|
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 16:31:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jan 3, 2021 16:31:36 GMT
I am willing to believe that Labour could get up to 10 or 12 per cent in Winchester or Cheltenham. But 20 per cent? Nope. If Labour want to even think about government they should be standing down in Winchester and Cheltenham. They are, as we know far too tribal for that. 😕 |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 3, 2021 16:44:41 GMT
If Labour want to even think about government they should be standing down in Winchester and Cheltenham. They are, as we know far too tribal for that. 😕 Cheltenham has not always been a Tory /LD Battleground. In 1966 Labour was within 3,000 votes of taking the seat in a straight fight - having been just over 5,000 adrift in 1964 with a Liberal candidate standing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 16:44:52 GMT
I am willing to believe that Labour could get up to 10 or 12 per cent in Winchester or Cheltenham. But 20 per cent? Nope. If Labour want to even think about government they should be standing down in Winchester and Cheltenham. What, to appease a party who wouldn't support us in government anyway? No chance |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 17:29:07 GMT
If Labour want to even think about government they should be standing down in Winchester and Cheltenham. What, to appease a party who wouldn't support us in government anyway? No chance Then the Tories win again Labour need to abandon majoritarian politics and accept the need for electoral reform. If they don't they lose because of voter distribution |
|
|
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 17:29:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 17:29:45 GMT
If Labour want to even think about government they should be standing down in Winchester and Cheltenham. They are, as we know far too tribal for that. 😕 Sadly so. Maybe they will have to lose again to realise? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 17:30:57 GMT
They are, as we know far too tribal for that. 😕 Cheltenham has not always been a Tory /LD Battleground. In 1966 Labour was within 3,000 votes of taking the seat in a straight fight - having been just over 5,000 adrift in 1964 with a Liberal candidate standing. I was 4 in 1966. Labour are not competitive here and there is no realistic chance of them becoming so again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 17:31:50 GMT
What, to appease a party who wouldn't support us in government anyway? No chance Then the Tories win again Labour need to abandon majoritarian politics and accept the need for electoral reform. If they don't they lose because of voter distribution If we end up with a hung parliament because lots of Tory seats go LibDem, the Tories win again anyway, just in coalition |
|
|
|
Focaldata
Jan 3, 2021 17:35:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 17:35:32 GMT
Then the Tories win again Labour need to abandon majoritarian politics and accept the need for electoral reform. If they don't they lose because of voter distribution If we end up with a hung parliament because lots of Tory seats go LibDem, the Tories win again anyway, just in coalition That's why there needs to be a pre election pact to introduce electoral reform. There would then be considerably more parties to choose from |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 3, 2021 17:37:59 GMT
Cheltenham has not always been a Tory /LD Battleground. In 1966 Labour was within 3,000 votes of taking the seat in a straight fight - having been just over 5,000 adrift in 1964 with a Liberal candidate standing. I was 4 in 1966. Labour are not competitive here and there is no realistic chance of them becoming so again. I was 11 in March 1966 , but the point is that the balance between parties does change over time.Much of the LD vote over the last 30 years or so is based on Labour tactical voting , but Labour's underlying vote is likely to be 25% or so - as evidenced by election results there throughout the 1970s. Labour came from third place to win Portsmouth South in 2017 - and in quite a few seats back in 1997. This poll also has Labour ahead in Colchester where Labour was a distant third place as recently as 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 3, 2021 17:44:51 GMT
They are, as we know far too tribal for that. 😕 Cheltenham has not always been a Tory /LD Battleground. In 1966 Labour was within 3,000 votes of taking the seat in a straight fight - having been just over 5,000 adrift in 1964 with a Liberal candidate standing. In the 1966 landslide, Labour also came close in other places subsequently won by the Liberals/LDs, such as Truro, Bath and Hereford. It makes perfect sense to me that if Labour can't win a seat in a landslide, some other party might eventually stand a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 3, 2021 17:49:39 GMT
Cheltenham has not always been a Tory /LD Battleground. In 1966 Labour was within 3,000 votes of taking the seat in a straight fight - having been just over 5,000 adrift in 1964 with a Liberal candidate standing. In the 1966 landslide, Labour also came close in other places subsequently won by the Liberals/LDs, such as Truro, Bath and Hereford. It makes perfect sense to me that if Labour can't win a seat in a landslide, some other party might eventually stand a chance. Had Labour won in 1966 on a scale similar to 1997 and 2001, it would have taken both Bath and Truro.This poll has Labour ahead in Truro & Falmouth. |
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,241
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jan 3, 2021 18:24:21 GMT
Labour coming 2nd in Wells, and nearly 2nd in Taunton Deane and St Ives. Hmmm Labour wouldn't come second in Wells. Result last time was LD 38%, Lab 7%. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 19:20:28 GMT
The attitude that Labour might one day win in Cheltenham is exactly the majoritarian mentality which has led to so many Tory governments on minority votes.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 3, 2021 19:33:28 GMT
A pretty academic discussion.
I think the likelihood of either Labour or the Lib Dems standing down in seats is trivial. That's partly because both parties have local governance and the local party largely decides. It's partly because voters are not to be shifted between columns like bags of beans. They are not "our" voters or "theirs".
However it is possible to agree some common elements in a programme (for example steps toward a more proportional system, if the precise model can't be agreed). That limited common approach would be understood by many voters. And it's possible to discourage active campaigning in some seats while leaving a candidate in place for those determined not to vote tactically (as is entirely their right). Such an approach should produce most of the benefit of a formal pact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 19:38:47 GMT
A pretty academic discussion. I think the likelihood of either Labour or the Lib Dems standing down in seats is trivial. That's partly because both parties have local governance and the local party largely decides. It's partly because voters are not to be shifted between columns like bags of beans. They are not "our" voters or "theirs". However it is possible to agree some common elements in a programme (for example steps toward a more proportional system, if the precise model can't be agreed). That limited common approach would be understood by many voters. And it's possible to discourage active campaigning in some seats while leaving a candidate in place for those determined not to vote tactically (as is entirely their right). Such an approach should produce mos t of the benefit of a formal pact. Won't work, never has. Unless there is a formal cross party agreement to aim for change in the electoral system, the Tories win again. Labour may have to lose again before they get to grips with it. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 3, 2021 19:51:33 GMT
A pretty academic discussion. I think the likelihood of either Labour or the Lib Dems standing down in seats is trivial. That's partly because both parties have local governance and the local party largely decides. It's partly because voters are not to be shifted between columns like bags of beans. They are not "our" voters or "theirs". However it is possible to agree some common elements in a programme (for example steps toward a more proportional system, if the precise model can't be agreed). That limited common approach would be understood by many voters. And it's possible to discourage active campaigning in some seats while leaving a candidate in place for those determined not to vote tactically (as is entirely their right). Such an approach should produce mos t of the benefit of a formal pact. Won't work, never has. Unless there is a formal cross party agreement to aim for change in the electoral system, the Tories win again. Labour may have to lose again before they get to grips with it. You are a centralist by instinct and presume that voters follow party instructions (or even hear them) far more than they do. There can be a "formal agreement" on the aim of changing the system (although opinions vary as to the change sought..!) without a centrally-imposed directive for candidates to stand down. Such an agreement would encourage tactical voting. And that will deliver most of the benefit of a stand-down pact. If success in an individual constituency hinges on a few hundred votes (bearing in mind that many will simply not vote for the suggested party anyway, whether a candidate from their party stands or not) then both parties really need to be doing better. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 3, 2021 19:57:27 GMT
Won't work, never has. Unless there is a formal cross party agreement to aim for change in the electoral system, the Tories win again. Labour may have to lose again before they get to grips with it. You are a centralist by instinct and presume that voters follow party instructions (or even hear them) far more than they do. There can be a "formal agreement" on the aim of changing the system (although opinions vary as to the change sought..!) without a centrally-imposed directive for candidates to stand down. Such an agreement would encourage tactical voting. And that will deliver most of the benefit of a stand-down pact. If success in an individual constituency hinges on a few hundred votes (bearing in mind that many will simply not vote for the suggested party anyway, whether a candidate from their party stands or not) then both parties really need to be doing better. If there was a joint candidate then I think most voters would back them. Evidence suggests tactical voting is never enough. It would be a pre election agreement agreed by all parties involved that they would contest a limited number of seats with a clear aim to change the electoral system, if elected. No referendum. Decreasing tribal affiliation makes this more likely to be backed by the voters. The problem is Labour's tribalism. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 3, 2021 20:09:57 GMT
You are a centralist by instinct and presume that voters follow party instructions (or even hear them) far more than they do. There can be a "formal agreement" on the aim of changing the system (although opinions vary as to the change sought..!) without a centrally-imposed directive for candidates to stand down. Such an agreement would encourage tactical voting. And that will deliver most of the benefit of a stand-down pact. If success in an individual constituency hinges on a few hundred votes (bearing in mind that many will simply not vote for the suggested party anyway, whether a candidate from their party stands or not) then both parties really need to be doing better. If there was a joint candidate then I think most voters would back them. Evidence suggests tactical voting is never enough. It would be a pre election agreement agreed by all parties involved that they would contest a limited number of seats with a clear aim to change the electoral system, if elected. No referendum. Decreasing tribal affiliation makes this more likely to be backed by the voters. The problem is Labour's tribalism. Honestly, no. And your reference to "most" betrays your own doubt. The difference between heavily facilitated tactical voting and actually removing choice from voters is probably rather small. You also, in your aversion to your most recent former party (but not the one before that!) attribute any "non-compliance" to "Labour tribalism". Perhaps you need a history lesson from your own neck of the woods? Surely you recognise that there are many Lib Dems who wouldn't vote Labour in any circumstance? I've certainly met them quite frequently. Indeed quite a number would probably rather vote Tory.
You also assume that a "grand plan" of the two parties is bought by most of the electorate as the main purpose of that General Election. No. Voters choose the issues that concern them and they won't regard this as an election merely to decide one thing. And they'd rather resent an attempt to hijack their choices.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 3, 2021 20:25:12 GMT
Have to say I agree more with matureleft regarding this one - I'm old enough to recall the 1980s discussions about formal anti-Tory electoral pacts. And the reasons why they were ultimately rejected, which IMO haven't really gone away. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jan 3, 2021 20:29:02 GMT
The fact the data for this was taking over the whole of December, says it all ready, ignore it.
Exactly
Its utter ****
I mean Sheffield Hallam Labour 39.7% Conservative 27%
Liberal Democrats 20.4%
|
|
