Jump to content

Talk:Bromley and Chislehurst (UK Parliament constituency)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

There's a number too much in the Labour result; I don't know which to remove. Andre Engels 09:30 Oct 16, 2002 (UTC)

Fixed, though this page is still orphaned and on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --rbrwr

There were rumours at 09:15 BST on 18 May that he had died.

Worst Conservative Result 2006

[edit]

For a result in a Conservative-held seat while in opposition, it is unprecedented. We would have to go back to Paddington South in 1930 or Liverpool West Toxteth in 1924 to find a comparably bad performance by the Conservatives.

Bromley, 2006 -11.1%

Romsey, 2000 -4.0% (seat lost to Lib Dem)

Hove, 1965 -6.8%

Roxburgh, 1965 -4.2% (seat lost to Lib)

Cathcart, 1946 -6.3%

Bournemouth, 1945 -8.7%

Paddington S, 1930 n/a (previously uncontested Conservative stronghold lost to Empire Crusader (i.e. right-wing Conservative) on huge swing)

West Toxteth, 1924 -5.4 (seat lost to Labour)

Worst Labour Result 2006

[edit]

It is also probably the first time ever the Labour party has dropped from second place to fourth place in an English by-election.

No, I think Winchester, and Romsey, spring to mind as statistically worse results in recent memory...Anyway, Wiki is not a discussion board, so let's leave this one here doktorb wordsdeeds 08:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, in Winchester(which was not a by-election, but a re-run) the Labour vote fell 8.8% and in Romsey it fell 14.8%. In Bromley it fell by 15.6%. Moreover, the point was clearly NOT about percentage drops, but the fall from a credible 2nd place to fourth place(in England), which as far as Labour goes, is a notable reverse, unprecedented since at least 1945, if at all. I cannot see how the stating of a bald statistical fact can be excised on the spurious grounds of "original research." For what it's worth, there is a cross-reference under Richmond (Yorks) by-election, 1989, although it is clear that Richmond was unusual in that there were two parties of the former Alliance contesting that seat, so Labour's fourth place was somewhat artificial. In Bromley there were no excuses for Labour. RodCrosby 09:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked as far as possible FWS Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949, 1950-70 and his British Parliamentary Election Statistics 1918-, as well as other internet sources. I am confident of the following.

Labour had never fallen from second to fourth in an English constituency since at least 1918, if at all. It would take days of laborious research to examine Labour's performance in its embryonic days around 1900 to see if there was some odd result which could conceivably be comparable. I suspect this is a very remote possibility, as prior to 1945 many seats were either un-contested or straight two-party fights. Three-or-more cornered contests were unusual.

The only remotely analogous results were:-

Ceredigion by-election, 2000. Labour fell from 2nd to fourth, but in a 4-way marginal in the Welsh four-party system.

Richmond by-election, 1989. Labour "fell" from 3rd to fourth, but in the unusual circumstances of a strong but split Lib/SDP vote, both parts of which out-polled Labour.

For completeness, similar Tory disasters were:-

Blaenau Gwent by-election, 2006. Conservatives finish 5th again, albeit improving their share marginally.

Blaenau Gwent general election, 2005. Conservatives finish 5th. (believed to be the worst ranking of a major political party in UK electoral history.)

Hartlepool by-election, 2004. Conservatives fell from 2nd to fourth.

Liverpool Walton by-election, 1991. Conservatives fell from 3rd to fourth.

Bermondsey by-election, 1983. Conservatives fell from 2nd to fourth. RodCrosby 12:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bromley and Chislehurst (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bromley and Chislehurst (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bromley_and_Chislehurst_(UK_Parliament_constituency)&oldid=1206445062"