yorkshireluke
Lib Dem
I run @polmapsinfoUK, @YorkshireElects and /r/PoliticalMaps/
Posts: 776 
|
Post by yorkshireluke on Apr 5, 2019 0:45:51 GMT
Hmm, not the best prediction ever. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 0:46:50 GMT
Prima facie, this result could be taken as demonstrating the truth that the majority of Labour voters were strongly remain even in constituencies with a leave majority. However, given that the bi winners were UKKKIP, there is no way we will ever get that narrative through. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Apr 5, 2019 0:47:17 GMT
Let's face it, to go from 52% to under 40% and on the verge of what can be called a marginal in a seat they have held since 1987 is a poor result. Mixed bag for the Tories, down 8 points but actually closer to winning the seat and no danger as it turned out of being pushed into third place. Reasonably good for UKIP, they can call that steady progress. Could be worse for Lib Dems and Plaid Cymru, okay for us and Renew. I think that's a fair assessment. Right, I now have a long standing commitment to attend to.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 5, 2019 0:47:54 GMT
Never heard a returning officer read out the list of candidates before the votes before. My theory is that they decided not to read out the numbers in Welsh first, because it would have caused frustration or bewilderment for the tiny minority of deranged isolationists who don't understand Welsh numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Apr 5, 2019 0:47:56 GMT
The BBC analysis of this is completely missing the point. Yes, there's been a swing from Labour to Conservative, but both parties are down significantly making the swing between the 'big two' almost irrelevant. UKIP's (relatively) strong showing suggests that they're back in the picture nationally, while Plaid's best showing in Newport for a Westminster election implies that the recent Welsh polls have correctly been showing them making progress. Why is it irrelevant if a swing is derived from large drops for both parties? If the starting point had been, say, Lab 43%, Con 42%, this swing would have led to Con 34%, Lab 30% and a Tory gain. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Apr 5, 2019 0:48:20 GMT
See above. Please no spinning. Thatās unfair. I donāt āspinā. Iām very critical of my partyās recent performance, my posts and recent ādefectionā shouldāve shown that. In fact Iām very worried by the UKIP result tbh. It reminds me of UKIPās growing strength circa 2011. All I did was call it as I see it, feel free to disagree of course but all I gave my honest interpretation. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,787
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 5, 2019 0:49:41 GMT
 And that was a 48% turnout! So total PARLIAMENTARY electorate of 16,000!!! My Sheffield COUNCIL electorate was that size. |
|
clyde1998
SNP
Green (E&W) member; SNP supporter
Posts: 1,765
|
Post by clyde1998 on Apr 5, 2019 0:53:48 GMT
The BBC analysis of this is completely missing the point. Yes, there's been a swing from Labour to Conservative, but both parties are down significantly making the swing between the 'big two' almost irrelevant. UKIP's (relatively) strong showing suggests that they're back in the picture nationally, while Plaid's best showing in Newport for a Westminster election implies that the recent Welsh polls have correctly been showing them making progress. Why is it irrelevant if a swing is derived from large drops for both parties? If the starting point had been, say, Lab 43%, Con 42%, this swing would have led to Con 34%, Lab 30% and a Tory gain. What I mean is that the movement towards the smaller parties is more important than the swing between Labour and the Conservatives. If the Tories were the largest party with the (implied) movement away from the big parties to the smaller here, it may well have been a 2% swing to Labour. |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Apr 5, 2019 0:59:12 GMT
Something for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on Apr 5, 2019 1:01:15 GMT
Correct me if Iām wrong but wouldnāt something similar see the Tories pick up a marginal seat like, oh I donāt know, Peterborough?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 5, 2019 1:08:35 GMT
Correct me if Iām wrong but wouldnāt something similar see the Tories pick up a marginal seat like, oh I donāt know, Peterborough? That would depend on what kind of similarity we're talking about. What basically happened was that a load of both Labour and Conservative votes went to smaller parties (most likely the Tory vote went mostly to UKIP, with the Labour vote going four ways to Plaid, the Lib Dems, the Greens, and Renew). It would have to be both a similar trend and in similar proportions between the two parties to throw the seat. Also, nobody genuinely thought this seat could change hands. So we're talking about a very different kind of election campaign. And in by-elections that can make all the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 5, 2019 1:10:18 GMT
My god, is nine thousand really a winning Parliamentary vote!? Na h-Eileanan an Iar has been as low as 5,924 in 2001 and was 6,013 in 2017. Orkney and Shetland also had its modern lowest in 2001 with 6,919 and was also below 10,000 in 2005 & 2010. Outside of island seats Belfast South was 9,560 in 2015 and ISTR some 21st century by-elections have had four figure victories. |
|
|
|
Post by syorkssocialist on Apr 5, 2019 1:10:57 GMT
The BBC analysis of this is completely missing the point. Yes, there's been a swing from Labour to Conservative, but both parties are down significantly making the swing between the 'big two' almost irrelevant. UKIP's (relatively) strong showing suggests that they're back in the picture nationally, while Plaid's best showing in Newport for a Westminster election implies that the recent Welsh polls have correctly been showing them making progress. It's actually not Plaid's best showing in a Westminster election - they managed 7.2% in 2001 in the same constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on Apr 5, 2019 1:12:01 GMT
Correct me if Iām wrong but wouldnāt something similar see the Tories pick up a marginal seat like, oh I donāt know, Peterborough? That would depend on what kind of similarity we're talking about. What basically happened was that a load of both Labour and Conservative votes went to smaller parties (most likely the Tory vote went mostly to UKIP, with the Labour vote going four ways to Plaid, the Lib Dems, the Greens, and Renew). It would have to be both a similar trend and in similar proportions between the two parties to throw the seat. Also, nobody genuinely thought this seat could change hands. So we're talking about a very different kind of election campaign. And in by-elections that can make all the difference. My question was more rhetorical in nature, I just thought it was an interesting observation given how close we are to a probable by-election in such an ultra-marginal  |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 5, 2019 6:06:38 GMT
Ian Craig from the South Wales Argus says that the counters appear to have stopped counting. Remember the good old days when if nothing much was happening, the only thing that people said was "nothing much is happening"? |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,642
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Apr 5, 2019 6:30:48 GMT
I think people are being a bit over generous to Labour with comments on here. Yes, we must apply the usual caveats about turnout, and the election being caused by the death of a popular incumbent, it was raining etc. The best thing you can say for them is its a hold. After being in opposition for 9 years and with a rubbish government, to only hold on by 2000 is poor. Not the sort of result that leads to a likely conclusion of a Labour government.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Apr 5, 2019 6:46:22 GMT
See above. Please no spinning. Thatās unfair. I donāt āspinā. Iām very critical of my partyās recent performance, my posts and recent ādefectionā shouldāve shown that. In fact Iām very worried by the UKIP result tbh. It reminds me of UKIPās growing strength circa 2011. All I did was call it as I see it, feel free to disagree of course but all I gave my honest interpretation. One man's "spin" is another's "call it as it is".That's the way the world is.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 6:52:44 GMT
I think people are being a bit over generous to Labour with comments on here. Yes, we must apply the usual caveats about turnout, and the election being caused by the death of a popular incumbent, it was raining etc. The best thing you can say for them is its a hold. After being in opposition for 9 years and with a rubbish government, to only hold on by 2000 is poor. Not the sort of result that leads to a likely conclusion of a Labour government. I think you're being overly critical. A majority of 8% will be 2000 votes on a turnout of around 30%. Had the turnout been twice that then ofc the maj would have been larger |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 6:55:20 GMT
That would depend on what kind of similarity we're talking about. What basically happened was that a load of both Labour and Conservative votes went to smaller parties (most likely the Tory vote went mostly to UKIP, with the Labour vote going four ways to Plaid, the Lib Dems, the Greens, and Renew). It would have to be both a similar trend and in similar proportions between the two parties to throw the seat. Also, nobody genuinely thought this seat could change hands. So we're talking about a very different kind of election campaign. And in by-elections that can make all the difference. My question was more rhetorical in nature, I just thought it was an interesting observation given how close we are to a probable by-election in such an ultra-marginal you didn't need the ? then Yes it is interesting but as is already said not much more than that. There's very little resemblance between the two |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Apr 5, 2019 6:58:45 GMT
I donāt know what to say about this
|
|
