|
|
|
Ayr
|
|
gain
from Labour
|
|
Phil Gallie
|
|
0 ( 0.0%)
|
|
15,136 (33.8%)
|
|
21,679 (48.4%)
|
|
2,116 ( 4.7%)
|
|
5,625 (12.6%)
|
|
200 ( 0.4%)
|
|
|
|
55,829
|
|
44,756 (80.2%)
|
|
Phil Gallie
|
|
Ayr
|
|
1,895 ( 4.2%)
|
|
17,417 (38.4%)
|
|
19,312 (42.6%)
|
|
3,382 ( 7.5%)
|
|
5,057 (11.2%)
|
|
132 ( 0.3%)
|
|
|
Labour
|
|
55,307
|
|
45,300 (81.9%)
|
|
|
-4.6%
|
|
+5.8%
|
|
-2.7%
|
|
+1.4%
|
|
+0.2%
|
|
+0.9%
|
|
-1.7%
|
|
|
|
|
The ousting of the Conservatives from the south-western Scottish seaside constituency of Ayr was very widely predicted before the 1992 election. They were defending a majority of just 182, and a Britain-wide swing to Labour was correctly anticipated. It therefore seemed like something of a miracle when Phil Gallie held on for the Tories by another wafer-thin margin - 85 votes.
Yet, in hindsight, this was not so aberrant a result. The Conservatives did recover in Scotland, even gaining a seat at Aberdeen South, and advancing dramatically in one or two places such as Gordon. The reasons for this recovery probably have less to do with constitutional matters and more to do with the fact that Mrs Thatcher (very unpopular in Scotland) had been replaced. It is also true that in 1992, unlike in the previous two general elections, it looked as if Labour had a real chance of victory, which might have frightened off some middle-class Scottish voters.
Now, though, I will firmly predict that Ayr will fall. the reason is that in a disastrous boundary change the Tories have lost one of their best areas, Alloway. It really is no longer a 'level playing field' for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,537
|
11.44
|
9.03
|
127
|
|
|
3,176
|
10.27
|
11.17
|
92
|
|
|
3,200
|
10.35
|
11.25
|
92
|
|
|
2,460
|
7.96
|
14.70
|
54
|
|
|
1,608
|
5.20
|
10.45
|
50
|
|
|
558
|
1.80
|
2.81
|
64
|
|
|
3,768
|
12.19
|
8.01
|
152
|
|
|
6,343
|
20.52
|
15.25
|
135
|
|
|
1,742
|
5.63
|
7.13
|
79
|
|
|
4,525
|
14.64
|
10.17
|
144
|
|
|
