|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 15, 2017 11:39:15 GMT
I still have copies of all the previews I sent to Ian, so they have not disappeared into the aether. I'm hoping to reveal a new home for the previews within the next few days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 10:52:53 GMT
Southend
ShoeburynessIndependent died ("Known as ""Mr Shoebury"", he was highly regarded by fellow councillors of all persuasions and consistently battled for the best interests of Shoebury")   2016: Ind 728/527, Con 607, UKIP 309, Labour 236, Green 57, Lib Dem 50 2015: Con 1,991, Ind 1,783, Lab 929, Green 289, Lib Dem 138 2014: Ind 1,243, Con 909, Lab 404, Lib Dem 77 2012: Ind 1,098, Con 610, Lab 271, Eng Dem 145 2011: Ind 1,326, Con 960, Lab 328, Green 110 2010: Con 1,782, Ind 1,132, Lab 579, Lib Dem 556, BNP 265, UKIP 242, Green 73 2007by: Ind 666, Con 494, Lab 460, BNP 273, Lib Dem 66 Anne CHALK (Independent) Paul HILL (Green Party) Val JARVIS (The Conservative Party Candidate) Maggie KELLY (Labour) Edward McNALLY (UK Independence Party (UKIP)) Gavin SPENCER (Liberal Democrat)
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 18, 2017 11:13:44 GMT
Poor Anne Chalk lost her seat because the local election coincided with the General Election in 2015. Now she's been shafted again, although the by-election is at least not on the same day, which gives her a chance. Note that she stood unexpectedly against Assenheim last year, and finished third, although they had been allies as independents representing the same ward.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,784 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 18, 2017 12:42:07 GMT
Southend
ShoeburynessIndependent died ("Known as ""Mr Shoebury"", he was highly regarded by fellow councillors of all persuasions and consistently battled for the best interests of Shoebury") ...... I think this is the extreme version of how using the maritime boundaries instead of the high tide mark makes election maps look really weird. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 18, 2017 13:18:02 GMT
Not too many votes out on those mudflats?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on May 18, 2017 16:17:48 GMT
Crabs for Chalk!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 18, 2017 17:31:37 GMT
Southend
ShoeburynessIndependent died ("Known as ""Mr Shoebury"", he was highly regarded by fellow councillors of all persuasions and consistently battled for the best interests of Shoebury") ...... I think this is the extreme version of how using the maritime boundaries instead of the high tide mark makes election maps look really weird. I think Morecambe Bay beats it tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on May 18, 2017 18:00:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 18, 2017 19:43:07 GMT
Fascinating - I never knew of the existence of this Enfield Island Village place nor indeed of the boundary change which moved it from Essex. I thought I knew of all the boundary changes that took place around London at that time. It looks a fairly pleasant area for the most part too - this ward, in contrast with the usual Enfield pattern seems to get grimmer the further West you go |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on May 18, 2017 22:29:44 GMT
Turnout in Enfield is 32.21% with 3,494 votes
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on May 18, 2017 22:30:22 GMT
Labour hold Newtown
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on May 18, 2017 23:14:59 GMT
Labour hold Enfield Lock
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on May 18, 2017 23:16:21 GMT
Enfield Lock
Labour - 63.8% (+12.7%)
Conservative - 28.8% (+13.3%)
Green - 3.1% (-6.4%)
UKIP - 2.7% (-15.0%)
Lib Dem - 1.6% (+1.6%)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 0:00:16 GMT
Enfield Lock Labour - 63.8% (+12.7%) Conservative - 28.8% (+13.3%) Green - 3.1% (-6.4%) UKIP - 2.7% (-15.0%) Lib Dem - 1.6% (+1.6%) Absymal result for UKIP,poor for Greens, Libs not relevant, more polarisation 90%+for both major parties wonder if this will continue after June 8. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,021
|
Post by Khunanup on May 19, 2017 1:08:29 GMT
Southend
ShoeburynessIndependent died ("Known as ""Mr Shoebury"", he was highly regarded by fellow councillors of all persuasions and consistently battled for the best interests of Shoebury") ...... I think this is the extreme version of how using the maritime boundaries instead of the high tide mark makes election maps look really weird. Portsmouth uses the high tide marks in our Portsmouth Harbour-side wards. They're just not on the Portsmouth side of the harbour... My ward follows the high tide mark on the Solent coast bar a sandbank that sticks out into the sea (and does submerge so it makes it a little odd). |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 19, 2017 7:03:27 GMT
Enfield Lock Labour - 63.8% (+12.7%) Conservative - 28.8% (+13.3%) Green - 3.1% (-6.4%) UKIP - 2.7% (-15.0%) Lib Dem - 1.6% (+1.6%) At the risk of being silly enough to read anything at all into one local election result, this would tend to suggest a squeeze on the minors with a redistribution to the two major protagonists? With Greens down two-thirds and UKIP down by more than three-quarters............the transfers are pretty even to both Labour and Conservative. The big 'BUT' is the fact that those transfers are 'Even' and not proportional to the underlying strengths of those majors! In fact the Conservatives got perhaps three times 'their share' of the redistribution? Or looked at another way, if it is assumed that most of the Green transfer went Labour, then most of UKIP went Conservative. As there is a lot more historic UKIP vote to squeeze than there is Green, the benefit to the Conservatives looks to be full of Conservative potential. However, there is no sign of serious Labour vote meltdown on this level of TO, so the Labour core vote looks healthy? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 19, 2017 7:29:47 GMT
Enfield Lock Labour - 63.8% (+12.7%) Conservative - 28.8% (+13.3%) Green - 3.1% (-6.4%) UKIP - 2.7% (-15.0%) Lib Dem - 1.6% (+1.6%) At the risk of being silly enough to read anything at all into one local election result, this would tend to suggest a squeeze on the minors with a redistribution to the two major protagonists? With Greens down two-thirds and UKIP down by more than three-quarters............the transfers are pretty even to both Labour and Conservative. The big 'BUT' is the fact that those transfers are 'Even' and not proportional to the underlying strengths of those majors! In fact the Conservatives got perhaps three times 'their share' of the redistribution? Or looked at another way, if it is assumed that most of the Green transfer went Labour, then most of UKIP went Conservative. As there is a lot more historic UKIP vote to squeeze than there is Green, the benefit to the Conservatives looks to be full of Conservative potential. However, there is no sign of serious Labour vote meltdown on this level of TO, so the Labour core vote looks healthy? It's generally a fair analysis but one thing you have to remember is that the comparison is with 2014 when it was a multi vacancy election. Then, while there were three candidates for each of the Conservative and Labour there was only one each for UKIP and Green and also one BNP. It's likely that many of the BNP voters also voted for the UKIP candidate and probably more Green voters than you might expect did too. And there was a fair gap (about 200 votes) between the highest polling Conservative and the lowest which suggests a lot of voters would have gone Con/Con/UKIP (and probably some Lab/Lab/UKIP plus every other imaginable combination). So are those 'UKIP voters' who gave their spare two votes to the Conservatives, or are they 'Conservative voters' who lent one of their votes to UKIP for whatever reason? (remember of course that these elections coincided with the European elections which UKIP won nationally). It's impossible to say and will be some kind of balance between the two, but it shows that comparing the results with a multi-vacancy contest are not straightforward. The other thing is that because there were three other parties with only one candidate, all of whom are given a vote share as if they had a full slate, the Conservative and Labour share are somewhat falsely lowered, so the increase is not quite as great as appears |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 19, 2017 7:41:14 GMT
One way to look at it is the votes cast as a percentage of ballot papers issued. On that basis in 2014, the Labour slate on average polled 58% and the top polling candidate won the votes of 61% of those who cast a vote. The equivalent figures for the Conservatives were 18.5% and 16.5%
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on May 19, 2017 7:50:47 GMT
At the risk of being silly enough to read anything at all into one local election result, this would tend to suggest a squeeze on the minors with a redistribution to the two major protagonists? With Greens down two-thirds and UKIP down by more than three-quarters............the transfers are pretty even to both Labour and Conservative. The big 'BUT' is the fact that those transfers are 'Even' and not proportional to the underlying strengths of those majors! In fact the Conservatives got perhaps three times 'their share' of the redistribution? Or looked at another way, if it is assumed that most of the Green transfer went Labour, then most of UKIP went Conservative. As there is a lot more historic UKIP vote to squeeze than there is Green, the benefit to the Conservatives looks to be full of Conservative potential. However, there is no sign of serious Labour vote meltdown on this level of TO, so the Labour core vote looks healthy? It's generally a fair analysis but one thing you have to remember is that the comparison is with 2014 when it was a multi vacancy election. Then, while there were three candidates for each of the Conservative and Labour there was only one each for UKIP and Green and also one BNP. It's likely that many of the BNP voters also voted for the UKIP candidate and probably more Green voters than you might expect did too. And there was a fair gap (about 200 votes) between the highest polling Conservative and the lowest which suggests a lot of voters would have gone Con/Con/UKIP (and probably some Lab/Lab/UKIP plus every other imaginable combination). So are those 'UKIP voters' who gave their spare two votes to the Conservatives, or are they 'Conservative voters' who lent one of their votes to UKIP for whatever reason? (remember of course that these elections coincided with the European elections which UKIP won nationally). It's impossible to say and will be some kind of balance between the two, but it shows that comparing the results with a multi-vacancy contest are not straightforward. The other thing is that because there were three other parties with only one candidate, all of whom are given a vote share as if they had a full slate, the Conservative and Labour share are somewhat falsely lowered, so the increase is not quite as great as appears If you just take the Labour and Conservative votes there is a two party swing of 8% / 9% to Conservatives since 2014. The Conservative vote yesterday increased by 248 on the "top" vote in 2014 and 325 on the "average" whilst the Labour vote fell 240 from the "top" 2014 and 107 from the "average". The mathematical swings of ¼% / ½% taking all votes into account do not reflect this. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 19, 2017 7:58:29 GMT
Another way to look at this result is to compare it with the London elections last year, in 2016, rather than the boroughs in 2014.
That is what I try to do when predicting. I usually pay most attention to the GLA London wide party vote as the Mayoral and constituency (GLA) elections are more distorted by personality voting.
All these figures are sometimes displayed in the local byelection threads, but not on this occasion. I am at work and my copy is at home, but as I recall Labour did get around 64% in the GLA 'list' vote in 2016, and the Conservatives around 19%. UKIP was something like 8.5%. The Lib Dems only had three or four per cent, Greens maybe a wee bit more. These figures do not include postal votes, that I have been told were not counted at ward level.
What seems to have happened in Enfield Lock?
Labour's share holds up. The Conservatives advance considerably, while UKIP collapses. There is no Lib Dem breakthrough or even advance in a non-target seat.
Does all this sound familiar?!
Yes, it appears to be what is happening nationally, in the polls at least, in the 2017 General Election campaign!
(Of course, if any single local election byelection paints a very different picture, then it is still the national polls that should be regarded as more authoritative; so it is not worth mulling over one result to any great extent).
|
|
