timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 6, 2023 12:17:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 6, 2023 15:14:50 GMT
Out of interest do Greens use a term for people who say they are going to vote for them? We record it in a more granular, and less emotive, way. "i've just been granular canvassing" "Well i'd keep that to yourself if I were you".
Here is Echo and the Bunnymen's song about canvassing. Even includes the line "Down came the rain" - We've all been there.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 6, 2023 15:44:27 GMT
The Tory in King's Hedges won with about 9% of the electorate in the ward backing him. Lol. You could say something similar probably about most of the by-election victors in these threads. My favourite fact of that sort about turnouts and votes in local elections is from Croydon 2022: the councillor elected in a 1-member ward got more votes than any of the 3 councillors elected in a 3-member ward nextdoor: Park Hill & Whitgift ward: electorate 4,307. Turnout 1,812 (42%). Conservative 969 (53% of the votes, 22% of the electorate). Fairfield ward: electorate 10,928. Tunout 2,672 (24%). Green / Labour / Green 925 / 923 / 913 (34% of the votes, 8% of the electorate).
|
|
|
Post by Kristofer Keane on Jul 6, 2023 19:03:26 GMT
Turnout is going to be very low, not helped by it raining nearly all day here.
Labour have been the most active about polling stations though their teller here went home at 7. SNP, Tories and Lib Dems have only been visiting for turnout figures. Haven't seen a Green or Family Party activist all day.
When the Lib Dem guy turned up, he asked me if I had ever thought of joining the Lib Dems...
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 6, 2023 19:07:15 GMT
Turnout is going to be very low, not helped by it raining nearly all day here. Labour have been the most active about polling stations though their teller here went home at 7. SNP, Tories and Lib Dems have only been visiting for turnout figures. Haven't seen a Green or Family Party activist all day. When the Lib Dem guy turned up, he asked me if I had ever thought of joining the Lib Dems..."Been there, done that".
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 6, 2023 19:23:22 GMT
We record it in a more granular, and less emotive, way. The modern Labour approach is probably similar. A canvasser who follows instructions is supposed to rank a voter on their self-declared degree of adherence to voting Labour on a scale. I haven’t done it enough to know how generally those instructions are followed. In the very old days some supposedly used to decline to class someone as a supporter unless they took a poster. There were a few streets in my ward where that probably wasn’t far out (although of course displaying a poster didn’t guarantee a vote, particularly where perceived community pressure had made the display almost intimidating). Of course terms like “promise” probably originate in the days of two-party politics, where class alignment was much stronger. It’s not a literal term nor one that carries undue expectation. Though that granularity has its own issues and its own limitations. Different canvassers can produce wildly different assessments of the likelihood that someone will vote for them. A good boardrunner will account for this to the best of their ability, but it's an art rather than a science. And the limitation is that whilst a 3 out of 10 and a 9 out of 10 (or whatever scale you choose to use) have different levels of likelihood of actually voting for you, on polling day if you're facing a serious chance of defeat then you want to be persuading anybody you have data on who's more likely to vote for you than your opponents to get to the polling station, and at that point they either do or they don't.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 6, 2023 19:35:49 GMT
The modern Labour approach is probably similar. A canvasser who follows instructions is supposed to rank a voter on their self-declared degree of adherence to voting Labour on a scale. I haven’t done it enough to know how generally those instructions are followed. In the very old days some supposedly used to decline to class someone as a supporter unless they took a poster. There were a few streets in my ward where that probably wasn’t far out (although of course displaying a poster didn’t guarantee a vote, particularly where perceived community pressure had made the display almost intimidating). Of course terms like “promise” probably originate in the days of two-party politics, where class alignment was much stronger. It’s not a literal term nor one that carries undue expectation. Thought that granularity has its own issues and its own limitations. Different canvassers can produce wildly different assessments of the likelihood that someone will vote for them. A good boardrunner will account for this to the best of their ability, but it's an art rather than a science. And the limitation is that whilst a 3 out of 10 and a 9 out of 10 (or whatever scale you choose to use) have different levels of likelihood of actually voting for you, on polling day if you're facing a serious chance of defeat then you want to be persuading anybody you have data on who's more likely to vote for you than your opponents to get to the polling station, and at that point they either do or they don't. The other element, which you touch on at the end, is whether a party has the resources to really use the granularity by adopting different tactics and techniques for the various rankings. In a volunteer-rich by-election maybe. But in your ordinary council or parliamentary election I’d rather doubt if the nuances in the data can be explored.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 6, 2023 19:46:26 GMT
My understanding is that the main way the granularity is used is by determining which voters are placed on your lists for knocking up on polling days - will it just be stronger supporters, or all supporters, or supporters plus those with characteristics that suggest they are probably supporters. Indeed, I've worked in wards where we were so short of promises that it put identified supporters of opponents on our knock-up sheets, though I'm unsure if that was a system fault or just an attempt to find the least hostile amongst that group.
But the issue is that if you can win with reliable voters only, then you barely need a polling day operation. In any close contest, you're going to have to deal with some people whose support is less assured than you would like.
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jul 6, 2023 20:40:20 GMT
It may be long ago but from having done the first canvass of King's Hedges ward in the 1992 general election, I know something about the ward. I doubt that a byelection win and a sitting Conservative councillor in King's Hedges is likely to create a long term opportunity for a Conservative revival in Cambridge. The base Conservative vote is not very high and the party would need a good issue affecting a large part of the ward in order to put it in contention for a win. On occasions the council's Labour administration may decide to create one but otherwise this is a ward which will very easily be persuaded to return to Labour. I know nothing about the ward, but I do recognise complacency. An active community politician of whatever colour can turn other party strongholds around pretty quickly based on nothing more than fixing potholes, graffiti and doing lots of casework. Ashfield indys being a particularly salient recent example.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Jul 6, 2023 20:51:32 GMT
I voted after work today but no sign of anyone else
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 6, 2023 20:55:21 GMT
Thought that granularity has its own issues and its own limitations. Different canvassers can produce wildly different assessments of the likelihood that someone will vote for them. A good boardrunner will account for this to the best of their ability, but it's an art rather than a science. And the limitation is that whilst a 3 out of 10 and a 9 out of 10 (or whatever scale you choose to use) have different levels of likelihood of actually voting for you, on polling day if you're facing a serious chance of defeat then you want to be persuading anybody you have data on who's more likely to vote for you than your opponents to get to the polling station, and at that point they either do or they don't. The other element, which you touch on at the end, is whether a party has the resources to really use the granularity by adopting different tactics and techniques for the various rankings. In a volunteer-rich by-election maybe. But in your ordinary council or parliamentary election I’d rather doubt if the nuances in the data can be explored. Our approach was simple, but worked. Our Shuttleworth (i.e. list of likely supporters) were A, B, c or T. A had been identified as definite supporters at that election; B as probable supporters. The c category was for past supporters who had not been contacted at that election. T were Conservatives; we would urge them to vote tactically, but if they chose to vote Tory it didn't influence the outcome. If we were really stretched we would concentrate on As and Bs only. I presume that's how most committee rooms operate. When I went to help on polling day in a target seat at a recent election I discovered there were 57 varieties on the knock-up sheets - "soft Con", "soft Lab", "LD/Con waverer", "LD/Lab waverer" and numerous other categories. How this was meant to assist us on the doorstep I had no idea!
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 6, 2023 22:29:43 GMT
Though that granularity has its own issues and its own limitations. Different canvassers can produce wildly different assessments of the likelihood that someone will vote for them. A good boardrunner will account for this to the best of their ability, but it's an art rather than a science. And the limitation is that whilst a 3 out of 10 and a 9 out of 10 (or whatever scale you choose to use) have different levels of likelihood of actually voting for you, on polling day if you're facing a serious chance of defeat then you want to be persuading anybody you have data on who's more likely to vote for you than your opponents to get to the polling station, and at that point they either do or they don't. You can get too granulated. EARS had fairly simple HardLD, SoftLD, HardLab, SoftLab, HardCon, etc.etc. Connect has spewed out into: Strong LD, LD, Red LD, Blue LD, Green LD, Nat LD... Strong Lab, Lab, Yellow Lab, Blue Lab, Green Lab, Nat Lab... Strong Con, Con, Yellow Con, Red Con, Green Con, Nat Con... Strong Grn, Grn, Yellow Grn, Red Grn, Blue Grn, Nat Grn... .... ...
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jul 6, 2023 22:35:27 GMT
I've worked in wards where we were so short of promises that it put identified supporters of opponents on our knock-up sheets, though I'm unsure if that was a system fault or just an attempt to find the least hostile amongst that group. I've had that. * I need a target delivery list, I want about 1500 leaflets. # Well, Defs+Probs gives 400 targets. * We need more than that. # Ok, if I add SoftLab and SoftCon that gets to 500. * We need more than that! # Well, if I add HardLab and HardCon, that will get to 1200, will that do?
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 6, 2023 22:40:39 GMT
Turnout is going to be very low, not helped by it raining nearly all day here. Labour have been the most active about polling stations though their teller here went home at 7. SNP, Tories and Lib Dems have only been visiting for turnout figures. Haven't seen a Green or Family Party activist all day. When the Lib Dem guy turned up, he asked me if I had ever thought of joining the Lib Dems... I presume you enlightened him about your list of party memberships over the years…
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 6, 2023 22:48:29 GMT
South Lanarkshire, East Kilbride West is a Labour gain but no informaiton on votes.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 6, 2023 22:51:33 GMT
SOUTH LANARKSHIRE East Kilbride West
WILLIAMS, Kirsty (Scottish Labour Party) 1,386 DORRIAN, Bill (Scottish Conservative and Unionist) 904 GILLIES, Robert (Scottish National Party (SNP)) 778 EADIE, Cameron (Scottish Greens - Think Global Act Local) 131 KEANE, Kristofer (Independent) 99 STEVENSON, Jake (Scottish Liberal Democrats) 83 RICHARDSON, Jonathan Jack (Scottish Family Party) 42
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 6, 2023 22:58:18 GMT
Tories in 2nd!
|
|
|
Post by kevinf on Jul 6, 2023 23:00:48 GMT
Yes, they were second at the last election too.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jul 6, 2023 23:03:06 GMT
i highlighted that because everyone in the predictions had Labour winning and SNP 2nd...
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jul 6, 2023 23:03:11 GMT
Quite a good Tory performance, English Tories would be jealous!
|
|