Will Jennings @drjennings
A bit of rather belated analysis of the #GE2019 vote: when you plot the size of Conservative and Labour majorities (in % terms), it is striking how inefficient the Labour vote has become since 2005.
Labour is increasingly piling up votes in its safe seats, whereas the Conservative majorities tend to increase at a fairly incremental rate.
This is interlinked with the dynamics of geographical polarisation that @ProfStoker and I have identified... it also is consistent with Jonathan Rodden's arguments in 'Why Cities Lose' on the disproportionate urban clustering of the vote for left parties.
For the UK, this pattern (for Labour, 'the claw of doom' via @benwansell) reflects changes in the demographics of constituencies and of voting behaviour, but also strategies of the parties.
Stephen Bush @stephenkb
This chart sums up what I wrote about this morning about why Johnson may be better served doing symbolic things to "rebalance" the economy rather than actually rebalancing the economy:
www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2020/01/why-relocating-house-lords-york-would-be-smart-move-boris-johnson
Why relocating the House of Lords to York would be a smart move by Boris Johnson
The government has more of an interest in appearing to improve the state of northern constituencies than in actually doing so.
Why did the Conservatives lose St Albans? Because it’s rich in the demographics that the party has long struggled with, which both Theresa May and Boris Johnson made a point of moving away from: social liberals, graduates and people under the age of 40. That didn’t matter because Johnson’s strength is among voters who are socially conservative, don’t have degrees, and over 40 – who are more numerous in Bishop Auckland in Country Durham, than St Albans.
Or, let’s take Wakefield, a constituency that the Conservatives won from Labour, and Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, another Yorkshire constituency that Labour almost lost. There was a much, much bigger swing against Labour in the latter constituency than the former. Why? Because Wakefield’s economy is growing quickly and it is retaining more of its young people. You can see this pattern across the UK, whether in seats like Reading East and Canterbury, which Labour held, or seats like Reading West, where Labour lost but did much better than the national swing would suggest.
BCF I think you've touched on this before but from a different angle - how towns are aging and becoming more blue.
Thus it's better for the Tories to keep these towns shitty so they don't retain their young and the youth vote stacks up in cities... Or so the logic Stephen Bush has goes.
And its hard to argue against tbh.