote Labour (unless the figures change VERY radically between now and the election, of course!). I invite all others who are in this constituency and wish to see the Tories defeated to do the same! Down the road in Witney the reverse would be true, and it would be necessary to vote Liberal. If I was there, I would similarly encourage people to vote Liberal, albeit while biting my lip! 

Sat 8 Jun, 14:45

Emily - you already have Labour members here repeating the lie about Labour’s chances in Bicester & Woodstock, so that ship has sailed.

Sat 8 Jun, 14:33

Not that polls are particularly accurate, see Cameron Vs. Miliband... I also think polls can make people complacement on election day and also don't take into account the floating voter, but here are a select few:

This has Labour/Sean Woodcock in the lead with 42.04% and the Liz Adams/LD with 12.7%

Again, this one shows Labour with 35.68% and LD with 18.06%.

There is also this website, which again, suggests to vote for Labour to get the Tories out in Banbury. 

I think we'll have a better idea later in the month, but if it looks like Labour will beat the Tories in Banbury and LD's will beat the Tories in Woodstock/Bicester, then the losing left wing party should encourage its members and supporters to vote tactically. 

Sat 8 Jun, 14:09

Christine Battersby - quoting the one ridiculous outlying poll to ramp up Labour in a seat where they have no presence whatsoever is simply utterly dishonest.  (Entirely what I have come to expect from Labour activists who seem to think they can order others about.).

By contrast, the Lib Dems have quite a considerable presence here, and a very strong and credible candidate who is streets ahead of her Labour opponent who, by his personal actions, deserves to lose.  Andrew - do have a look at the website and leaflets and make your own mind up.

Sat 8 Jun, 10:20 (last edited on Sat 8 Jun, 10:21)

I couldn't agree more with everything Matthew (and Rod) has said – and he has been measured and levelheaded throughout. I can't see how one can extrapolate from a matter of parochial resentment to behaviour at national level – let alone the fact the whip means it would be absurd to imagine a new Labour MP somehow supporting the Tories. I don't particularly like tactical voting, but the imperative to oust one of the most venal governments of the last two centuries means I must. If you're trying to persuade us to vote LibDem, Gareth, it seems a very reductionist way to go about it: instead of badmouthing other candidates (whatever their failings might be), why not at least give us reasons why the LibDems are the positive answer? But even if they might be the best party policy wise (a judgement I can't even consider making without seeing manifestos anyway), there hardly seems to be a compelling case for them on oust-the-Tories grounds.

I don't particularly trust anyone in politics, but I do trust data (terms and conditions apply).

Sat 8 Jun, 09:50 (last edited on Sat 8 Jun, 09:52)

Yes, the New Statesman poll exists, Gareth, predicting a LibDem win in the Banbury constituency. But so does the Survation poll of June 4th which predicts a Labour win in Bicester and Woodstock, with Conservatives 2nd and the LibDems in 3rd place. [Lab: 29.1%; Con: 28.1%; Lib Dem: 24.5%; Green: 3.9%; Reform: 11.7%.]

You seem very keen to acknowledge the Banbury prediction, but far less keen to treat the Bicester and Woodstock prediction as valid. You complained about the leaflets that Labour put out in the Bicester and Woodstock area, and also argued "Labour's campaign in Bicester & Woodstock is solely designed to be a spoiler to split the progressive vote so the Tories sneak in."

Both the New Statesman and Survation are polls outliers, and prove noting at all -- except, of course, that both polls do indeed exist. Not sure why you think Matthew Greenfield had missed the point. Seems to me to be entirely relevant. 

Sat 8 Jun, 09:42

The point about the New Statesman poll is that it looks like an outlier. Four other recent polls for Banbury give the Lib Dems virtually no chance of winning. I’m not interested in local politics in this general election (particularly in Cherwell). I am interested in removing an actual Tory government - the worst government in living memory - with the hope of something better. I am interested in reducing the number of actual Tory MPs in Westminster. If the Labour candidate wins in Banbury we can be pretty certain he won’t be supporting a coalition with Rishi Sunak should there be a hung parliament (or Suella Braverman for example if she became leader of her party).

If I thought the Lib Dems had a better chance than Labour of winning in Banbury then I would vote for them (as I did in Charlbury in May) but it doesn’t look that way. People should vote with their conscience by all means but those who want to vote tactically should keep an eye on all the polls for the Banbury constituency over the coming weeks.

Sat 8 Jun, 09:31 (last edited on Sat 8 Jun, 09:33)

Matthew, you made the point well.

For the last 28 years, I have had to bite my lip and vote for the "jump-on-any- bandwagon-that-might-get-us-elected" Liberals. At *no* time did I support them; I, like many others, simply voted for whoever had the best chance of defeating the Tory. 

Now that we are in a constituency where Labour is in second place, and, in the last election, with more than *double* the votes of the (third placed) Liberals, to suggest that because of the perceived "shortcomings" of the Labour candidate, one should vote for some other candidate with probably less than no hope of defeating the Tory reeks to me of what a Tory supporter might themselves do.

A final point ... in a first-past-the-post election, a "No Candidate" option needs to be introduced. And if "No Candidate" won the election, it is then held again, with none of the candidates who scored more than (say) 5% allowed to stand. Personally I am also in favour of making voting compulsory ... but that is another argument for another day! 

Fri 7 Jun, 23:59 (last edited on Sat 8 Jun, 00:19)

The point about the New Statesman poll is that it exists.  It is more real than most of the garbage being promoted as fact by Labour activists around the county.

The point about Labour’s candidate voting for Tories and Tory policies is that the voting record exists.  And that should be more of a concern to those here who want to reject the Tory party and its policies.  No point swapping one outcome for something identical, but with a different colour rosette.

Fri 7 Jun, 23:09

I was just making my own point about the New Statesman poll.

Fri 7 Jun, 22:04

You’ve missed the point, Matthew.

Fri 7 Jun, 20:44

Recent calculations for the Banbury constituency from pollsters:

YouGov: Labour 38.8%, Cons 32.6%, Lib Dems 13%

More in Common: Labour 34%, Cons 35%, Lib Dems 18%

Electoral Calculus: Labour 43.9%, Cons 33.2%, Lib Dems 7.3%
(Chances of winning: Cons 24%, Labour 76%, Lib Dems 0%)

Election Maps UK: Labour 41.8%, Cons, 28.3%, Lib Dems 13.5%

New Statesman: Labour 24.4%, Cons 25.9%, Lib Dems 26.4%

Commentary on the Banbury constituency from Oxford Clarion, who seems to have a good understanding of electoral standings throughout Oxfordshire: “We’re not quite sure what the New Statesman is on, because this is clearly a Con/Lab battle this time round.”

Fri 7 Jun, 19:48

Melissa, when told to vote for someone who votes with the Tories, I tend to ignore the advice.  The local Labour Party shouldn’t have selected someone with such a questionable record.

The strategic vote here will be to vote for the candidate most likely to win who won’t vote for Tory policies.  That candidate is Liz Adams.  The New Statesman poll has the Banbury constituency down as a Lib Dem win.

Fri 7 Jun, 13:30

Bang on Melissa!

For all the chatter about local politics / politicians, the simple truth is that a vote for a 'third' party in a marginal constituency may more accurately reflect your views but is a wasted vote if the first objective is to remove the incumbent.  And here, now, will only help the Conservatives.  Let me put 'Mathew's dilemma' rather more sharply:  Do you just want to be able to say 'it's not my fault, I didn't vote for them' - or do you want to see a change of government?

Then again, by splitting the Tory vote, Farage & Co may do that job for us!  And if they do, what then for PR?? A LibDem / Reform coalition? The mind boggles....

More immediately, how about waiting for the manifestos before condemning Labour as 'Tory light'??  As Rachel Reeves has just been quoted: "the state of the public finances and the dire need of our public services means that we won’t be able to do everything that we might like to do.”  This is not 1997...

Fri 7 Jun, 13:09

Just vote Labour for goodness sake and get these nutters out!

Fri 7 Jun, 12:31

I’m not sure there is one, Emily. But then I left the LibDems during the Clegg years because I thought he was a disaster. Others chose to stay and fight and I respect them for that.

None of the parties have really acquitted themselves with glory so far this century. I didn’t approve of the coalition. I didn’t approve of Tony Blair’s illegal wars much either.

Fri 7 Jun, 12:27 (last edited on Fri 7 Jun, 12:27)

Emily, you nailed it! That is the $64,000 question! 

There seems to be a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude from some quarters! But please be careful ...

... you could be accused - as I was - of "deflecting"! 

Fri 7 Jun, 11:35

Could someone tell me what the difference is between Sean Woodcock “propping up” the Tories in Cherwell (though Yahoo news and a Green Party blog aren’t particularly reliable or balanced news sources) and the Lib Dems “propping up” or in my view, happily choosing the Tories over Labour?

Both seem to be exactly the same to me…

Though I would say, propping up a national government that had caused untold damage to the UK seems much worse…

Fri 7 Jun, 10:36 (last edited on Fri 7 Jun, 10:42)

Liz, Sean is a fan of proportional representation. "Sean Woodcock is committed to changing the voting system and has pledged to champion this issue and Proportional Representation in Parliament" See here: https://winasone.org.uk/constituency/e14001072/

I can't understand why Duncan Enright would have told me that Sean was under pressure from Labour Central Office not to cooperate with the LibDems and Greens if that was not the case. But it was a private conversation, and I don't in fact "have plenty of information on what the Labour Party says is happening" as Gareth inferred. 

Gareth seems to assume that I voted for Sean and criticises me for not selecting the his preferred choice of candidate. But I haven't let on which of the 3 very good candidates I voted for. My point was only that it was a fully democratic decision (a secret vote of around 200 local labour members), not one decided in some backroom as a kind of stitch up. To assert (repeatedly) that Sean is a "poor" candidate is in pretty poor taste.

As a town Banbury has huge problems with drugs, crime, unemployment etc., and the new constituency is by no means a homogenous place. The candidate preferred by some in Chipping Norton  (Rizvana Poole) might not match well with the needs of those in Banbury who have their eyes on crime and the other very urgent social issues that currently blight Banbury. To suggest that Labour and the Tories coincide of the best ways of dealing with these urgent social issues is quite wrong. Victoria Prentis's voting record on housing and welfare is clear proof of that: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25420/victoria_prentis/banbury/votes.  ;

Fri 7 Jun, 09:19 (last edited on Fri 7 Jun, 09:24)

Going back to Christine's and Gareth's points regarding Sean Woodcock's performance as Labour leader in Cherwell, the claim that he "reluctantly" decided not to form an alliance because he was instructed not to by HQ does not stack up when you look elsewhere.  Labour have to go back to their National Executive annually for approval of such arrangements - I know this from having been in a alliance with them myself.  It's telling that in West Oxfordshire there has been absolutely no problem with this, even in an election year. This year, thanks to the very good election results for the Lib Dems in Cherwell, we have been able to form an administration with the Greens. So there was no need for negotiation with Labour. I wouldn't go quite as far as to say that he deliberately engineered it so that the Tories remained in administration, but he does appear to have an unwillingness to recognise the part that smaller parties play, and how working together can achieve results. I suspect he is not a fan of proportional representation!

Fri 7 Jun, 08:45

You have to be careful interpreting local election results for a national general election. Rishi Sunak at the time said they showed we are heading for a hung parliament. People vote for different, usually national reasons in a general election and in far greater numbers (see some analysis from the Guardian below). Indeed, I voted tactically in Charlbury in May on the advice of the Lib Dem leaflet that came through my door which came with a handy graph illustrating why I should!

From Could there really be a hung parliament at the next UK general elecion?:

"All the evidence suggests that people vote differently at local elections than they do in national polls, and are more likely to back smaller parties or independents in the former.

This time, about 23% went to parties other than Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. But while independent candidates do well in local races, they are rarely as successful in Westminster contests.

The Lib Dems also tend to get more votes at local elections, picking up 16% of the total this time, which far exceeds their performance in national polling."

Fri 7 Jun, 07:06

Well, as the captain who steered the ship to'ords the iceberg he ought at least go down with it.

Thu 6 Jun, 19:21

This is only tangentially relevant but I've got to tell someone ....

On The News Agents podcast, Nadine Dorries has just questioned why Boris Johnson (who, she says, is refusing to campaign for the Tories) 'would want to hitch his wagon to a sinking ship.'   

Thu 6 Jun, 19:04

Five of the 13 wards in the new constituency were won by the Lib Dems last time out - same number as Labour.  People can read about Lib Dem candidate Liz Adams on her web page.

Meanwhile the Lib Dem leader has been in the county today.

Thu 6 Jun, 12:51

This is the dilemma. Do we vote with our conscience or do we vote tactically? Both are valid choices. Under a fairer, proportional system I would certainly be looking at all progressive options on the ballot paper. I just feel that a Labour government, once in power, will be more responsive and sympathetic over time to the policies that Richard listed. A Tory government would be actively hostile to them in my opinion. We first need to shift that Overton window!

Thu 6 Jun, 08:18

I’m not sure “it was the national party that did it” is a great defence in a national election.

Like Gareth I’m really not a fan of the Cherwell shenanigans, nor of the spoiler operations in Bicester or Didcot. That aside, I’d be prepared to hold my nose and vote for Sean Woodcock (just as I voted for Duncan Enright in 2015) if Starmer promised – for example – a rapprochement with Europe, or redistributing from the richest to the poorest through taxation, or reinstating HS2, or electoral reform, or investing in green energy, or scrapping the child benefit cap, or (contd. p94).

He hasn’t. On every single issue he’s adopted the Tory line.

Other progressive parties exist (the LibDems, Greens, and an independent socialist are all standing in Banbury) and I’ll be voting for one.

Thu 6 Jun, 07:41

Stop deflecting, Charlie.  The only person here propping up the Tories in Sean Woodcock, and you can have a front row seat at Bodicote.

Thu 6 Jun, 07:20

Gareth, I was not making "comparisons with the situation in May 2010"; I was stating fact! Or am I living in some parallel universe in which your lot did not enable the Cameron government to take power, thereby prefacing the farce that led up to the disaster of Brexit?

If you wish to call something "silly", look at your lot! Power at any price! Even supporting the Tories! And so to today ...

... where we are now in a constituency where there's more than a cat in hell's chance of defeating them! So let's try and do it! 

Thu 6 Jun, 00:01 (last edited on Thu 6 Jun, 00:07)

Christine Battersby - you clearly have plenty of information on what the Labour Party says is happening., but that does not give you carte blanche to lecture people who can challenge the accuracy of what they say.  (Especially as Labour's campaign in Bicester & Woodstock is solely designed to be a spoiler to split the progressive vote so the Tories sneak in).  We know that your 'reluctantly' claim is wrong, as he did exactly the same thing this year, and would have voted the Tories back in had they not accepted the withering verdict of the electorate.

I take a different view to you.  Rizwana Poole would have been a very compelling candidate and unlike Woodcock, demonstrates the ability to work with progressives outside the Labour tribe for the benefit of local people.  She would have been much more likely to win a seat Labour has never won.

Duncan Enright is not a member of Cherwell Council.  The Cherwell councillors I know and speak to know, and confirm that Sean Woodcock refuses to even speak to Lib Dem and Green councillors.  So given that first hand evidence, rather than biased secondhand hearsay (albeit from Duncan who unlike Sean Woodcock is a pluralist), my challenge is a legitimate one.  

Wed 5 Jun, 23:47 (last edited on Wed 5 Jun, 23:48)

Gareth, I am not sure where you get your information from. At the time I was told by Duncan Enright that the decision not to enter a pact with the LibDems and the Greens was a decision that was made very reluctantly by Sean, as instructed by Labour head office. 

Of course I don't know that is true, but that is what I was told by what seems likely to be a reliable source. As such to describe Sean as a Tory with a red rosette seems grossly unfair. 

It is of course your choice who to vote for. But Sean was overwhelmingly selected as the Parliamentary Candidate at a meeting of over 200 Labour members in Banbury Town Hall. There were two other strong candidates, but Sean was the clear choice of the majority, most of whom already knew him extremely well. 

Wed 5 Jun, 23:06

The decision of Labour in Cherwell refuse to work with other parties had nothing to do with Labour head office.  It was the decision of Labour's candidate for Charlbury in this election.  Someone still had to run the council.  

Comparisons with the situation in May 2010 are, to put it mildly, silly; but if Woodcock were to be elected with Labour short of an overall majority, it is a fair challenge given his record to ask whether he would prop up the Tories again (with nothing in return).

Wed 5 Jun, 22:29

"Let him that is without sin cast the first stone!"

Gareth, let me remind you that it was your lot, hungry for power at any cost, who jumped into bed with Cameron!

And quite rightly your lot are trying to get Labour supporters to vote for them to get rid of the disgrace that is the current MP for Witney.

But by the same premise, your lot should support Labour in the Banbury constituency. And yet it would seem that you are not doing so. 

I will be polite and call your stance "inconsistent". But there are many stronger words that would be just as appropriate! 

Wed 5 Jun, 21:59

I’m not sure that Labour’s decision not to form a coalition with the Lib Dems in Cherwell is relevant to this election, especially as that was a decision by Labour head office?

It isn’t necessarily in the best interests of Labour to take over a council as part of a coalition one year out from a general election.

Wed 5 Jun, 21:28 (last edited on Wed 5 Jun, 21:53)

Sean Woodcock’s colleagues in Bicester & Woodstock, where Labour has not a single councillor and is nowhere near getting one, are currently putting out deliberately misleading leaflets claiming they are second according to Electoral Calculus, which is untrue.

As for Sean Woodcock, it is well known that he voted to prop up the Tories on Cherwell last year after they lost control.  This year he continued to prefer the Tories to a progressive administration, refusing to even discuss working with the Lib Dems and Greens.  So why should supporters of those parties support someone who sees them as the enemy?

 Actions speak louder than words - and while getting the present lot out is understandably important for many, I see little point in swapping one Tory for another wearing a different colour rosette.

Wed 5 Jun, 19:08 (last edited on Wed 5 Jun, 19:12)

I'm totally (or should that be 'like, literally'?) with Chris T and Matthew G here.  Gareth E - if you're going to describe a candidate as 'poor' you might at least have the courtesy to tell your audience why you think so.  Others have given reasons in his favour.

As per my previous post, my overriding priority is to get the present lot out, so the quality of the candidate - for now - is a secondary consideration to his/her chances of success!

Wed 5 Jun, 18:33

I think Gareth is being more than a tad unfair in his criticism of Sean Woodcock, I have had a long chat with Sean and found him to be pleasant, knowledgeable and  very sympathetic to progressive and liberal view points. As the first Lib Dem councillor elected for Charlbury, I would wholeheartedly recommend Sean as an excellent parliamentary candidate to vote for the Banbury seat, in order to rid the U.K. of this appalling government. Hopefully Labour supporters in the Witney and Woodstock and Bicester seats, will also consider voting tactically Liberal in those seats, again to help remove this awful government for good. 

Wed 5 Jun, 17:54 (last edited on Wed 5 Jun, 18:01)

Please can we have some decency, or are my ideas about Honour risibly outmoded? Tory Tax Rise already in place on Same Arithmetic by The Spectator mag = £3000 - compared to 2 grand lie by Sunak about LP. Couldn't be masochistic enough to watch debate and preferred to listen…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 5 Jun, 17:18

For me, national considerations override everything in this general election and am more motived to vote against the Tories than vote for any individual or indeed any party for that matter. After 14 years of Conservative government - Austerity, Brexit, Covid chaos, Decline, Economic mis-management (the list could go on) - this is a realistic chance for a change of direction.

The electoral system sucks in this country (voting in Witney always felt a depressing and futile experience) but we are now in a constituency where our votes might actually count for something and hopefully make a difference.

Wed 5 Jun, 16:01

Which is why it’s surprising Labour has made such a poor choice of candidate in a seat they would have to persuade others to vote tactically to win.

Wed 5 Jun, 14:42

Professional Statisticians are currently favouring YouGov as the most reliable as it now has a base of 65,000, so the poll Matthew refers to is the one to pay attention to and they're continually updating their data. So looking like a close contest between Labour and Conservatives!

Wed 5 Jun, 13:04

Thanks for that tip Richard, the Oxford Clarion election diary looks very interesting and will read it over the next few weeks to get a more local perspective. Regarding the New Statesman poll, which put Banbury as a Con/Lib Dem marginal, they say "We’re not quite sure what the New Statesman is on, because this is clearly a Con/Lab battle this time round." It's becoming clearer and clearer that only Labour's Sean Woodcock can beat the Conservatives in our Banbury constituency.

I also thought yesterday's Survation poll looked a bit odd (Cons on 71 MPs (!) but winning just about in Banbury). There seemed to be much more interest in the YouGov MRP poll which put Labour on 38.8%, Cons on 32.6% and Lib Dems on 13% in Banbury:

First YouGov MRP of 2024 general election

Wed 5 Jun, 09:56

A reminder of the reliability of polls… “isn’t that why we have elections, to test the competency of our polls?”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qt8gEvGJe_I&pp=ygUTSm9uIHN0ZXdhcnQgcG9sbGluZw%3D%3D

Wed 5 Jun, 08:46

The Oxford Clarion is doing a weekly Oxfordshire election diary, which is worth reading in its own right, but particularly for the explainer this week about the difference between polls and projections: https://oxfordclarion.uk/oxfordshire-election-diary-week-2/

Wed 5 Jun, 07:20

The respected pundit Peter Kellner had already called out the more dubious elements of Survation’s polling the last time they did this.  It doesn’t seem as though Survation has listened.  Other, better polls are available.

Wed 5 Jun, 02:36 (last edited on Wed 5 Jun, 02:37)

Interesting Survation opinion poll Mark, as  it does confirm the closeness of the Labour v Conservative battle in the Banbury seat, and the close contest between the Liberal Democrat’s v Conservatives in the Witney seat.

The prediction for the new Bicester and Woodstock seat however seems well dodgy. Labour are the weakest of the three main parties there. I might be wrong, but not sure they hold many if any council seats in that constituency. Think most council seats within the new Bicester and Woodstock seat are now  mainly Lib Dem, but I may stand to be corrected on this. 

Tue 4 Jun, 23:02

Survation have just published their major poll (survey of over 30,000). It's an odd set of results. Nationally they show Labour on projected 487 seats vs Conservatives on 71.This would represent an astonishing result. I'm not sure I believe it.

https://www.survation.com/survation-mrp-labour-set-for-record-breaking-majority/

Locally the results seem at variance to some other polls. It shows Banbury as just being held by the Conservatives over Labour - but on a tiny gap 31.92% vs 31.17% (ie within margin of difference). Lib Dem are on 14.49%, Green 8.19% and Reform on 12.57%.

Witney would be taken by the Lib Dems. Bicester and Woodstock by Labour. 

As Liz Leffman has previously said - nothing is certain until the actual votes are cast, and as Matthew Greenfield adds, complacency may affect the outcome.

I suspect it's quite hard to impute local results from national polls with that much statistical certainty. 

Tue 4 Jun, 11:20

I hope this is ok to post here for people thinking about voting strategically..... I did a market research survey last week on the day NF said he wouldn't be standing which was obviously funded by Reform from the way the parties were placed in the list of parties to choose from for each question. Among other election related questions it asked "would NF make a good leader of Reform?" And "would NF make a good leader of the opposition?", so I've been expecting this. 

Tue 4 Jun, 09:59

Hustings in Charlbury. Churches Together in Charlbury, as a non-political organisation, is trying to arrange hustings in Charlbury for all the candidates in the general election to come and introduce themselves and their main policies. The likely date is Thursday 27 June and the meeting will be held in the Memorial Hall in the evening. So far two candidates have committed themselves to attend, two have responded but not made a definite commitment and two have not publicised their contact details which we are trying to find. Messages have been sent to the Returning Officer's election team in Banbury for information. They may not want to respond until nominations close on 7 June. This is not yet a confirmed event. If anyone knows of another hustings being planned for our constituency, please let us know.

Mon 3 Jun, 17:16 (last edited on Mon 3 Jun, 17:19)

As Matthew Greenfield said only a few hours ago: "assuming Labour is going to win a big majority is complacency in my opinion (a lot can happen over the next 4 weeks) ..."

And, indeed, something has already happened, with Nigel Farage taking over as leader of Reform from Richard Tice, and vowing to stand as an MP for Clacton, despite indicating only last week that he wouldn't stand, in part because he didn't want to spend every Friday for the next 5 years in Clacton ... and wanted instead to dedicate his time campaigning for Trump.

It will be interesting to discover what this means for the Banbury constituency given Richard Tice's girlfriend and political ally, Isabel Oakeshott, still lists Charlbury as her correspondence address, and Charlbury is where her husband and children still live. 

Banbury's Reform candidate has yet to be announced. Voting strategically is also my choice ... and certainly not for Reform! 

Mon 3 Jun, 13:48 (last edited on Mon 3 Jun, 13:49)

I agreed with Rod. If you want to see a change of government, and help engineer that change, then it is important to vote tactically and vote for the local candidate who is most likely to defeat the Conservative candidate. Sometimes it is helpful to think not about who you are voting for but who you are voting against.

There will be plenty of tactical voting advice the closer we get to 4th July with in-depth local polling (e.g. at getvoting.org). At the moment most polls point to a close-ish contest between Labour and Conservative in our Banbury constituency.

Also, assuming Labour is going to win a big majority is complacency in my opinion (a lot can happen over the next 4 weeks) and splitting the progressive vote between Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens means we could end up with a local Tory MP yet again and of course add to the total of Conservative MPs in parliament.

Remember, if you are not registered to vote then you must register by 18th June (just over 2 weeks away): https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

If you are not going to be around on 4th July you can apply for a postal vote by 5pm on 19th June or apply for a proxy vote by 5pm on 26th June (where someone can vote on your behalf).

Finally, remember you will also need to bring a valid photo ID to vote in person! (If you haven’t got one then you can apply for a certificate by 5pm on 26th June).

Mon 3 Jun, 12:02 (last edited on Tue 4 Jun, 12:22)

For me, for now, there is one simple overriding priority: to get rid of the most anti-democratic, dishonest, constitutionally illiterate and incompetent government seen in my lifetime.  So I will vote for whichever candidate is most likely to help to bring that about.  Anything else, for now, including not voting, is an indulgence unless in a very safe opposition held seat.  It's not a 'solution' - there's no such thing - but a pre-requisite to any sort of progress.  And once achieved, we can begin to talk again about things like PR and our relationship with the EU.  But one step at a time!

PS (04/06) Like Christine, I exclude Reform from this calculation!

Sun 2 Jun, 16:27

It's interesting that when we've designed the constitution for other countries we've given them PR.   Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, of course (please don't start on where one country ends and another begins).    And when we designed the government of Germany there were some quite explicit statements that we were doing this in order to force coalition governments and prevent anything like the rise of the Nazi party happening again.   

A bit of knight's move thinking - did anyone catch Peter Hennessy on the World This Weekend (Radio 4, today)?   He says that prior to the current chie-en-lit the UK government was based on the 'good chap' theory of government, but after the recent disasters he's proposed an oath that the Prime Minister will be encouraged to take on assuming office.   He stressed that it would represent a moral choice - rather than opening up the PM to legal challenge - but none the less important for not being legally enforceable.   Good stuff from the noble lord.  

Sun 2 Jun, 15:57

All over the country people are thinking the same as us.   It doesn't matter if we vote for the party of choice because there is going to be a landslide victory to Labour.  Or, vote for Mrs Prentis because she is a good person who understands the locality and its problems.   

Labour don't have a monopoly on compassion.  They could work with the LibDems and the Greens and if they don't then Michael's goals will not be met and cross party groups will not work for the population if you have only two parties.  This is not about PR and it's the opposite of finding a messiah.  It's about the parties getting their maximum representation in Parliament without PR by working together.  I'm sorry you don't see it.

Sun 2 Jun, 15:52

Here is a link to Dobby, our adorable mascot who attracted new fans in Charlbury this morning!

Sun 2 Jun, 15:25 (last edited on Sun 2 Jun, 15:53)

I was in New Zealand when they changed to proportional representation, and I can confirm that the arguments about which kind of PR to choose were difficult to explain and to navigate.   (At least as complex as those about different forms of Brexit, if you remember). 

For what it's worth, in Wellington (populated by a great many public servants) the vote went to the Single Transferable Vote method, but the rest of the country went for MultiMember Proportional Representation.   With STV voters have to rank the candidates in order and the result is calculated by dropping off the least preferred at each iteration, until a winner emerges.   (Counting the votes takes time).   MMPR is the system whereby political parties contest individual seats but also have a party list, from which they nominate additional MPs in proportion to their overall vote. 

I think I've remembered that aright, but only because I'm a politics junkie and I was working with the government at the time.   Imagine trying to get all that on the Sun website - let alone the arguments for and against.   

Sun 2 Jun, 14:11 (last edited on Sun 2 Jun, 14:15)

I'm dispirited by the election so far. No party is being remotely honest about the scale of long-term financial challenges we face as a country. An ageing society, rising government debt costs, long-term low growth, falling investment, increasing trade barriers, climate breakdown and the rise of authoritarian governments. 

However I want to put in a note of thanks to candidates standing. Campaigning is hard and the vast majority of people seek election because they want to make a positive change in their area.

I'm not suggesting I agree with every candidate's' views (I certainly don't). But we benefit from good people putting themselves forward. Let's celebrate that fact, even as we debate the choices ahead of us. 

Sun 2 Jun, 12:23

Pleased to hear that the rosette trend started by Freddy and Oscar back in 2016 at the by-election has now extended to the Labour party!

Sun 2 Jun, 12:20

I’m afraid not but if anyone reading this gets canvassed maybe they can snap one!

Sun 2 Jun, 12:15

Richard - do you have a photo of said small dog with rosette?

Sun 2 Jun, 12:10

If the projections are to be believed Labour is going to win a colossal majority anyway, so you can vote for the party you would genuinely prefer in the Banbury constituency.

I was impressed by the very small dog canvassing in Charlbury this morning replete with red rosette.

(Admin note: I’m inclined to keep this in the main board because it’s been civil so far and the General Election is pretty important stuff, but am keeping an eye on the thread as ever.)

Sun 2 Jun, 10:23 (last edited on Sun 2 Jun, 14:21)

Agreed. Rizvana was the obvious choice and would have been excellent at working with other parties. She does amazing things as a local councillor and the Chippy Food Larder. She managed to get Cameron involved; that says a lot!

All I can assume is that Sean was the safer choice. I guess we will just have see how he evolves and also how he works if he becomes MP. 

Again, PR is unlikely to be introduced by the three major parties in the near future for the reason I gave earlier. Also, though FPTP is less democratic that PR, PR itself is also full of problems. I'm sure if it ever is introduced into the UK, there will be people wishing for FPTP. 

Sun 2 Jun, 09:48

I would be more inclined to Mike’s view, were it not for the evidence that Sean Woodcock is a tribal politician who is not prepared to work with progressive people outside the Labour Party to make things better.  Labour policy is to introduce PR, but will it be in its manifesto?  Rizwana would have been a far more credible candidate for communities such as ours.

Sun 2 Jun, 09:35

Time for this to go to the Debate section, methinks

Sat 1 Jun, 20:30 (last edited on Sat 1 Jun, 20:32)

PR will never happen because the winning party is not going to overturn a system that handed them victory! Clegg/Lib Dems are the obvious example. Though Clegg promised a lot of things and renegaded on most and then decimated his own party, all so he could rub shoulders with Cameron, but I digress.

PR not going to happen, but that isn’t to say MPs from different parties don’t work together or cooperate, Alice. There’s a lot of cross-party groups that do a lot of very good work. I’m also not sure how Labour is the “less worse option”. Try telling that to those people struggling to heat their homes, feed their families, buy a house or even rent!! I’m sure a lot of those people can’t wait. Labour is an option. I think we need to move away from expecting a “messiah-type” leader who appeals to all, and just accept who you vote for won’t always tick all the boxes.

Sat 1 Jun, 19:47

Alice,

I beg to differ. Technically one is voting for a candidate.There is not a chance that I would have given Robert Courts my vote. Victoria Prentis is local, understands agriculture more than most, and has no links to the hateful ERG. I don’t know very much about Sean Woodcock, but the Banbury constituency looks like a Lab/Con two horse race unlike Witney. Putting party politics to one side, Rizwana Poole seems to have built up quite a following in Chipping Norton. I will never understand why Nick Clegg didn’t insist upon a bill to introduce PR as the first piece of legislation of the coalition government? Maybe the VP of Google will respond, but somehow I doubt it!

Sat 1 Jun, 16:56

Have I said I don't like the candidates?  We aren't voting for candidates.  I'm sure they are all lovely and that I would like them all.  We are voting for a Party.   The Party with the most resource will always win in the end, if not every battle.  It's like wars.   The Parties haven't helped us by refusing to co-operate.  If they loose they only have themselves to blame because the opposition is a majority.  We demean ourselves by allowing ourselves to be divided and ruled.  So who would like my vote then?  Shall I phrase it that way?

Sat 1 Jun, 16:29

Tell that to Diane Abbot

Sat 1 Jun, 15:56

If you don’t like any of the candidates so far, you could always stand yourself? The deadline is Friday I think. 

Sat 1 Jun, 15:03

I'm sorry I wasn't able to meet Sean this morning.  That might have helped.  I have a smartphone but refuse to engage with social media. 

It seems then that I'm being encouraged to continue playing this silly game.  Vote for the least worst option.  Thank you Michael - I suppose we'll all be voting Labour?  I'm sure LibDem, Labour & Green candidates meet your criteria but we all need to vote for the same one to ensure your priority (and mine) is achieved.  What a pity the parties don't agree their strategy.  Then we would all be winners. 

"An extraordinary amount of privilege".  Oh dear, Emily - we should meet.  It's utterly disgusting that people are going hungry & homeless in the world's 6th largest economy.  But it's what the people voted for.  We'll just have to hope that Labour ameliorate things at the edges.

Sat 1 Jun, 12:00

I met Sean at the market today. He seemed very aware of the challenges as well as the canvassing/engagement that needs doing in Charlbury.

I mentioned the QR code issue Amanda. They gave me another leaflet that had a URL link, which I can drop round? The reliance on smartphones for comms is sadly not an issue specific to the Labour Party. All organisations do it. It’s frustrating and assumes a lot.

I think one must have an extraordinary amount of privilege to spoil one’s ballot or vote for a very marginal political party. A lot of people in Charlbury and in the UK do not have that financial or social privilege to cushion them. See the Food Bank.

Sat 1 Jun, 11:27 (last edited on Sat 1 Jun, 11:30)

And the blunt truth is that, even if we had the form of Proportional Representation we individually thought best, there'd never be a perfect choice of candidates meeting all the requirements each of us thought met our needs.

Modern democracy is about electing people who'll come as close as possible to creating the world we'd like. For me, right now in our new constituency, the priority is to help get Victoria Prentice, and the rest of her hapless colleagues, out. There are three people standing I could live with: the consequences of having Prentice - or her probably even worse near-clone with a teal rosette - in office are infinitely worse.

But that's what we'd get from spoilt ballot papers. 

In an imperfect world, there's a simple philosophy. Have no illusions, vote for the serious candidate you're least uncomfortable with  - and hold the feet of whoever wins close to the fire.

Sat 1 Jun, 10:32

Alice, I would respectfully suggest that - especially in this election - a spoiled ballot paper would be even more of a waste than voting for the Deform Party.

Sat 1 Jun, 09:33

Interesting.  We haven't received a Labour Party leaflet.   Sean who?  Is it the first year in 51 voting years that I spoil my ballot paper because the first past the post system doesn't in anyway result in representation?

The scale of problems we face needs a coalition of interests representing us all so we can all buy into the difficult decision making.  

Sat 1 Jun, 08:27

Amanda, Sean has canvassed in Charlbury 5 times since his selection and again tomorrow, as well as many other towns and villages not mentioned, but sadly there's not enough space on a constituency-wide leaflet to name-check everywhere!

Fri 31 May, 23:08 (last edited on Fri 31 May, 23:08)

I have received the Labour Party leaflet and saw the offer to complete the survey. Sadly the access to the survey is only with a smartphone, something I have chosen not to use.  I’m sure that I am not alone in making this choice among older residents.

And the leaflet says that he has knocked on thousands of doors across Banbury, Chipping Norton and the North Oxfordshire Villages.  No mention of a town such as Charlbury.

Fri 31 May, 22:33 (last edited on Sun 2 Jun, 14:21)

I was also hoping for Rizvana. Very engaging, friendly, pragmatic and passionate. I’m hoping I get to speak to Sean tomorrow at the Market. Otherwise, it’s going to be nice having a Labour candidate to vote for who actually might get in!

Fri 31 May, 20:18

Rizvana is an excellent councillor but Sean was the popular choice who won the selection by a large margin. He is widely considered an outstanding candidate, who has gained a lot of support on the campaign trail from disillusioned Tories and LibDems who are willing to vote tactically. He knows Charlbury well, having worked and canvassed here and certainly understands that we are a town, not a village. He's coming to the market tomorrow morning, so do come and meet him!

Fri 31 May, 19:57

For some reason, Labour have selected a candidate principally known for propping up the Tories on Cherwell Council and who thinks our town is a village.  Rizwana Poole who lost the selection would have been a far more serious proposition.

Fri 31 May, 15:13

The New Statesman article is an outlier. All the other properly researched polls predict a Labour win, though admittedly with variations from a close call to a landslide, as Mark says. Sorry to say most pollsters give LibDems quite a low chance, sometimes as low as 0%. We'll see...

Fri 31 May, 14:42 (last edited on Fri 31 May, 14:44)

Not claiming anything  Just pointing out that a lot of nonsense is written before elections and nothing is certain till the last votes are counted.

Fri 31 May, 14:38

It is ridiculous for the Lib Dem’s to claim they have a chance in the Banbury seat in the forthcoming General Election. The Liberals would be much better concentrating their efforts in the Witney and the new Woodstock and Bicester seats where they really have a chance of winning there. As the person who first won Charlbury for the Lib Dem’s back in 1994, and was the Lib Dem District Councillor for Charlbury from 1994 until 2002, I will be voting this time for Sean Woodcock the excellent Banbury Labour candidate tactically and hope that others will,  as I believe the new seat will be a Labour v Conservative marginal. In the recent Council Elections, I understand Labour won nearly 35% of the vote, the Conservatives 32%, Lib Dem 21%, Greens 8% and Independents 4%.

Fri 31 May, 14:05 (last edited on Fri 31 May, 14:09)

Britain Predicts gives a somewhat different picture with the LDs winning in Banbury!

https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts

Fri 31 May, 13:55 (last edited on Fri 31 May, 14:01)

The Electoral Calculus website is very informative (whatever your politics). That site predicts a 90% likelihood Labour would win in this new constituency and a 19% margin of victory. 

FT and Economist both also run interactive poll trackers, whilst they come up with similar end predictions the Economist tracker suggests the vote is much closer.

The Economist predicts (at current polling) the Banbury seat would probably be a narrow Labour win with median vote prediction of 36%, vs Conservative 35% (ie well within margin of error) then Lib Dems on 11%, Reform on 8% and Greens on 7%.

Fri 31 May, 13:51

Also lots of info on the new Banbury constituency on Electoral Calculus, including demographic breakdown. Apparently our 'tribe' is 'Kind Yuppies'!?

Fri 31 May, 13:19 (last edited on Fri 31 May, 13:27)

The Guardian calculation of the lie of the land in the new constituency is here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jan/16/find-your-constituency-uk-general-election-2024-boundary-changes-votes-map-postcode

There it says that new constituency includes 60.4% of the old constituency (the rest of the old constituency has gone to the brand new constituency of Bicester and Woodstock).

The projected Guardian figures are that had the 2019 vote taken place with the new boundaries in place, the result would have been Conservatives 52%; Labour 24.8%; LibDems 20.3% and Green 2.9%.

Of course, voting intentions have changed a lot since then. Labour are doing well nationally in the opinion polls. Also, in 2019 Reform did not stand against the Conservatives, this time they are intending to put forward a candidate (yet to be identified) for the Banbury constituency. So, yes, it is a very marginal constituency. And every vote will count on Thursday 4 July.

If you know somebody who will be over 18 on the date of the General Election and who has not yet registered to vote, please encourage them to do so. They need to register by 11:59pm on 18 June 2024 to vote in the General Election on 4 July 2024. 

Also if they are currently registered to vote at their University or College address, please get them to consider where their vote would be most effective. They can easily change online the address where they are registered to vote (same deadline). Online it says that it takes about 5 minutes to make the changes online.

Fri 31 May, 12:53

Party political post. Relegate to Debate.

Fri 31 May, 12:45

It means that we are now in a very marginal constituency!

Fri 31 May, 11:44

Did you know that due to boundary changes, Chipping Norton, Charlbury and the surrounding villages are now included in Banbury constituency?

Read this post from Chipping Norton and District Labour Party to see the map and find out more about what this means - how you can help bring in a progressive government for the first time ever in the Cotswolds.