|
|
Post by afleitch on Mar 23, 2018 14:07:14 GMT
The problem though, is that I'm not sure that the current Labour leadership is seen as sufficiently pro-Union to attract those tactical votes. Certainly JCs stance on Northern Ireland would be off-putting for those voters who see themselves as emotionally, rather than pragmatically, pro-Union. Though I would have thought the most "emotionally committed" to the union tend towards the Tories anyway. SLab's future is probably "pragmatic unionism". That Labour in Scotland often now sees itself as unionist first and a labour and socialist movement second probably doesn't help. Anyway, good result. Nice run of results this year. |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,906 
Member is Online
|
Post by spqr on Mar 23, 2018 14:12:20 GMT
Despite - rather perversely - there having been a swing from SNP to Labour on the basis of first preferences! Yes, Labour will be bitterly disappointed, I had expected them to push the Tories into third place. Labour has struggled quite a bit here in recent years, even before the Indy Ref. The town is about as middle-class as Midlothian gets (so completely and utterly average in broader terms) and there are a glut of ex-Lib Dem voters who usually betray an 'Anything But Labour' ethic, sustained through years of monolithic domination by that party at both county and parliamentary level. This portion of the electorate was always low hanging-fruit for the Tories. Labour, on the other hand, hasn't really got anywhere to go: they used to win the old Penicuik NE ward (i.e. the Ladywood and Cuiken estates) on Midlothian DC with relative ease in the 1980s, but the working-class group loyalty that sustains their vote across the rest of the county isn't as strong here (a number of their voters have defected to the SNP over a long period, and probably to the Lib Dems as well during the 2000s). This means the ceiling is lower than it is in other wards, such as Midlothian East (the scene of an unexpected by-election victory in 2014), where the number of potential SNP-Lab switchers - or vice-versa - is high enough to cause substantial swings when the conditions are right. Adam Montgomery (the deceased Labour councillor) may have had a residual personal vote as well: he was well-known in the town, having first been elected to the Regional council in 1986. That can of course work against you, but although he could be a bit abrasive there wasn't any evidence that he repelled voters either; in the 2016 elections he came a strong second in first preferences, ahead of the leading SNP candidate. In this context I think Labour actually did reasonably well. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 23, 2018 14:14:07 GMT
Though I would have thought the most "emotionally committed" to the union tend towards the Tories anyway. SLab's future is probably "pragmatic unionism". That Labour in Scotland often now sees itself as unionist first and a labour and socialist movement second probably doesn't help. Anyway, good result. Nice run of results this year. I hope that will change but as under its last couple of leaders socialism wasn't very high on the agenda....it may take time. Leonards us undoubtedly socialist and cones from a TU background |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,906
Member is Online
|
Post by spqr on Mar 23, 2018 14:26:00 GMT
Though I would have thought the most "emotionally committed" to the union tend towards the Tories anyway. SLab's future is probably "pragmatic unionism". That Labour in Scotland often now sees itself as unionist first and a labour and socialist movement second probably doesn't help. No. That's how you see it, but you're one of these posters who seems to have real trouble separating subjectivity and objectivity on this and other issues. Knee-jerk dislike always gets in the way. The party is actually pretty conflicted about how to navigate the constitutional question: many members have decided to choose the safe option of ignoring the issue altogether, in the hope that it will gradually cease to become a problem. The 'yoon' tub-thumping of a clique at Holyrood and in some central-belt CLPs isn't enough to counter-act that. In contrast, every Labour party activist from bottom to top views themselves as belonging to a 'labour and socialist movement', and the majority would definitely place it as the reason why they became involved in politics in the first place. Their actions don't always suggest it, for sure, but as you're the one talking about self-perception I don't think that's terribly relevant. But yeah, it's a good result for the SNP. They have a solid vote in that ward. |
|
|
|
Post by stananson on Mar 23, 2018 14:27:47 GMT
|
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,906
Member is Online
|
Post by spqr on Mar 23, 2018 14:41:24 GMT
'Tis unfortunate this Unionist vote splitting. Is it heck. It's evidence that there is still a space for rational politics in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Mar 23, 2018 14:48:38 GMT
It's largely the product of having a system designed for multi member seats used for a single individual in the case of a by election. Emphasises why I don't like any preference systems.Something we agree on. I would point out that had this been a FPTP election the result most probably been much the same as the first preference votes and the outcome would have been no different in all probability. The left/right split between one lot of unionists and the other would still have been there, and the SNP would still have come through the middle. You might like to think that if it had been FPTP the electorate would have all suddenly becomered-hot Socialists (Mike) or true-blue Thatcherites (Beast) , but in your hearts you must know that wouldn't have happened. My gripe with this system is not that its a PR system but that it isn't really proportionate when you come single-member by-elections. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,438
|
Post by iain on Mar 23, 2018 14:50:07 GMT
'Tis unfortunate this Unionist vote splitting. It's largely the product of having a system designed for multi member seats used for a single individual in the case of a by election. Emphasises why I don't like any preference systems. It’s nothing to do with preference systems. It’s to do with having a by-election in a multi-member constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 23, 2018 15:06:24 GMT
I would point out that had this been a FPTP election the result most probably been much the same as the first preference votes and the outcome would have been no different in all probability. The left/right split between one lot of unionists and the other would still have been there, and the SNP would still have come through the middle. You might like to think that if it had been FPTP the electorate would have all suddenly becomered-hot Socialists (Mike) or true-blue Thatcherites (Beast) , but in your hearts you must know that wouldn't have happened. My gripe with this system is not that its a PR system but that it isn't really proportionate when you come single-member by-elections. No, I don't think that at all. But when we have talk of tactical Unionist voting, irrespective of the real political divides...and the use of preference to vote for your least favourite.... I am in favour of PR but not preference systems. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 23, 2018 15:14:41 GMT
I see that Labour got fairly close to the Tories when Green transfers were allocated. Makes this result all the more frustrating. |
|
|
|
Post by borderscot on Mar 23, 2018 15:24:44 GMT
That Labour in Scotland often now sees itself as unionist first and a labour and socialist movement second probably doesn't help. No. That's how you see it, but you're one of these posters who seems to have real trouble separating subjectivity and objectivity on this and other issues. Knee-jerk dislike always gets in the way. The party is actually pretty conflicted about how to navigate the constitutional question: many members have decided to choose the safe option of ignoring the issue altogether, in the hope that it will gradually cease to become a problem. The 'yoon' tub-thumping of a clique at Holyrood and in some central-belt CLPs isn't enough to counter-act that. In contrast, every Labour party activist from bottom to top views themselves as belonging to a 'labour and socialist movement', and the majority would definitely place it as the reason why they became involved in politics in the first place. Their actions don't always suggest it, for sure, but as you're the one talking about self-perception I don't think that's terribly relevant. But yeah, it's a good result for the SNP. They have a solid vote in that ward. It's a solid result relative to 2017. In 2012 the SNP got around 45% of the vote. I suspect the drop between 2012 and 2017 must have been one of the biggest decreases the SNP had across the central belt. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 23, 2018 15:35:31 GMT
It's largely the product of having a system designed for multi member seats used for a single individual in the case of a by election. Emphasises why I don't like any preference systems. It’s nothing to do with preference systems. It’s to do with having a by-election in a multi-member constituency. All part of the same thing. Single member constituencies, Top up with lists to gain proportionality. Not STV. Rather keep FPTP |
|
spqr
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,906
Member is Online
|
Post by spqr on Mar 23, 2018 15:42:42 GMT
No. That's how you see it, but you're one of these posters who seems to have real trouble separating subjectivity and objectivity on this and other issues. Knee-jerk dislike always gets in the way. The party is actually pretty conflicted about how to navigate the constitutional question: many members have decided to choose the safe option of ignoring the issue altogether, in the hope that it will gradually cease to become a problem. The 'yoon' tub-thumping of a clique at Holyrood and in some central-belt CLPs isn't enough to counter-act that. In contrast, every Labour party activist from bottom to top views themselves as belonging to a 'labour and socialist movement', and the majority would definitely place it as the reason why they became involved in politics in the first place. Their actions don't always suggest it, for sure, but as you're the one talking about self-perception I don't think that's terribly relevant. But yeah, it's a good result for the SNP. They have a solid vote in that ward. It's a solid result relative to 2017. In 2012 the SNP got around 45% of the vote. I suspect the drop between 2012 and 2017 must have been one of the biggest decreases the SNP had across the central belt. Good point, and they were lucky their opponents divided the votes so equally - had this been Midlothian South or Dalkeith then Labour would have clinched it after transfers, since they're ahead by sizeable margins over the Tories in both of those wards. But I would also guess (and that's all it is, albeit an educated one) that the remaining SNP vote in the ward is fairly strong; they certainly managed to get their vote out without much slippage. |
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Mar 23, 2018 16:03:28 GMT
This result may well demonstrate that "tactical" unionist voters here would have been better off first preferencing Labour rather than Tory. (had the final round been SNP v Labour, the latter would almost certainly have come out on top) The problem though, is that I'm not sure that the current Labour leadership is seen as sufficiently pro-Union to attract those tactical votes. Certainly JCs stance on Northern Ireland would be off-putting for those voters who see themselves as emotionally, rather than pragmatically, pro-Union. So they'll have the SNP instead then.... |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Mar 23, 2018 16:16:54 GMT
I would point out that had this been a FPTP election the result most probably been much the same as the first preference votes and the outcome would have been no different in all probability. The left/right split between one lot of unionists and the other would still have been there, and the SNP would still have come through the middle. You might like to think that if it had been FPTP the electorate would have all suddenly becomered-hot Socialists (Mike) or true-blue Thatcherites (Beast) , but in your hearts you must know that wouldn't have happened. My gripe with this system is not that its a PR system but that it isn't really proportionate when you come single-member by-elections. No, I don't think that at all. But when we have talk of tactical Unionist voting, irrespective of the real political divides...and the use of preference to vote for your least favourite.... I am in favour of PR but not preference systems. Mike, do you honestly believe that there was anyone in that election who said "I like Labour best but I will put the Tories first because it will be a tactical vote for the Union"?? This was an AV election. A plurality of people preferred the SNP and they would undoubtedly have won under FPTP. Green voters preferred the SNP. Then Labour were eliminated and the SNP still won. I find it hard to fathom what either you or the Beast are complaining about! In a preference system the vast majority of voters list the candidates in order of preference, not in some attempt to second guess the system. It is a much cleaner and more honest way of getting a reasonable result than the tactical voting typical of FPTP. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,907
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Mar 23, 2018 16:27:57 GMT
I see that Labour got fairly close to the Tories when Green transfers were allocated. Makes this result all the more fruhstrating. My suspicion would be that a large number of Tory votes just wouldn't transfer so Labour might have come up short anyway but it would undoubtedly have been close. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 23, 2018 16:38:20 GMT
No, I don't think that at all. But when we have talk of tactical Unionist voting, irrespective of the real political divides...and the use of preference to vote for your least favourite.... I am in favour of PR but not preference systems. Mike, do you honestly believe that there was anyone in that election who said "I like Labour best but I will put the Tories first because it will be a tactical vote for the Union"?? This was an AV election. A plurality of people preferred the SNP and they would undoubtedly have won under FPTP. Green voters preferred the SNP. Then Labour were eliminated and the SNP still won. I find it hard to fathom what either you or the Beast are complaining about! In a preference system the vast majority of voters list the candidates in order of preference, not in some attempt to second guess the system. It is a much cleaner and more honest way of getting a reasonable result than the tactical voting typical of FPTP. I am not in favour of FPTP. Or preference systems..... |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Mar 23, 2018 17:14:40 GMT
Aylesbury Vale, Central & Walton - Liberal Democrat gain from Conservative| Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2015 "top" | since 2015 "average" | Liberal Democrat | 551 | 40.9% | +18.1% | +18.6% | Conservative | 425 | 31.5% | -1.1% | -2.5% | Labour | 267 | 19.8% | +0.9% | +2.1% | Green | 61 | 4.5% | -4.0% | -3.8% | Independent | 44 | 3.3% | from nowhere | from nowhere | UKIP |
|
| -17.2% | -17.7% | Total votes |
|
| 41% | 45% |
Swing Conservative to Liberal Democrat ~ 9½% / 10½% since 2015 Council now 41 Conservative, 11 Liberal Democrat, 4 Independent, 2 Labour, 1 Vacant Bassetlaw, Worksop South East - Labour hold | Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2015 "top" | since 2015 "average" | since 2014 | since 2012 | since 2011 | | Labour | 1,004 | 77.3% | +21.1% | +23.3% | +10.7% | -10.0% | -8.1% | Conservative | 197 | 15.2% | from nowhere | from nowhere | +9.3% | +2.5% | +0.6% | Liberal Democrat | 98 | 7.5% | from nowhere | from nowhere | +4.4% | from nowhere | from nowhere | UKIP |
|
| -25.2% | -26.5% | -24.4% |
|
| Green |
|
| -10.3% | -10.8% |
|
|
| Independent |
|
| -8.3% | -8.7% |
|
|
| Total votes | 1,299 |
| 41% | 43% | 81% | 92% | 68% |
Swing not meaningful apart from possibly 2012 and 2011 when Labour to Conservative ~ 6% and 4½% respectively Council now 32 Labour, 12 Conservative, 4 Independent Cheshire East, Bunbury - Conservative hold | Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2015 | since 2011 | | Conservative | 663 | 53.3% | -16.9% | -17.6% | Liberal Democrat | 342 | 27.5% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Labour | 178 | 14.3% | -3.4% | -14.7% | Green | 60 | 4.8% | -7.2% | from nowhere | Total votes | 1,243 |
| 47% | 75% |
Swing Council now 51 Conservative, 16 Labour, 13 Various Independent / Localist, 2 Liberal Democrat Chiltern, Ridgeway - Conservative gain from Independent| Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2015 | since 2011 | since 2007 | | Conservative | 268 | 38.2% | +16.8% | +25.5% | +27.0% | Labour | 230 | 32.8% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | Liberal Democrat | 203 | 29.0% | +11.7% | +17.2% | +15.5% | Independent |
|
| -61.3% | -72.1% | -75.4% | UKIP |
|
|
| -3.4% |
| Total votes | 701 |
| 53% | 76% | 92% |
Swing not meaningful Council now 38 Conservative, 2 Liberal Democrat Midlothian, Penicuik - SNP gain from Labourbased on first preferences | Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2017 | since 2012 | since 2007 | | SNP | 1,663 | 35.0% | -0.2% | -12.1% | +0.4% | Conservative | 1,433 | 30.2% | +4.0% | +19.7% | +19.7% | Labour | 1,310 | 27.6% | +2.0% | -2.5% | +4.2% | Green | 344 | 7.2% | +1.6% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Liberal Democrat |
|
| -7.3% | -12.4% | -29.7% | Solidarity |
|
|
|
| -1.0% | Socialist |
|
|
|
| -0.9% | Total votes | 4,750 |
| 82% | 105% | 71% |
Swing SNP to Conservative 2.1% since May and, less meaningful, ~ 16% since 2012 and ~ 10% since 2007 Council now 7 SNP, 6 Labour, 5 Conservative Staffordshire Moorlands, Leek West - Labour gain from Conservative| Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2015 "top" | since 2015 "average" | since 2011 "top" | since 2011 "average" | Labour | 487 | 42.9% | +22.6% | +21.3% | from nowhere | from nowhere | Conservative | 370 | 32.6% | -1.1% | +0.9% | -6.7% | -9.8% | Liberal Democrat | 218 | 19.2% | +8.1% | +7.5% | -14.1% | -10.3% | Independent | 61 | 5.4% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | MDA * |
|
| -14.7% | -15.4% | -27.6% | -28.1% | Green |
|
| -11.7% | -12.4% |
|
| Previous Independents |
|
| -8.5% | -7.4% |
|
| Total votes | 1,136 |
| 33% | 35% | 66% | 80% |
* Moorlands Democratic Alliance Swing Conservative to Labour ~ 12% / 10% since 2015 Council now 33 Conservative, 9 Labour, 8 Independent, 2 Liberal Democrat, 2 UKIP, 2 Moorlands Democratic Alliance
Thurrock, Ockendon - Conservative gain from UKIP sitting as Independent on drawing of lots
| Party | 2018 votes | 2018 share | since 2016 | since 2015 | since 2014 | since 2012 | | Conservative | 696+1 | 36.2% | +7.8% | +7.4% | +6.0% | -7.3% | Labour | 696 | 36.2% | +11.2% | +9.1% | +14.9% | -2.9% | Thurrock Independent | 531 | 27.6% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | UKIP |
|
| -46.5% | -44.1% | -46.0% | -15.5% | Liberal Democrat |
|
|
|
| -2.6% | -1.9% | Total vote | 1,923+1 |
| 88% | 43% | 75% | 93% |
Swing not particularly meaningful
Council now 19 Conservative, 16 Thurrock Independent, 14 Labour
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 21:57:42 GMT
'Tis unfortunate this Unionist vote splitting. Well at least they didn't elect a Tory...  |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 24, 2018 12:38:45 GMT
why is there casting vote never included in their total? It is included in the result. You should not see the result showing an actual tie. Just coming back to this, it occurs to me that adding the casting vote to the result, rather than accounting for it separately, could actually cause problems. Here's a hypothetical example. Bruddersford Metropolitan District Council is a thirds authority which is having a one-off whole council election due to rewarding. Three seats are up in each ward with the candidate in first place getting a four-year term, second place a three-year term and third place a two-year term. Bruddersford's Hampley Wood North ward turns in a very close result. The top four candidates are Smith 720 votes Jones 708 votes Brown 707 votes Robinson 707 votes Brown wins the drawing of lots and is declared elected along with Smith and Jones. But what term should he get? - If the Declaration of Result of Poll shows Brown with 707 votes and accounts for the casting vote separately, then it should be clear from the terms of the declaratoin that Brown is in third place with the two-year termm. - If the Declaration of Result of Poll shows Brown with 708 votes (the 707 from the electors plus the casting vote) then on the face of the declaration he has tied with Jones for second and third place. There would then have to be a further drawing of lots to decide which of Jones and Brown gets the three-year term. If Jones loses that drawing of lots then he would get the two-year term for finishing third when he was actually in second place on the votes cast. Thoughts? |
|
