|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 12, 2019 23:03:01 GMT
The people to be worried by this sort of result are the Tories as (a) they lost (b) the ability of LD and Lab to squeeze each other is a killer so long as the total votes of those two are well above the Tory total; as they are, nationally. Squeezing votes is a lot easier in a local by-election than in a General Election though, since most people take their cue from the national campaign, not the local tactical situation.. True. But a bit easier than it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 12, 2019 22:53:39 GMT
Shropshire Bishops Castle Ward Liberal Democrat Ruth Houghton 838 71% conservative 229 19% Labour 107 9% LD hold, fairly convincing. Not bad, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 12, 2019 22:51:03 GMT
5.85% Swing Labour to Conservative. (More seriously, that's a bit of a shocker for them isn't it?) Not particularly. Labour hadn't been standing in this seat for many years. They got a reasonable vote in the by-election in 2018 as Northamptonshire local government came under the spotlight but the Lib Dems emerged then as the clear competitors to Tory dominance. The Lib Dems have now squeezed the Labour vote. The change in candidate may have had something to do with it as well. The people to be worried by this sort of result are the Tories as (a) they lost (b) the ability of LD and Lab to squeeze each other is a killer so long as the total votes of those two are well above the Tory total; as they are, nationally.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 11, 2019 7:37:12 GMT
Adam in Stroud ,we do seem to think of the past as fairly honourable compared to now. But some of the biggest crooks and wrong 'uns in any of the parties could be seen in the Sixties and Seventies, on a scale that wouldn't be imaginable amongst the current crop, regardless of what one thinks of them. Not sure which post of mine you're referring to Devil - what I was noting upthread was that a radical strand in the Conservative Party has been about for some decades, which I think arose from a sense that merely resisting excessive change wasn't enough, because it was felt that things had gone too far; and that this strain now seems to be in total control. In a Brexit context that means mere Euroscepticism about further integration isn't enough, absolute departure from the EU is needed. I don't comment on whether there was greater honour in the past. In fact, now you get me thinking about it, it seems to me that we have had fewer scandals in the last few years than normal - a couple of errant MPs (O'Mara and Onasanya), a little bit of "Me Too" but not out of line with the rest of society (maybe less,) a couple of leaks (normal)...... Priti Patel seems to me the only really dodgy case. Nothing like the expenses scandal. Shock horror, maybe we have quite an honourable bunch of politicians, even if they are useless?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 9, 2019 21:34:43 GMT
I see this happening at two levels. First , the headline departures of MPs, former cabinet ministers, etc, some of whom I admired, some I didn't, bur undoubtedly Tories many of whom had been at the heart of the Tory party for decades. I guess Pete may try and claim, as I know Carlton has, that these were not true Tories, they were somehow fellow travelling commies who had infiltrated the true party as they believe it to be. Yes we are talking those well known Commies like Heseltine, Clarke, Hammond, Gauke and Grieve. I have no doubt the other old reds like Cameron and Osborne are also on the list. It is so ludicrous that it is very difficult to respond in all seriousness. and I find it difficult to find myself defending the right wing politicians I have spent my whole political career attacking. But they were honourable people who stood for values that were widely held, and they commanded a substantial vote in the country, and especially in rural areas and country towns, exactly the sort of area like Buckingham. But most I named above, and so many more, have now left the Conservative Party, or been expelled. I think there will be many more, maybe more MPs including some ministers,, certainly Peers, many long established councillors. Today's departure of the Duke of Wellington says it all. The old Tory party is dying before our eyes. It is being replaced by something a lot of these old school Tories see as a bunch of spivs, untrustworthy, corrupt, populists with eye to a new main chance.In many cases, not all, I fear they are right. But second, away from the headlines, I am in touch with many rank and file true blue Tories in my own locality, some of whom are long standing personal friends ( yes, I admit it, some of my best friends have been Tories). So many of them are bewildered by what is going on. Many of the were actually Leavers, but had convinced themselves that we would negotiate a deal. Some are still desperately trying to believe Boris , against all the evidence. But many are realising the truth and are in despair. I know a lot of lifelong traditional Tories who might vote Lib Dem for the first time in their lives, and many more who probably just won't vote. Well, there are trad true blue Tories and trad etc and so forth. Enoch Powell was surely a traditionalist and I think we can be pretty sure where he'd stand on things today. There's quite a good piece by John Harris in The Guardian arguing that we've had radical change branded as "reform" since Thatcher 40 years ago. Primarily it was a feature of Conservative govt but it was also one of the areas where Blair adopted Thatcherite principles. I think it true that patrician Toryism was entirely different from Social Democracy and it's a misrepresentation of both Toryism and social democracy to think it was; but it's also now dead. The current party is heading in a different direction but it is definitely within the Thatcher tradition which in turn saw itself as re-assertion of trad values. But Thatcher was the victory of one wing over the other; what we now have is the expulsion of one wing, which is a weakening of a broad church party. Potentially I see two wings in the smaller party; a Cummings-ite anti-establishment wing and a big money wing.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 9, 2019 16:36:17 GMT
Well, a lot of their voters are! Indeed, my former college roommate went from PC to BNP to UKIP and is apparently now trying to complete the circle back to PC. From nationalist to nationalist to nationalist, and finally back to nationalist?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 9, 2019 8:50:32 GMT
Lots of Manx people have the same surname and have moved to the north-west. The unusual Manx surnames (the ones that all begin with Q) started when one Bishop of Sodor and Man declared that 'Mac' and 'Mc' names were Pagan and ordered everyone to change them; a lot of families simply dropped the 'Ma' sound, but some decided to adopt 'Christian' to make the point. I didn't know it started with a bishop, though that sounds plausible. Christian is generally reckoned to derive from McCristen which was an established surname so I don't believe that to be a reaction to accusations of paganism. I rather assumed it was anglophone hostility (amongst the officials, pretty much Lancastrian to a man) to Gaelic "barbarism", perhaps brought on by the wars in Ireland. The Christians are the nearest thing the IoM ever produced to an indigenous gentry - the careers of William Christian ( Iliam Dhone) and Edward Christian are worth a google; Fletcher Christian of HMS Bounty was a connection but raised in Cumberland where the Christians had property. The key texts are the manorial rolls (listing tenants) from 1511-15, in which almost every surname is a "Mac", and the subsequent records which show Macs having disappeared by the mid-C16th. The Q surnames are the most distinctive but the common element is the preservation of the C at the end of Mac, so K and C surnames are just as if not more common e.g. Kissack from McIsaac, Kewin from McKewn, Corlett from MacCorleod. There a few where oddly the M is preserved rather than the C e.g. Mylrea and Mylchreest from McYlrea and McYlchreest. There's one surname which its extinct in the IoM but survives in Utah, I forget what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 6, 2019 22:00:55 GMT
Entirely reasonable. One is allowed to dislike the odd MP in your party of choice. I will however make a partial defence of careerists. All parties need a few - people primarily driven by success rather than ideology. They are often competent and work hard, because those things bring success. Tories didn't choose Johnson because they didn't know he's out for himself, they did it because they thought his ambition would cause him to try his damnedest to win them the election, and that his success so far (however meretricious) showed he could do it. The ones to avoid are the ones who succeed through back-stabbing or toadying. TBF to Chuka I don't think he's in that category. Though the thing about Johnson is that he doesn't appear to quite fit your description (as far as I can tell). Frankly Johnson seems to be lazy. He appears to talk off the cuff rather than having bothered to writte a speech. He didn't seem to make any effort to master his brief as the Foreign secretary. He appeared to make things up rather than actually do research when he was in Brussels as a journalist. Basically, he seems to make it up as he goes along. Ambition notwithstanding, he doesn't seem to want to put in the work.
I might be misreading what I see of course.
No, I think you're right. But during the election quite a few Conservatives (including on here IIRC) seemed to be talking him up as an election winner while not showing much faith in his integrity. If they are correct, then that's not an irrational reason to choose him as leader. I think they will have bought a pig in a poke, but there you go. Maybe he'll pull out all the stops when he's up against it, I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 6, 2019 20:19:45 GMT
Just like Johnson he is a careerist then Yes totally but any comparisons with Johnson is setting a very low bar indeed... That wasn't an anti-Lib Dem post btw, I actually intend on voting for your party at the next election given the trajectory the Tories have taken recently. Plus I actually like most of your MPs on a personal level, Umunna being the glaring exception... Entirely reasonable. One is allowed to dislike the odd MP in your party of choice. I will however make a partial defence of careerists. All parties need a few - people primarily driven by success rather than ideology. They are often competent and work hard, because those things bring success. Tories didn't choose Johnson because they didn't know he's out for himself, they did it because they thought his ambition would cause him to try his damnedest to win them the election, and that his success so far (however meretricious) showed he could do it. The ones to avoid are the ones who succeed through back-stabbing or toadying. TBF to Chuka I don't think he's in that category.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 5, 2019 23:11:38 GMT
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL St Andrews and Dockland FUDGE, Leanne (Labour) 837 HENRY, Tracey Irene (Liberal Democrat) 805 BOND, Dan (Conservative) 193 Oof.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 5, 2019 17:23:16 GMT
Whilst defections create fantastic headlines for the Lib Dem’s, is there not a slight risk that they are collecting all sorts of people and they just become the vaguely centrist and Not Corbynite or Brexit Party? Do Philip Lee and Chuka have much in common? Probably more than Lee had with Rees-Mogg or Chuka with John McDonnell. You're not completely wrong, but at a time when the others are busy purging half their members and telling themselves how much better it makes them, there's a case for being a broad church party. Personally I quite like the balance - 2 ex-Lab and 2 ex-Tory - rather than us turning into a home for one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 5, 2019 7:28:51 GMT
Correct. What other measure could possibly make any sense at all? At least your honest about it, it breeds trust even with disagreement. Unfortunately most in politics, especially elected politicians, aren't honest about such things. 👽 "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For having prospered, none dare call it treason"
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 4, 2019 16:33:31 GMT
I think the LDs on this forum are getting way, way ahead of themselves. It's an incredibly tough ask to win some of the seats that are being discussed here and even then it's predicated on believing YouGov & disbelieving almost all other polls. I will eat something extremely unpalatable (I don't have a hat) if the LDs win any seats in Lewisham, for example. If there's even an election. You may be right. But the underlying point is the one pepperminttea was making, i.e. that politics is in flux and looking at the previous results is of limited help in working out where our targets are/should be. Our vote intention share has almost trebled and as far as we can see it is new voters rather than (mainly) returnees. Pundits say "the Tories risk losing seats to the LDs in the West Country" but there's no guarantee we're going to win in e.g. Cornwall just by applying UNS to the last results. Personally I think the Remain vote is very soft between Labour, Green and LD and could easily shift depending on tactical voting patterns and on the campaigns. A good Lab campaign with heavy stress on "not wasting your vote" anywhere the LDs were well behind previously could pay dividends. A poor Labour campaign or a good one by Swinson (taking advantage of impartiality requirements) could reach a tipping point.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 4, 2019 7:09:01 GMT
Be careful what you wish for, you now have a group of 22 centre right MP's,23 with Bols, who moderate voters, will look at and say are principled and put their country first. Maybe I'm biased, but this isn't TIG's the sequel, a new Conservative party, a moderate one, I might have a very difficult decision to make, if they say the right things. I’m not sure there are many Conservative voters who would be attracted by that party, but their are enough that if they voted for it, would make it very difficult for a right wing Conservative party to win. This Group has more talent and appeal than Change Uk ever had. Yes; but several of them have clearly decided to retire, they don't have a party structure or activists and aren't going to be able to organise one before the next election, and as with most defections (including the ones to us) the default probability is that they will lose their seat at the next election. In a PR system some of them would be able to survive.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 3, 2019 23:25:31 GMT
12 seats for Labour at Holyrood!? That can't be right. Constituency MSPs only, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 3, 2019 23:03:53 GMT
Steady on. Second, I don't think people care. They care whether we leave or not. Most people couldn't care less who's on the Conservative Party benches. The guys Boris kicked out today, mostly voted to leave with a deal, mostly they still support honouring the referendum result. Correct. But that is not sufficient. Leaving with a deal is not possible in the time frame, not possible if it's got to be a deal the ERG will buy, and no-one's trying to get one. Both sides know it. No Deal is actual Tory policy, Leave With A Deal is a sort of Platonic ideal.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 3, 2019 22:56:15 GMT
He supports LVT. Doesn't strike me as much of a landowner-backer, but he could try to hang on as an independent too. That's not what I meant. He's a patrician Tory who has a great sense of public duty. Many of the old shire Tories were genuinely posh but politically very middle of the road. Exactly. The sort I'd tend to disagree with but admired the sense of public duty and willingness to act in favour of people outside their own class, albeit maybe a bit patronisingly. Generally now regarded in the Conservative Party as closet social democrats (if only) and wimps who should have their heads flushed down the toilet by the school bully, which is ironic as they've just proved better at knife fight than the alleged tough guys.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 3, 2019 22:20:59 GMT
I think people here are a bit cynical of defectors. And if you look at defections threads and the *reasons*, then you will understand why. I hardly think he defected because he thought Bracknell is a winnable Lib Dem seat, which is the usual (genuine) reason for defecting. There's now a bunch of Tories who (rightly) think there's no place for them in the Tory party and their careers are over. They just don't care any more. Some in Labour too.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 3, 2019 22:16:45 GMT
Yes, Outside of London, Cheltenham, Bath and St Albans , you need to be more than Bollocks to Brexit Even then, our strongest areas in Bath and Cheltenham have traditionally been the working class areas - which probably went Leave (definitely in Cheltenham, but Twerton in Bath may have just about been 50-50). Conversely though, the traditional appeal of the Conservatives has been in areas which went Remain - Alex Chalk's appeal has been a sort of reverse Corbyn - nice chap who believes in Remain but will support Leave so long as it's not crazy. He appeared at a People's Vote event but is now Daniel Hannan's PPS - go figure that. Two-edged sword for both parties but I suspect Chalk is running out of road on this in a Remain voting constituency.
|
|
|
YouGov
Sept 3, 2019 20:45:13 GMT
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 3, 2019 20:45:13 GMT
Ah I forgot about the by-election. I very much doubt we’ll target it at all - I’d put it below Vauxhall, Streatham, Hornsey, Islington South, Hampstead, Dulwich and Lewisham West just off the top of my head. Hopefully we're targeting Vauxhall hard, since that's a seat we could win because of Kate Hoey. IIRC she's been deselected in favour of a strong Remainer. I think that boat has sailed.
|
|