Northumbria PCC by-election

[Pete Whitehead]

could be interesting

[edgbaston]

Jul 19, 2019 10:59:06 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

First stage:

Kim McGuinness (Lab) - 58355
Georgina Hill (Ind) 33,704
Robbie Moore (Con) 33,267
Jonathan Wallace (LD) 28,623

So McGuinness and Hill go through to the second stage.

If only 500 more people had voted Tory. Damn. Let’s hope for lots of blank/wasted transfers

[jamie]

There will be a lot of blank/wasted ballots. Hill needs to get at minimum just under half of the 2nd preferences, and that’s assuming Labour get no transfers (very unlikely obviously). Labour should win reasonably comfortably. 

[Davıd Boothroyd]

[td]Candidate	Gateshead	Newcastle	North Tyneside	Northumberland	South Tyneside	Sunderland	Total
Georgina Emma Rowley Hill	3,713	6,332	4,040	7,961	4,277	7,381	33,704
Cara Kim McGuinness	8,394	14,575	9,116	8,894	6,228	11,148	58,355
Robbie Moore	2,998	5,326	5,591	10,503	2,554	6,295	33,267
Jonathan Wallace	5,595	7,110	3,186	5,807	1,926	4,999	28,623

[andrewp]

Jul 19, 2019 11:06:24 GMT jamie said:

There will be a lot of blank/wasted ballots. Hill needs to get at minimum just under half of the 2nd preferences, and that’s assuming Labour get no transfers (very unlikely obviously). Labour should win reasonably comfortably. 

62,000 v 50,000?

[liverpoolliberal]

I must admit, I can't quite get my head round the Conservatives performance over the last few weeks. For a party that, according to the polls, has lost nearly half of it's vote since 2017, they don't seem to be losing the vast swathes of voters you'd expect in every contest, whether it's here (where their share has gone up) or in the local by-elections. The clear exception is where we are challenging them. I know you shouldn't read too much into these low turnout elections but I feel there's been enough since the euros to indicate:

Labour are taking heavy losses basically everywhere
Tories are taking some heavy losses, in particular to the LDs, but are actually holding ground in other places
LDs are making gains basically everywhere, in particular where we put in any kind of campaign, or that was even slighty more remain than the national average

Which I would say isn't what national polling would suggest should be the case. Those two Gloucester by-elections, with the Brexit Party actually standing, are going to be fascinating.

[markgoodair]

Jul 19, 2019 10:59:06 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

First stage:

Kim McGuinness (Lab) - 58355
Georgina Hill (Ind) 33,704
Robbie Moore (Con) 33,267
Jonathan Wallace (LD) 28,623

So McGuinness and Hill go through to the second stage.

Labour 37.9% -17.4%
Ind 21.9% +21.9%
Con 21.6% +3.6%
Lib Dem 18.6% + 7.9%
UKIP 0.0% -16.0%

[Merseymike]

Jul 19, 2019 11:37:21 GMT liverpoolliberal said:

I must admit, I can't quite get my head round the Conservatives performance over the last few weeks. For a party that, according to the polls, has lost nearly half of it's vote since 2017, they don't seem to be losing the vast swathes of voters you'd expect in every contest, whether it's here (where their share has gone up) or in the local by-elections. The clear exception is where we are challenging them. I know you shouldn't read too much into these low turnout elections but I feel there's been enough since the euros to indicate:

Labour are taking heavy losses basically everywhere
Tories are taking some heavy losses, in particular to the LDs, but are actually holding ground in other places
LDs are making gains basically everywhere, in particular where we put in any kind of campaign, or that was even slighty more remain than the national average

Which I would say isn't what national polling would suggest should be the case. Those two Gloucester by-elections, with the Brexit Party actually standing, are going to be fascinating.

It doesn't surprise me at all
Think of who Tory voters are and what we know about them - and how that coincicides with likelihood to turn out for local by-elections

[polaris]

Jul 19, 2019 11:37:21 GMT liverpoolliberal said:

I must admit, I can't quite get my head round the Conservatives performance over the last few weeks. For a party that, according to the polls, has lost nearly half of it's vote since 2017, they don't seem to be losing the vast swathes of voters you'd expect in every contest,

That's probably because of the lack of Brexit Party candidates in local by-elections - normally you just get the occasional Kipper, or minority far-right party.

Like you say, the two seats in Gloucester will provide a useful straw in the wind.

[justin124]

Jul 19, 2019 11:37:21 GMT liverpoolliberal said:

I must admit, I can't quite get my head round the Conservatives performance over the last few weeks. For a party that, according to the polls, has lost nearly half of it's vote since 2017, they don't seem to be losing the vast swathes of voters you'd expect in every contest, whether it's here (where their share has gone up) or in the local by-elections. The clear exception is where we are challenging them. I know you shouldn't read too much into these low turnout elections but I feel there's been enough since the euros to indicate:

Labour are taking heavy losses basically everywhere
Tories are taking some heavy losses, in particular to the LDs, but are actually holding ground in other places
LDs are making gains basically everywhere, in particular where we put in any kind of campaign, or that was even slighty more remain than the national average

Which I would say isn't what national polling would suggest should be the case. Those two Gloucester by-elections, with the Brexit Party actually standing, are going to be fascinating.

The higher Tory share here will likely be due to the absence of a UKIP candidate who polled 16% previously.

[The Bishop]

Jul 19, 2019 11:37:21 GMT liverpoolliberal said:

I must admit, I can't quite get my head round the Conservatives performance over the last few weeks. For a party that, according to the polls, has lost nearly half of it's vote since 2017, they don't seem to be losing the vast swathes of voters you'd expect in every contest

They did have some decent local byelection results a few weeks ago, but they were down heavily in all this week's contests.

The result in this one is compared to 2016, and as already said UKIP had a decent vote then. Also with a turnout this low personal factors can become more important.

[jamie]

liverpoolliberal In this case the comparison is to 2016 which was a good Labour year which partially explains it. I think another big reason is that the Lib Dem’s, who are taking votes from Labour, are standing but the Brexit Party, who are taking from the Tories, are not standing.

Edit - I would also posit that an election with abysmal turnout that is heavily skewed towards postal voters will not be entirely representative of a general election electorate. 

[andrea]

Number of 2nd preference PCC votes for Sunderland

Georgina Hill (Ind) 5269
Kim McGuinness (Lab) 1569


So Hill got 46.7% of the available transfers and McGuiness 13.9%

[andrea]

South Tyneside

Hill - 2238
McGuinness - 608

Newcastle:

Hill - 5337
McGuinness - 2214

North Tyneside

Hill - 3914
McGuinness - 1262

Northumberland

Hill - 7570
McGuinness - 1644


MgGuiness leading by 7620 with only Gateshead missing

[andrea]

Final result

McGuinness 67332

Hill 61633

[The Bishop]

Well that's a relief, and means SV hasn't delivered one of the ridiculous results of which it is all too capable.

[polaris]

Jul 19, 2019 12:23:20 GMT The Bishop said:

Well that's a relief, and means SV hasn't delivered one of the ridiculous results of which it is all too capable.

Why would it be ridiculous if the second-placed candidate overhauled the first-place candidate following distribution of preferences? It isn't a first past the post system.

That result is a bit too close for comfort for Labour.

[LDCaerdydd]

[The Bishop]

Jul 19, 2019 12:30:02 GMT polaris said:

Jul 19, 2019 12:23:20 GMT The Bishop said:

Well that's a relief, and means SV hasn't delivered one of the ridiculous results of which it is all too capable.

Why would it be ridiculous if the second-placed candidate overhauled the first-place candidate following distribution of preferences? It isn't a first past the post system

For starters, because not all preferences get counted?

You make this comment evidently unaware of what a dire voting system SV actually is. Hint - its not the same as AV (which would be a lot more sensible)

[Deleted]

Jul 19, 2019 12:33:40 GMT The Bishop said:

Jul 19, 2019 12:30:02 GMT polaris said:

Why would it be ridiculous if the second-placed candidate overhauled the first-place candidate following distribution of preferences? It isn't a first past the post system

For starters, because not all preferences get counted?

You make this comment evidently unaware of what a dire voting system SV actually is. Hint - its not the same as AV (which would be a lot more sensible)

Quite, and it's particularly prone to issues when independents/minor parties do well (like in this case).