The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 12, 2018 11:12:59 GMT
I,on the other hand, remember it well.... worth pointing out it was only the loyalist intervention that made it a Labour gain- one of those unintended consequences one might imagine. My memory doesn't stretch to the identity of the loyalist candidate, nor presumably does the memory of whoever wrote the wiki piece which has a sex change between sentences. Though it has been claimed they took significant support from normally Labour as well as Tory voters. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 12, 2018 11:23:55 GMT
I,on the other hand, remember it well.... worth pointing out it was only the loyalist intervention that made it a Labour gain- one of those unintended consequences one might imagine. My memory doesn't stretch to the identity of the loyalist candidate, nor presumably does the memory of whoever wrote the wiki piece which has a sex change between sentences. Though it has been claimed they took significant support from normally Labour as well as Tory voters. Yes I agree that has been claimed. Pretty implausible,though. Labour to Empire Loyalist is a stretch further than Labour to UKIP in our own times.Not saying there wouldn't have been a few, but with a loyalist vote larger than the Labour majority I am very doubtful there would have been a Labour majority without it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 11:44:17 GMT
JulianHeather1/status/1006192645566320646
Getting carried away?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 12, 2018 12:07:21 GMT
Though it has been claimed they took significant support from normally Labour as well as Tory voters. Yes I agree that has been claimed. Pretty implausible,though. Labour to Empire Loyalist is a stretch further than Labour to UKIP in our own times.Not saying there wouldn't have been a few, but with a loyalist vote larger than the Labour majority I am very doubtful there would have been a Labour majority without it. But you assume that they (or at least three quarters of them) would have voted Conservative in the absence of a Loyalist candidate. It may be that none of them would have voted Labour in these circumstances, but they obviously had their reasons for not voting Conservative and would still have had those reasons even had they not had an alternative candidate to vote for |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 12, 2018 12:22:59 GMT
I like the reference to LibDem "canvas data" by the way - that's what you get when Lib Dems pitch their tents on Labour's lawn? posibly... |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 12, 2018 12:33:49 GMT
On the subject of betting on Lewisham East I don't understand why anyone would back Labour because the potential returns are tiny and if something unexpected happens one could lose a lot of money. It makes more sense to put a very small bet on one of the outsiders IMO. But on Betfair Exchange it looks like people are collectively putting fairly big bets on the favourite, although it could be a large number of people placing small bets, you can't tell from the figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 12, 2018 12:47:10 GMT
Yes I agree that has been claimed. Pretty implausible,though. Labour to Empire Loyalist is a stretch further than Labour to UKIP in our own times.Not saying there wouldn't have been a few, but with a loyalist vote larger than the Labour majority I am very doubtful there would have been a Labour majority without it. But you assume that they (or at least three quarters of them) would have voted Conservative in the absence of a Loyalist candidate. It may be that none of them would have voted Labour in these circumstances, but they obviously had their reasons for not voting Conservative and would still have had those reasons even had they not had an alternative candidate to vote for okay this is hypothetical positioning about a group of voters most of whom are long dead- maybe all of them, as it's likely this particular group were elderly even then! They are likely to be traditional ultra-conservatives,for the most part, and they are likely to be committed voters, for the most part. Faced with a straight choice between a mainstream Conservative and a mainstream Labour candidate, who do you think they would vote for? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 12:47:51 GMT
On the subject of betting on Lewisham East I don't understand why anyone would back Labour because the potential returns are tiny and if something unexpected happens one could lose a lot of money. It makes more sense to put a very small bet on one of the outsiders IMO. But on Betfair Exchange it looks like people are collectively putting fairly big bets on the favourite, although it could be a large number of people placing small bets, you can't tell from the figures. I was told to bet big win big by a Celtics fan who bet £2,000 on them every year |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 13:02:51 GMT
On the subject of betting on Lewisham East I don't understand why anyone would back Labour because the potential returns are tiny and if something unexpected happens one could lose a lot of money. It makes more sense to put a very small bet on one of the outsiders IMO. But on Betfair Exchange it looks like people are collectively putting fairly big bets on the favourite, although it could be a large number of people placing small bets, you can't tell from the figures. I don't particularly understand gambling but heavy betting on favourites seems to be a common pattern. Bookies probably make more £ from the people putting money on wild outside bets. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 12, 2018 13:05:11 GMT
But you assume that they (or at least three quarters of them) would have voted Conservative in the absence of a Loyalist candidate. It may be that none of them would have voted Labour in these circumstances, but they obviously had their reasons for not voting Conservative and would still have had those reasons even had they not had an alternative candidate to vote for okay this is hypothetical positioning about a group of voters most of whom are long dead- maybe all of them, as it's likely this particular group were elderly even then! They are likely to be traditional ultra-conservatives,for the most part, and they are likely to be committed voters, for the most part. Faced with a straight choice between a mainstream Conservative and a mainstream Labour candidate, who do you think they would vote for? Well I am the same kind of voter as them and I would probably tend to vote Conservative given only the binary choice but I could as easily spoil my ballot - it really depends how pissed off I was with the Conservatives at the time and I would have been no fan of Macmillan. I really don't think there are enough voters there to say enough of them would have turned out and voted Conservative without the Loyalist candidate being on the ballot. If 80% of them had voted Conservative, 10% voted Labour and 10% stayed at home that would not have been enough |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Jun 12, 2018 13:19:08 GMT
On the subject of betting on Lewisham East I don't understand why anyone would back Labour because the potential returns are tiny and if something unexpected happens one could lose a lot of money. It makes more sense to put a very small bet on one of the outsiders IMO. But on Betfair Exchange it looks like people are collectively putting fairly big bets on the favourite, although it could be a large number of people placing small bets, you can't tell from the figures. Individual big bets. There aren't enough people interested to put small bets on to generate that amount of vig, but its all relative: I once took a six figure racing bet whereas the biggest here is, what, a grand? The without Labour market is rubbish as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 12, 2018 13:24:47 GMT
Turnout of about 70% at that by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 12, 2018 13:32:56 GMT
Turnout of about 70% at that by-election. Quite. How do you think that will compare with tomorrow? ( just to bring us back on-thread) - my guess is you'll be lucky to get much over 40% . Not many people in those days went for a principled abstention, I would say, and there were a lot fewer can't -be--bothereds either. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jun 12, 2018 13:47:36 GMT
Turnout of about 70% at that by-election. Quite. How do you think that will compare with tomorrow? ( just to bring us back on-thread) - my guess is you'll be lucky to get much over 40% . Not many people in those days went for a principled abstention, I would say, and there were a lot fewer can't -be--bothereds either. I think the turnout tomorrow will be vanishingly small... (just to get you back for canvas data!) |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 12, 2018 14:31:25 GMT
Reading that article makes me want to watch footage of the declaration. A Conservative majority of 3,236 was overturned to become a Labour majority of 1,110 (with 1,487 votes split by the Empire Loyalist). The victorious Labour candidate's name was the last in alphabetical order, so the drama would have been heightened by the climax of the declaration. I wonder if the Returning Officer had to call upon the services of Mr Flynn? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 12, 2018 14:36:33 GMT
I think the turnout tomorrow will be vanishingly small... (just to get you back for canvas data!) I wonder what proportion of the adult population of ordinary people (those who are not particularly interested in politics or elections, and who do not have family members who are either) have never noticed or realised that elections are always on Thursdays. |
|
k9
Non-Aligned
Posts: 126 
|
Post by k9 on Jun 12, 2018 14:51:48 GMT
What time are we expecting the result to be announced? It does not appear that there will be a by-election special on TV  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 12, 2018 15:25:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 16:21:30 GMT
What time are we expecting the result to be announced? It does not appear that there will be a by-election special on TV TV specials seem to be very much of the past. Sky News will sometimes go to the result in the middle of other programming. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 12, 2018 16:26:56 GMT
Reading that article makes me want to watch footage of the declaration. A Conservative majority of 3,236 was overturned to become a Labour majority of 1,110 (with 1,487 votes split by the Empire Loyalist). The victorious Labour candidate's name was the last in alphabetical order, so the drama would have been heightened by the climax of the declaration. I wonder if the Returning Officer had to call upon the services of Mr Flynn? Looking again at the figures and the discussion of the effect of the loyalist intervention- Pete Whitehead postulated that that vote might have split 80/10/10 between voting Con/ Lab/ not voting in the event of a straight fight between Lab & Con, and as he says that would have left Lab still winning - by 58 votes on my calculation. My feeling is that if it was that close Cons would have found the means to get over the line, but then your declaration footage would have been really exciting. Doubt somehow that this week's little Lewisham caper will quite match it for drama - but  you never know of course. |
|
you never know of course.