LAB has 9% lead in BBC Projected National Share – politicalbetting.com

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

biggles said:

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Still a Conservative voter strike. Look at 2019 for how two elections can show a massive swing in sentiment.

Anyway, my pavement pounding in Brixham helped get a Conservative council gain in Torbay. Possibly the only one in the elections? So I'm feeling my efforts really made a difference.

As I reported, don't get carried away. There's no love for Labour or Starmer out there in voter land...

Conservatives as disliked (maybe more so, but I think you're right about striking/apathetic voters who will largely come home) as 1997. Labour much less popular than 1997 though. Starmer has work to do for a majority, but he should be PM.

Are the Tories as disliked as they were then? I don’t think so. People forget how universal the “time for a change” message was in ‘97 and how much we all despised them. The politically motivated might dislike them now, but they aren’t yet instinctively hated by the man on the Clapham omnibus.

There was also the small matter of Tony Blair being probably the best retail politician that this country has ever seen.

And a really, really good team - like them or loathe them, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson were outstandingly good at addressing Labour's perceived weaknesses and exploiting the Tories' vulnerabilities. In addition, almost the entire Shadow Cabinet were focused, on message and very obviously preparing seriously for government. That is not the case for the current lot, in fact they are mostly invisible. Really only Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting look like cabinet-ministers-in-waiting.

And Reeves, understandably perhaps, all too often comes across as more than a bit daunted by the challenge in front of her. Brown, with his prawn cocktail offensive in the City, never had that problem.

Yes, she's OK, but not great. It's hard to believe now, but as Shadow Chancellor Brown was really very convincing.

The big Green advances in Mid Suffolk and East Herts both appear to be the result of Nimby tantrums over new housing developments. I'm shocked, truly shocked, I tell you.

Cicero said:

Lib Dems break over 200 gains.

On top of last times gains.

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m confident on Starmer winning the next election based on results so far.

It would take something seismic now for Starmer not to be the next PM. What I think is notable is that the Labour + LibDem + Green number in both the NEV and PNS is actually outperforming the national polling.

That's not unusual, though, is it?

Could we see a possible 1997 scenario for the Tories against the Lib Dems but more like 2005 versus Labour?

As I was saying, East Riding is looking interesting. Cons have to win every remaining seat to retain control. It would leave them with a majority of 1. At the previous election they had a majority of 15 (I think).

Keir Starmer now winning where Labour has not won since Blair.

Will people now accept he has appeal even if you don't personally like him?

Foss said:

DavidL said:

Malmesbury said:

DavidL said:

I think that the Tories would probably take that at the moment.

As I mentioned in the previous thread the economy is growing faster and inflation is proving stickier than predicted by the official models. More like what was suggested by me, in fact. Whether that will be enough to repair the damage over the next 18 months remains to be seen.

Has there been any case in recorded economic history where inflation packed up and went home all by itself vs massive and painful measures by the government?

Not that immediately comes to mind. But, of course, those experts in the BoE and OBR may well know better.

In theory, if you had a burst of inflation from a specific source like gas it could go without wider damage but in practice the ripple effects on wages, goods produced with energy, transport etc spread out and assuming there is not going to be a reaction to that is, well, optimistic.

The big April '22 spike is about to drop off the YoY inflation rate.

Yes, we should see a decent drop this month, hopefully to around 9.5%. But food inflation remains a worry.

The Tories didn't "win" in 2010 but it started their 13 year period of Government.

That is what is next for Labour. Tories out, they won't be coming back in any time soon.

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

biggles said:

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Still a Conservative voter strike. Look at 2019 for how two elections can show a massive swing in sentiment.

Anyway, my pavement pounding in Brixham helped get a Conservative council gain in Torbay. Possibly the only one in the elections? So I'm feeling my efforts really made a difference.

As I reported, don't get carried away. There's no love for Labour or Starmer out there in voter land...

Conservatives as disliked (maybe more so, but I think you're right about striking/apathetic voters who will largely come home) as 1997. Labour much less popular than 1997 though. Starmer has work to do for a majority, but he should be PM.

Are the Tories as disliked as they were then? I don’t think so. People forget how universal the “time for a change” message was in ‘97 and how much we all despised them. The politically motivated might dislike them now, but they aren’t yet instinctively hated by the man on the Clapham omnibus.

There was also the small matter of Tony Blair being probably the best retail politician that this country has ever seen.

And a really, really good team - like them or loathe them, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson were outstandingly good at addressing Labour's perceived weaknesses and exploiting the Tories' vulnerabilities. In addition, almost the entire Shadow Cabinet were focused, on message and very obviously preparing seriously for government. That is not the case for the current lot, in fact they are mostly invisible. Really only Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting look like cabinet-ministers-in-waiting.

And Reeves, understandably perhaps, all too often comes across as more than a bit daunted by the challenge in front of her. Brown, with his prawn cocktail offensive in the City, never had that problem.

In fairness to her, she is set to inherit books that are rather worse than those inherited by Brown in 1997.

Dialup said:

The Tories didn't "win" in 2010 but it started their 13 year period of Government.

That is what is next for Labour. Tories out, they won't be coming back in any time soon.

Especially with their most likely Loto’s.

Lib Dems win Chichester.

Tory losses now above 600 and still going strong.

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m confident on Starmer winning the next election based on results so far.

Labour will be the largest party. 95%+

They will form the administration - I don't see much possibility that the other opposition parties would try and bring it down. Even if they tried to govern as a minority government (supply and confidence?) rather than formal coalition.

As to a majority.... That is currently in play, I think. Could go either way.

Same.

Scotland is what will give Labour a majority or not.

ABC is tactical voting is back.

MarqueeMark said:

DM_Andy said:

MarqueeMark said:

South Hams had a long running and toxic contract dispute regarding the recycling collections. The Tories got the blame.

You'd never know the LibDems signed that contract from their election literature...

How did the Lib Dems sign the recycling contract, they haven't been in charge of South Hams since 1999.

There was a short period when they were, then a by-election lost them control.

The contract with FCC started in April 2019 so that would be the 2015-19 council that signed it. The 2015 election was Conservative 25, Green 3, Lib Dem 2, Labour 1. Are you saying there were 10 by-elections for the Conservatives to lose control of the council?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Dialup said:

As I said days ago, whatever happens Keir Starmer will be called crap and Labour "underwhelming".

9 point lead and they lost in a landslide just over 3 years ago

It is a valid point and for that he should be congratulated, it is quite an achievement. That said, this is very midterm in a cost of living crisis. If everything else remains equal we can expect that 9 point lead to erode, to what, maybe 5%?

There are still lots of things for SKS fans to be explaining.

I for one, that somewhat fears a Labour majority, but think that the Tories need a reset, will be OK with Labour minority government with LDs supporting

Labour has not had this kind of NEV lead since it lost power in 2010. It almost always underperforms its polling in the locals. It did in 1996, for example. With the level of anti-Tory vote we have seen and the possibility of Scotland coming back into play, I would not rule out a functioning Labour majority, but I do think a minority is more likely. Parties that have been in party a long time are usually hard to remove. In that sense, 1997 was very much an outlier.

Dialup said:

The Tories didn't "win" in 2010 but it started their 13 year period of Government.

That is what is next for Labour. Tories out, they won't be coming back in any time soon.

I think you might be starting to get a tad carried away now...

Sean_F said:

I'm not convinced that yesterday did show massive anti-Conservative tactical voting. At any rate, not on the scale of the mid 90's.

Tactical voting against the Conservatives would, in most places, mean rowing in behind Labour, as we saw to devastating effect in 1995. The Conservative NEV share was 1% above the 1995 figure, but the Conservatives did far less badly, because the non-Conservative vote went in a load of different directions. The Conservatives were reduced to 8 councils in that year, and knocked into third place in terms of seats.

That's a decent point - but I'd argue that is now a lot easier to make informed tactical voting choices than it was back in the 1990s.

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m confident on Starmer winning the next election based on results so far.

I wonder how long his minority administration will last?

Not long.
He'll go the country to ask for and get a majority within a couple of years.

How are household finances going to look in 18 months for most swing voters? Not pretty for too many imo. That, along with SNP harikiri, is why there will be a Labour majority, not because of computer models trying to extrapolate from a local election to a general election 18 months down the line with a load of events to come.

Westie said:

Andy_JS said:

Westie said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What on earth is happening?

Well the king has told his carer, J Dimbleby, to blame the archbishop for the king's own decision to call for a mass loyalty oath. The archbishop has said it was a collective decision for which no single person is to blame, and the carer has strongly implied that the king didn't know about it anyway and would have opposed the idea if only somebody had asked him. Someone then offered the document that the king signed off, as well as an audiotape, as an NFT, and now the king has gone hopping mad and is threatening to abdicate. That's what the lunch for the "realm prime ministers and governors" was all about, apparently.

Of course nobody could possibly have predicted something like this might happen.

I can't tell whether this is satire or fact.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/05/charles-would-find-oath-of-loyalty-abhorrent-says-jonathan-dimbleby

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65493188

PS Calling J Dimbleby the king's "carer" is a reference to his role in writing the final version of his "autobiography" when he was just a prince, making sure he didn't put his foot in it eleventy teen times over, which seems to be exactly his role right now in relation to the mass oath debacle.

DM_Andy said:

17% swing Labour to Tory for Leicester Mayor. I know there's been a big kerfuffle in the Labour group there but if the council swings 17% then it'll be NOC.

Yes, I flagged Leicester up a few days back as one to watch.

There was a recent move by some Labour councillors to abolish the City Mayor, which was defeated and 18 Labour councillors deselected, and replaced by ones more amenable to Soulsby.

It is not primarily an ideological dispute as far as I can tell (Soulsby is Old Labour but not Corbynite), but does have an ethnic dimension. In part this is some of the fallout from the Hindutva/Muslim disputes of last autumn, and North Evington byelection. Essentially a conflict between "big men" in a Tammany Hall style with Keith Vaz getting his oar in too.

This gives a flavour:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/disproportionate-number-deselected-labour-councillors-8287634

I expect some Tory and other gains against the newly selected Labour councillors

JosiasJessop said:

Dialup said:

Keir Starmer now winning where Labour has not won since Blair.

Will people now accept he has appeal even if you don't personally like him?

I think that's egging the pudding.

Back in the mid-90's, there were two main factors that drove Blair's 1997 landslide: a tired Conservative government, more interested than in-fighting than fighting for the country; and a charismatic Labour leader who was willing to change the party to gain power.

I'd argue that the current Conservative government is in a (slightly) better state than it was in 1995-7; especially now Rishi is in power. But the main problem for Labour is that Starmer is no Blair; and the only change he has made to the party; to throw out anti-Semites, is a change that should not have been necessary.

IMV Labour's vote is mostly being driven by the chaotic state of the government, rather than any appeal Starmer might have.

But.
Labour was a long way ahead under John Smith too.

Does anyone know what the policy differences are between Poole Engage and Poole People, both parties having won seats on BCP Council.

Mexicanpete said:

DavidL said:

Mexicanpete said:

GIN1138 said:

To me, that national projected share and swing looks rather on the low side for Labour I must say...

DavidL said:

I think that the Tories would probably take that at the moment.

As I mentioned in the previous thread the economy is growing faster and inflation is proving stickier than predicted by the official models. More like what was suggested by me, in fact. Whether that will be enough to repair the damage over the next 18 months remains to be seen.

I really don't see that at all. The Conservatives may still recover and win a GE, but on yesterday's votes cast it is an unmitigated disaster for the Cons. I suspect LD, Lab and Green are all reasonably comfortable with the result.

Really? After the total embarrassment that was late Boris and the unmitigated shambles that was Truss, to be only 9% behind? It could and should be a lot worse. I am not suggesting it is a good result. I am suggesting that it is as good as they could expect in very difficult circumstances.

There is an article on the previous thread that suggests the 9% equates with the current 15% Labour lead in the polls. You are also ignoring a massive result for both LDs and Greens.

It is fair to say that if you added 50% of the Green vote to Labour in the form of tactical voting the numbers start to look very different. The problem with the rotting carcass of this Tory government is that everyone wants a slice.

Dialup said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m confident on Starmer winning the next election based on results so far.

I wonder how long his minority administration will last?

Five years and then a majority. I think we are headed for the Tories out for a decade now.

Heaths is the only postwar government to get a single parliamentary term. Almost all governments win a second time. POTUS's too.

Dialup said:

GIN1138 said:

Dialup said:

The Tories didn't "win" in 2010 but it started their 13 year period of Government.

That is what is next for Labour. Tories out, they won't be coming back in any time soon.

I think you might be starting to get a tad carried away now...

Not really, they won't win a majority but the Tories will be out for a long time.

Based on what LOL? The Tories might be out for a long time or they might be back within term. Who knows?

There is certainly nothing whatsoever in todays results that would give you any indication of what will happen beyond 2024 one way or t'other.

And I've gotta say for now I'd beware that hubris and just concentrate on getting over the line in 2024...

(FPTish)

Conservatives lose Cherwell to NOC - their last council in Oxfordshire.

Looks likely to go to a Lab/LD/Green coalition, though with Labour as the largest party - the other Oxfordshire coalitions are LD-led. Labour have absolutely slaughtered the Conservatives in Banbury.

The LibDems have gained the old seat of Keith Mitchell, the blustering Thatcherite who dominated Oxfordshire politics for many years.

What did Blair get in NEV in 1996?

DM_Andy said:

Does anyone know what the policy differences are between Poole Engage and Poole People, both parties having won seats on BCP Council.

One has a manifesto, and the other, principles.

https://pooleengage.org.uk/our-manifesto/
https://poolepeople.org.uk/principles/

They ought to Poole their resources.

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

I'm not convinced that yesterday did show massive anti-Conservative tactical voting. At any rate, not on the scale of the mid 90's.

Tactical voting against the Conservatives would, in most places, mean rowing in behind Labour, as we saw to devastating effect in 1995. The Conservative NEV share was 1% above the 1995 figure, but the Conservatives did far less badly, because the non-Conservative vote went in a load of different directions. The Conservatives were reduced to 8 councils in that year, and knocked into third place in terms of seats.

That's a decent point - but I'd argue that is now a lot easier to make informed tactical voting choices than it was back in the 1990s.

If Boris or Truss was leader I could see significant tactical voting. But despite the social media posts and shares of my leftest friends you can hardly say the current government is fascist. Sunak is not the face of fascism, and I can't see him as some bond villain rich bloke either. He's just bland like Starmer.

ping said:

The tories problem is people want more government, not less.

This reheated cameroonism, with a bit of performative NFism looks to me like a shit strategy for getting re-elected.

Maybe it’s their best option out of all the bad options they have? Hope the economy picks up, perhaps?

They’ve basically run out of road, I recon.

The centre-left is winning the ideological argument.

The only answer the centre left has is to spend more money which will not be available, because the Tories have already maxed the credit card. Greater borrowing or higher taxes and splurging it at the public sector is not going to enhance anyone's lives, except those more fortunate highly paid folk in the said public sector. The markets will do to a Starmer government what they did to Truss if it tries to splurge more money around.

FPT (sorry, work interrupted, end of quarter expenses to do...)

NickyBreakspear said:

Pro_Rata said:

Curtice: Lab 35, Con 26, LD 20

Is that the official PNS declaration?

9 points decent, but 10 was my threshold for being happy and 35 isn't high.

But then I remember, as an LE01-15 fairly consistent Labour voter (and often against LDs at that), I switched Green (made sense for my ward) for the Corbyn years and never switched back.

So, I'm one of those LLGs that Labour are, reasonably, pinning some hopes on.

The 2019 PNS was 28, 28, 19. So Lab +7, Con -2, LD +1

Applying that to the 2019 GE (yes, I know...) gives Con 40, Lab 39, LD 8. A horribly hung parliament.

DM_Andy said:

Does anyone know what the policy differences are between Poole Engage and Poole People, both parties having won seats on BCP Council.

Poole People were part of the rainbow coalition after the last election that was so useless it got chucked out halfway through the term. I think Poole Engage are new.

dixiedean said:

JosiasJessop said:

Dialup said:

Keir Starmer now winning where Labour has not won since Blair.

Will people now accept he has appeal even if you don't personally like him?

I think that's egging the pudding.

Back in the mid-90's, there were two main factors that drove Blair's 1997 landslide: a tired Conservative government, more interested than in-fighting than fighting for the country; and a charismatic Labour leader who was willing to change the party to gain power.

I'd argue that the current Conservative government is in a (slightly) better state than it was in 1995-7; especially now Rishi is in power. But the main problem for Labour is that Starmer is no Blair; and the only change he has made to the party; to throw out anti-Semites, is a change that should not have been necessary.

IMV Labour's vote is mostly being driven by the chaotic state of the government, rather than any appeal Starmer might have.

But.
Labour was a long way ahead under John Smith too.

A good point; but he died in mid-1994; and in the local elections that year he got 40% to Major's 27% (1). In the 1997 GE, the result was 43.2% for Labour against 30.7% for the Conservatives.

But that was mid-term. As an example, in the 2008 LE the Conservatives got 44% to Labour's 24% (2); the 2010 GE saw the Conservatives decrease to 36.1% and Labour recover to 29%.

IMO Blair's presence at the helm stopped the Coneervatives recovering from the mid-term slump. Aided by the Conservatives' own actions. obviously.

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_United_Kingdom_local_elections
(2): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_local_elections

Lab lead over Con 1995 - 24% (!)
Lab lead over Con 1996 - 16%

Lab lead over Con 2022 - 5%
Lab lead over Con 2023 - 9%

I don't see a Labour landslide nor is a Labour majority on the cards at this stage. The Tories are more likely to come back than Labour are to extend their lead.

I wonder what Ronald Reagan would say if a Supreme Court justice was discovered to have secretly received financial gifts from a wealthy backer?

(Sacramento Bee, 5/14/69)
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1654512503471128578

MaxPB said:

Lab lead over Con 1995 - 24% (!)
Lab lead over Con 1996 - 14%

Lab lead over Con 2022 - 5%
Lab lead over Con 2023 - 9%

I don't see a Labour landslide nor is a Labour majority on the cards at this stage. The Tories are more likely to come back than Labour are to extend their lead.

My thoughts entirely. I smell a whiff of a Sheffield rally amongst Labour supporters

FrankBooth said:

Could we see a possible 1997 scenario for the Tories against the Lib Dems but more like 2005 versus Labour?

I don't see where 46 Lib Dem seats would be coming from. The Lib Dems went into the 1997 election with 800 more councillors, and three times as many councils, as the Conservatives.

Seeing as how a leading PB psephologist declared recently, that all of the local Independent vote was really Conservative, then should the -50 lost Independent seats (as per BBC currently) also be chalked up against the Tories?

Dialup said:

GIN1138 said:

Dialup said:

GIN1138 said:

Dialup said:

The Tories didn't "win" in 2010 but it started their 13 year period of Government.

That is what is next for Labour. Tories out, they won't be coming back in any time soon.

I think you might be starting to get a tad carried away now...

Not really, they won't win a majority but the Tories will be out for a long time.

Based on what LOL? The Tories might be out for a long time or they might be back within term. Who knows?

There is certainly nothing whatsoever in todays results that would give you any indication of what will happen beyond 2024 one way or t'other.

And I've gotta say for now I'd beware that hubris and just concentrate on getting over the line in 2024...

I think the odds the Tories win the next election are less than 10%.

The odds KS is PM is way over 85% at this point.

It is very rare a new Government gets kicked out after 1 term, which is why I say Labour will be in for a decade like the Tories have just been.

I know you clearly don't like Starmer but he's got an appeal that you should try and understand rather than just telling me I am wrong.

I agree with your first three paragraphs; it's the last one I disagree with. Can you describe his 'appeal' ? (Aside from not-being-a-Tory, obvs.) The problem I have is that neither Sunak, Starmer or Davey are in any way 'appealing' or charismatic, at least in my eyes. That doesn't make them bad people, either.

Sean_F said:

FrankBooth said:

Could we see a possible 1997 scenario for the Tories against the Lib Dems but more like 2005 versus Labour?

I don't see where 46 Lib Dem seats would be coming from. The Lib Dems went into the 1997 election with 800 more councillors, and three times as many councils, as the Conservatives.

Admittedly I'm looking rather more at national vote shares.

Sean_F said:

SandyRentool said:

Is South Hams the home of pork barrel politics?

It used to be one of England's most corrupt councils.

I didn't know that.

Sean_F said:

FrankBooth said:

Could we see a possible 1997 scenario for the Tories against the Lib Dems but more like 2005 versus Labour?

I don't see where 46 Lib Dem seats would be coming from...

Largely from the Tories ?

A minor point of interest. All 18 UKIP councillors have so far lost their seat. I suspect some of them didn't even stand. Surely this is the end for them?

The Tories are close to losing Lichfield council, which wasn't expected.

Richard_Nabavi said:

DavidL said:

biggles said:

Selebian said:

MarqueeMark said:

Still a Conservative voter strike. Look at 2019 for how two elections can show a massive swing in sentiment.

Anyway, my pavement pounding in Brixham helped get a Conservative council gain in Torbay. Possibly the only one in the elections? So I'm feeling my efforts really made a difference.

As I reported, don't get carried away. There's no love for Labour or Starmer out there in voter land...

Conservatives as disliked (maybe more so, but I think you're right about striking/apathetic voters who will largely come home) as 1997. Labour much less popular than 1997 though. Starmer has work to do for a majority, but he should be PM.

Are the Tories as disliked as they were then? I don’t think so. People forget how universal the “time for a change” message was in ‘97 and how much we all despised them. The politically motivated might dislike them now, but they aren’t yet instinctively hated by the man on the Clapham omnibus.

There was also the small matter of Tony Blair being probably the best retail politician that this country has ever seen.

And a really, really good team - like them or loathe them, Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson were outstandingly good at addressing Labour's perceived weaknesses and exploiting the Tories' vulnerabilities. In addition, almost the entire Shadow Cabinet were focused, on message and very obviously preparing seriously for government. That is not the case for the current lot, in fact they are mostly invisible. Really only Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting look like cabinet-ministers-in-waiting.

I was going to flag the shadow cabinet. If Labour are going to win, he needs a major reshuffle to get match fit. More Streeting less Dodds (he can’t him Rayner until he’s in power).

Blair’s ‘97 team was a different class to what Starmer has. If he wins with this mob, a second term won’t be easy. Especially if he starts with a minority and C&S (my assumption).

And the country needs two terms of a Labour Gvt. We’ve had one party for too long.

MaxPB said:

What did Blair get in NEV in 1996?

Mark Pack keeps a spreadsheet with historic local election data including NEV and PNS.

https://www.markpack.org.uk/localbase-local-council-election-results-1973-today/

For 1996 the NEV (Rawlings and Thresher) is C 29, L 43, LD 24.
For 1996 the PNS (BBC Curtice) is C 27, L 43, LD 26.

As at 15.10 the project PNS for 2023 is C 26, L 35, LD 20. There are a lot more others than in 1996.

We've had 3 Mayoral results. In Mansfield, the Labour candidate won with 45% of the vote over the Conservatives on 26%, so it seems likely we would have had the same result under SV.

In Leicester, the Labour candidate won with only 39% of the vote, over the Conservative on 30%. That looks a bit more as if SV could have produced a different result, but the bottom 2 candidates were the TUSC and Green, with a total of 11%, so it seems highly likely that their second preferences under SV would have ensured a Labour win.

So that only leaves Middlesbrough where it seems quite likely SV would have made a difference. Labour won with 40% over an independent on 37%. Another independent and a Conservative both got 11%, with no other candidates. Surely second preferences would have been enough to overcome the Labour lead.

Sean_F said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Sean_F said:

FPT, South Hams is no posher than Torbay, overall. Salcombe and Dartmouth are outliers.

And Totnes and the Dart Valley are like Summerisle in the Wicker Man.

What! South Hams is miles posher than Torbay.

Not inland. Parts of the hinterland are pretty depressed.

Other than Ivybridge, which I accept isn't all that, and Totnes which is very much posh (albeit Green posh rather than Tory posh) the population does very much tend to be coastal and upmarket small town/village with eye-watering property prices. I'm not saying there isn't a skuzzy village or two inland, but in terms of the average across households in the area as a whole, it's pretty posh.

Particularly when you compare with Torbay... I mean there are some lovely parts of Paignton and Torquay but they are, er, mixed as you tend to find with larger seaside towns.