|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 2, 2019 14:35:51 GMT
As it’s my birthday, and I’m now officially two years over the life expectancy for my disability, can I remind the LDs in this thread of the first rule of the Internet: don’t feed the troll it only encourages them. Can you explain the connection between the first part of your sentence and the last? I absolutely agree with the maxim about not feeding trolls while totally rejecting the suggestion that carlton43 is one. Which is fine - we can disagree on that. But what the fuck relevance does your birthday or your disability have to the situation? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Feb 2, 2019 15:37:52 GMT
As it’s my birthday, and I’m now officially two years over the life expectancy for my disability, can I remind the LDs in this thread of the first rule of the Internet: don’t feed the troll it only encourages them. Can you explain the connection between the first part of your sentence and the last? I absolutely agree with the maxim about not feeding trolls while totally rejecting the suggestion that carlton43 is one. Which is fine - we can disagree on that. But what the fuck relevance does your birthday or your disability have to the situation? Last time I had the temerity to criticise said poster I got into trouble with then Admin; the comment about what I call my overtime (living beyond my life expectancy) was intended as a slightly sarcastic attempt to imply that I’m now beyond trying to self censor in order to avoid a repeat. And, just for the record, it is possible to have an exchange of posts without stooping into the gutter of using the f-word. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Feb 2, 2019 15:56:37 GMT
Can you explain the connection between the first part of your sentence and the last? I absolutely agree with the maxim about not feeding trolls while totally rejecting the suggestion that carlton43 is one. Which is fine - we can disagree on that. But what the fuck relevance does your birthday or your disability have to the situation? Last time I had the temerity to criticise said poster I got into trouble with then Admin; the comment about what I call my overtime (living beyond my life expectancy) was intended as a slightly sarcastic attempt to imply that I’m now beyond trying to self censor in order to avoid a repeat. And, just for the record, it is possible to have an exchange of posts without stooping into the gutter of using the f-word. You mean it's possible for some but not all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 2, 2019 16:07:23 GMT
I don't think you would get into trouble with the admin for calling carlton a troll even though it is a totally unfounded accusation. I think I understand your position though which is that you were worried you might get into trouble with the admin so you've played a kind of double sympathy card to avoid that happening. I think that's what you're saying (even if it isn't what you said)
In any case I think your post was less productive, enlightening, informative or insightful than any of the posts on this thread made by that alleged troll carlton (also true of my last two posts I suppose, but then I can't always follow the maxim I claimed to agree with)
|
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Feb 2, 2019 18:27:47 GMT
Y'know, I never intended to cause all this excitement! What we need is another by-election...
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 3, 2019 8:20:04 GMT
You won't give up on this, will you Carlton? Neither of course is true. All the evidence is that LDs turned out in greater numbers in the cold and snow than did the Tories, so 1) is clearly not true. 2) is nearer to being true, but a gross oversimplification.Its less a question of being dim as a matter of local tradition and organisation. This is a weak division for the LDs but including one strong ward where the local tradition had depended on vigorous campaigning style based on canvassing and GOTV rather than relying on postal votes, a campaigning style ok, maybe, for May elections but pretty disastrous for a short campaign in mid-winter. Local Lib Dems therefore concluded the seat was not winnable and came close to being proved wrong. There probably wasn't enough time to convert many of their likely supporters into postals in a short campaign across Christmas. Even with a January poll, it was sheer bad luck that the polling day proved to be the coldest and snowiest day of the year to date. The local Lib Dems could be accused of being dim in not seeing their potential to win the division in present circumstances until it was too late, but that would be harsh. Incidentally, I think that neither bigfatron , a non-aligned local resident who clearly has some contacts with the local LDs and Tories, nor myself, were approaching this analysis in a particularly partisan way. It was more a matter of psephological interest as is appropriate to this forum. This is the thing though - there isn't any actual evidence proving any such thing is there? There is purely speculation. This may range from the quite well-informed speculation of bigfatron, based on local knowledge, to your own which is based on nothing more than what you would like to believe - in either case it is speculation.I will take issue with this. To some extent my assessment was speculative in that nobody not actually at the opening of the pvs and at the count , and sitting at the polling stations, can really know, but it was based on other sources besides the well observed testimony of bigfatron. I don't feel inclined to reveal my other sources. Seeing earlier you took the line that you always looked at the district results when making your nearly always remarkably accurate competition predictions, I might point out I had also done so, and to the effect of winning this particular comp with only 2.2 faults, so I think its a bit uncalled for to accuse me of making things up to fit what I would like to believe. Psephological speculation was what I thought this thread was about. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Feb 5, 2019 1:14:47 GMT
I was intrigued by some of the comments about the Warlingham by-election, in particular that it was a short campaign and the Liberal Democrats may have won if the turnout had been higher.
I understand the former Councillor resigned on the 16 December with the by-election called on the 17 December. Nominations closed on the 4 January, some 18 days after the notice of election although with Christmas and New Year intervening, whilst the by-election was held on 31 January. Compare that with three by-elections this week. The Councillor in Tower Hamlets: Lansbury resigned on 21 December, the one in Tower Hamlets: Shadwell on 31 December whilst the one for Wokingham: Evendons resigned on 3 January with the elections being formally called on 4 January and nominations closing on 11 January. The timetable from resignation to election at Warlingham does not appear to be shorter even taking the Christmas shut-down into account than the ones this week, particularly for the Wokingham one. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrat candidate in Warlingham contested the 2017 election so was not at a disadvantage in this respect.
The Warlingham electorate at the last three elections has been very similar; 10,056 in 2013, 10,109 in 2017 and 10,088 for the by-election. However turnout varied from 33.9% in 2013, through 39.9% in 2017 to 24.7% last week. By-elections normally see turnout significantly down on the previous elections, in this case unaffected by a General Election or similar. Unless there are unusual circumstances then turnout at a by-election could be expected to be somewhere between 70% and 80% of the previous annual election whereas it was 62% last week.
If the comparative turnout had indeed been 70%, 75% and 80% then the additional votes would have been some 330, 532 and 734 respectively. Assuming UKIP and Labour had taken around 10% of these additional votes, compared to 12.2% actual, then the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives would have had between them around 297, 479 and 660 votes. For the Liberal Democrats to have squeezed a win by 1 vote then they would have had to polled 85%:15% to the Conservatives were the comparative turnover to be 70%, but 72%:28% if the comparative turnover were 75% and 66%:34% if it had been 80%.
Whilst nothing may be impossible, I think mathematically it would have been a tall order to achieve. More so as the comparative turnover against the 2013 election was 73% and within the range expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 5, 2019 7:55:40 GMT
I was intrigued by some of the comments about the Warlingham by-election, in particular that it was a short campaign and the Liberal Democrats may have won if the turnout had been higher. I understand the former Councillor resigned on the 16 December with the by-election called on the 17 December. Nominations closed on the 4 January, some 18 days after the notice of election although with Christmas and New Year intervening, whilst the by-election was held on 31 January. Compare that with three by-elections this week. The Councillor in Tower Hamlets: Lansbury resigned on 21 December, the one in Tower Hamlets: Shadwell on 31 December whilst the one for Wokingham: Evendons resigned on 3 January with the elections being formally called on 4 January and nominations closing on 11 January. The timetable from resignation to election at Warlingham does not appear to be shorter even taking the Christmas shut-down into account than the ones this week, particularly for the Wokingham one. Furthermore, the Liberal Democrat candidate in Warlingham contested the 2017 election so was not at a disadvantage in this respect. The Warlingham electorate at the last three elections has been very similar; 10,056 in 2013, 10,109 in 2017 and 10,088 for the by-election. However turnout varied from 33.9% in 2013, through 39.9% in 2017 to 24.7% last week. By-elections normally see turnout significantly down on the previous elections, in this case unaffected by a General Election or similar. Unless there are unusual circumstances then turnout at a by-election could be expected to be somewhere between 70% and 80% of the previous annual election whereas it was 62% last week. If the comparative turnout had indeed been 70%, 75% and 80% then the additional votes would have been some 330, 532 and 734 respectively. Assuming UKIP and Labour had taken around 10% of these additional votes, compared to 12.2% actual, then the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives would have had between them around 297, 479 and 660 votes. For the Liberal Democrats to have squeezed a win by 1 vote then they would have had to polled 85%:15% to the Conservatives were the comparative turnover to be 70%, but 72%:28% if the comparative turnover were 75% and 66%:34% if it had been 80%. Whilst nothing may be impossible, I think mathematically it would have been a tall order to achieve. More so as the comparative turnover against the 2013 election was 73% and within the range expected. A typically thorough and carefully constructed argument which concludes that a Lib Dem victory in this case was possible but unlikely. I would not disagree I don't think anyone has said it was anything more than a possibility. I may however put that possibility a bit higher than you would, just simply because of the way in which by-elections under certain circumstances can defy logic and the sort of careful analysis of the mathematics you display here -there can be a sudden lurch in one direction out of a sort of collective madness! That is what makes them psephologically so interesting. In this case I think the interruption of the Christmas holiday and the snow on polling day just take that possibility beyond all bounds, but the well attested fact that the local Lib Dems had convinced themselves it could not be done probably contributed! |
|
