|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 12, 2019 8:06:01 GMT
Nice try, but Labour should, on the face of it, have been the leading challenger. Not being beaten into fifth place by the Yorkshire Party and bloody UKIP. On what substantial basis do you make that remark? Because "on the face of it" is doing a heck of a lot of work in that sentence. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,732
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 12, 2019 8:12:18 GMT
Nice try, but Labour should, on the face of it, have been the leading challenger. Not being beaten into fifth place by the Yorkshire Party and bloody UKIP. On what substantial basis do you make that remark? Because "on the face of it" is doing a heck of a lot of work in that sentence. On the basis that Labour have stood every time, came second in 2011 and 2019, and were only beaten into third in 2015 when UKIP were on a s(pl)urge with Farage still at the helm. Whereas we've been absent since 2007 so have no recent track record of any kind, the Yorkshire Party are new on the scene, and UKIP are supposed to be on the way to extinction. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Jul 12, 2019 8:12:26 GMT
Nice try, but Labour should, on the face of it, have been the leading challenger. Not being beaten into fifth place by the Yorkshire Party and bloody UKIP. On what substantial basis do you make that remark? Because "on the face of it" is doing a heck of a lot of work in that sentence. How long a list do you want? |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 12, 2019 8:26:22 GMT
It doesn't need spin. The May result had a very restricted number of candidates and was not an accurate reflection of real Labour (or indeed Conservative) strength if a multi-party field of candidates had been available. I think that is a fair point, and if you don't put up a candidate nobody can vote for you, as Lib Dems are often saying to our weaker local parties. Nevertheless, I do wonder whether the local Labour party went into this election expecting to be finishing down at 4%. I think the point is that local Lib Dem strength here has been masked by a lack of any local campaigning, and the really interesting question is how many more places are like this- after all an east coast rural ward with a strong leaver presence didn't look like obvious Lib Dem territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 12, 2019 8:30:29 GMT
On what substantial basis do you make that remark? Because "on the face of it" is doing a heck of a lot of work in that sentence. On the basis that Labour have stood every time, came second in 2011 and 2019, and were only beaten into third in 2015 when UKIP were on a s(pl)urge with Farage still at the helm. Whereas we've been absent since 2007 so have no recent track record of any kind, the Yorkshire Party are new on the scene, and UKIP are supposed to be on the way to extinction. Oh that's piss easy to unload. 1) The mere fact of a Labour candidate standing does not mean there was a Labour campaign. Bridlington North wasn't a winnable ward and they were just paper candidates - each time. 2) You omit to mention the number of Labour candidates: only in 2011 has Labour put up a full ticket. In 2011 and 2019 there was only one. When there are only four candidates and electors have three votes, a lot of voters cross-vote just to show they aren't owned by the big party. 3) In 2015 a UKIP candidate came from nowhere to win a seat. UKIP outpolled Labour in Bridlington North, whereas across the East Yorkshire constituency Labour outpolled UKIP. Clearly Bridlington North was far from the Labour stronghold. 4) UKIP's strongest wards are coastal towns on the East coast. That's the sort of ward where Labour has struggled. 5) The Yorkshire Party came from nowhere to win seats in Bridlington South in May. They didn't stand in the demographically similar Bridlington North. In a byelection they could use the same approach to win votes and it is likely to succeed. 6) Bridlington is a retirement area. If there's one section of the electorate where Labour has struggled particularly since 2010 it's with people over 65. Now fuck off and learn some psephology you annoying Lib Dem. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Jul 12, 2019 8:34:37 GMT
On the basis that Labour have stood every time, came second in 2011 and 2019, and were only beaten into third in 2015 when UKIP were on a s(pl)urge with Farage still at the helm. Whereas we've been absent since 2007 so have no recent track record of any kind, the Yorkshire Party are new on the scene, and UKIP are supposed to be on the way to extinction. Oh that's piss easy to unload. 1) The mere fact of a Labour candidate standing does not mean there was a Labour campaign. Bridlington North wasn't a winnable ward and they were just paper candidates - each time. 2) You omit to mention the number of Labour candidates: only in 2011 has Labour put up a full ticket. In 2011 and 2019 there was only one. When there are only four candidates and electors have three votes, a lot of voters cross-vote just to show they aren't owned by the big party. 3) In 2015 a UKIP candidate came from nowhere to win a seat. UKIP outpolled Labour in Bridlington North, whereas across the East Yorkshire constituency Labour outpolled UKIP. Clearly Bridlington North was far from the Labour stronghold. 4) UKIP's strongest wards are coastal towns on the East coast. That's the sort of ward where Labour has struggled. 5) The Yorkshire Party came from nowhere to win seats in Bridlington South in May. They didn't stand in the demographically similar Bridlington North. In a byelection they could use the same approach to win votes and it is likely to succeed. 6) Bridlington is a retirement area. If there's one section of the electorate where Labour has struggled particularly since 2010 it's with people over 65. Now fuck off and learn some psephology you annoying Lib Dem. And that explains why Labour got 4%. QED. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 12, 2019 8:34:58 GMT
It's not a great Labour result. But many of us here have been local politicians and know how these things can come about. These are LOCAL elections after all!
1. I note that several of the candidates had clear Bridlington connections (including the winning candidate and the Labour candidate). But which actually lived in the ward?
2. What were the local party strategies? Did Labour make any serious attempt at the seat - the previous result suggested that, even when they were the only alternative to the Tories they stood no chance?
3. What was the local profile of the various candidates - well-known?, performing a regarded role already (not just a town councillor)?
4. Were there local issues in play?
5. I note the age profile of the ward. As someone who represented the ward with the highest density of pensioners in the county I know that the style and techniques of campaigning need to reflect that (and that isn't just about postal votes!). How well did the party machines adapt?
6. What external resources were available and willing to assist?
etc etc.
All that said, congratulations to the LibDems!
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 12, 2019 8:40:11 GMT
Quite the result - does this lead us to the conclusion that only 4% of the good folk of Bridlington are Trot apologists for anti-semitism? no So where were the other Trot apologists for anti-semitism then? - presumably among the non-voters?  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jul 12, 2019 8:58:01 GMT
On the basis that Labour have stood every time, came second in 2011 and 2019, and were only beaten into third in 2015 when UKIP were on a s(pl)urge with Farage still at the helm. Whereas we've been absent since 2007 so have no recent track record of any kind, the Yorkshire Party are new on the scene, and UKIP are supposed to be on the way to extinction. Oh that's piss easy to unload. 1) The mere fact of a Labour candidate standing does not mean there was a Labour campaign. Bridlington North wasn't a winnable ward and they were just paper candidates - each time. 2) You omit to mention the number of Labour candidates: only in 2011 has Labour put up a full ticket. In 2011 and 2019 there was only one. When there are only four candidates and electors have three votes, a lot of voters cross-vote just to show they aren't owned by the big party. 3) In 2015 a UKIP candidate came from nowhere to win a seat. UKIP outpolled Labour in Bridlington North, whereas across the East Yorkshire constituency Labour outpolled UKIP. Clearly Bridlington North was far from the Labour stronghold. 4) UKIP's strongest wards are coastal towns on the East coast. That's the sort of ward where Labour has struggled. 5) The Yorkshire Party came from nowhere to win seats in Bridlington South in May. They didn't stand in the demographically similar Bridlington North. In a byelection they could use the same approach to win votes and it is likely to succeed. 6) Bridlington is a retirement area. If there's one section of the electorate where Labour has struggled particularly since 2010 it's with people over 65. Now fuck off and learn some psephology you annoying Lib Dem. Calm down dear. It is just one local authority result in an area you are not strong. It is one of those things. The LDs are all of a dither and dreaming of sweeping to power. It does no harm and they are not getting anywhere just because of this. Yawn! |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Jul 12, 2019 9:23:27 GMT
On the basis that Labour have stood every time, came second in 2011 and 2019, and were only beaten into third in 2015 when UKIP were on a s(pl)urge with Farage still at the helm. Whereas we've been absent since 2007 so have no recent track record of any kind, the Yorkshire Party are new on the scene, and UKIP are supposed to be on the way to extinction. Oh that's piss easy to unload. 1) The mere fact of a Labour candidate standing does not mean there was a Labour campaign. Bridlington North wasn't a winnable ward and they were just paper candidates - each time. 2) You omit to mention the number of Labour candidates: only in 2011 has Labour put up a full ticket. In 2011 and 2019 there was only one. When there are only four candidates and electors have three votes, a lot of voters cross-vote just to show they aren't owned by the big party. 3) In 2015 a UKIP candidate came from nowhere to win a seat. UKIP outpolled Labour in Bridlington North, whereas across the East Yorkshire constituency Labour outpolled UKIP. Clearly Bridlington North was far from the Labour stronghold. 4) UKIP's strongest wards are coastal towns on the East coast. That's the sort of ward where Labour has struggled. 5) The Yorkshire Party came from nowhere to win seats in Bridlington South in May. They didn't stand in the demographically similar Bridlington North. In a byelection they could use the same approach to win votes and it is likely to succeed. 6) Bridlington is a retirement area. If there's one section of the electorate where Labour has struggled particularly since 2010 it's with people over 65. Now fuck off and learn some psephology you annoying Lib Dem. I decided to fuck off and quickly learn some psephology. 1) The mere fact of a Labour candidate standing does not mean there was a Labour campaign. Bridlington North wasn't a winnable ward and they were just paper candidates - each time. You know that for sure? Labour have in fact won the ward in the past. It was a while ago and at their own high point and low for the Tories but nevertheless they did get a councillor elected in a split year. 2) You omit to mention the number of Labour candidates: only in 2011 has Labour put up a full ticket. In 2011 and 2019 there was only one. When there are only four candidates and electors have three votes, a lot of voters cross-vote just to show they aren't owned by the big party. It usually works the other way round. A Labour supporter with only a single candidate to vote for of the party of their choice would have two others going spare. 3) In 2015 a UKIP candidate came from nowhere to win a seat. UKIP outpolled Labour in Bridlington North, whereas across the East Yorkshire constituency Labour outpolled UKIP. Clearly Bridlington North was far from the Labour stronghold. In 2015 UKIP only fielded a single candidate. There ya go! 4) UKIP's strongest wards are coastal towns on the East coast. That's the sort of ward where Labour has struggled. Are you really comparing Bridlington to Grimsby and Boston? You may as well compare Brighton and Christchurch just because they're both on the South coast. 5) The Yorkshire Party came from nowhere to win seats in Bridlington South in May. They didn't stand in the demographically similar Bridlington North. In a byelection they could use the same approach to win votes and it is likely to succeed. If that were a decent excuse for Labour doing poorly then the party should be doing better where the situation is reversed. When localised groups stand in the previous election but not at the by-election then Labour's vote should surge. It isn't doing. 6) Bridlington is a retirement area. If there's one section of the electorate where Labour has struggled particularly since 2010 it's with people over 65. As with point 5, this means that Labour should be doing spectacularly well where there are few retirees and lots of younger people. Again, it isn't doing. Now fuck off and learn some psephology and manners. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 12, 2019 9:35:23 GMT
You didn't bother to learn any post formatting. All your points are wrong, some very obviously, and in some you're just struggling to say anything in reply. I'm not going to bother going through them.
|
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,440
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 12, 2019 9:36:00 GMT
Tend to agree with carlton43 . Also we don't know what went on locally. If every local surge for the Liberals and their successors had followed through at a general election we would have been governed by them for years...the Conservative Party will win East Yorkshire at the General Election whenever it is and Labour have never had a prayer - so some perspective please! |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 12, 2019 9:54:40 GMT
Its not a good Labour result obviously, but the Tories are down by significantly more and certain posters don't seem terribly interested in that for some reason Going back to the Herefordshire result, it is pleasing to see the voters respond to the council's bureaucratic pettiness in the appropriate manner. It might also be noted that the Tories were also down there, despite the disappearance of a significant UKIP vote from May. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,732
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 12, 2019 10:17:32 GMT
Its not a good Labour result obviously, but the Tories are down by significantly more and certain posters don't seem terribly interested in that for some reason Going back to the Herefordshire result, it is pleasing to see the voters respond to the council's bureaucratic pettiness in the appropriate manner. It might also be noted that the Tories were also down there, despite the disappearance of a significant UKIP vote from May. Agreed, it is a terrible result for the Tories by any yardstick. They should normally have romped home, and they can't really claim "disgust with the government" because that would have been a factor in May as well. They could, at a pinch, claim to have lost some to UKIP.
I'd be interested to see where the YP are getting their votes from. They came third with 11%, a creditable showing for a total newcomer here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 12, 2019 10:18:07 GMT
Its not a good Labour result obviously, but the Tories are down by significantly more and certain posters don't seem terribly interested in that for some reason Going back to the Herefordshire result, it is pleasing to see the voters respond to the council's bureaucratic pettiness in the appropriate manner. It might also be noted that the Tories were also down there, despite the disappearance of a significant UKIP vote from May. A fair point: previously pretty solid Conservative ward in what looks like trad Tory territory and in which UKIP has previously done well. I don't think a 40%+ drop in Conservative vote share leading to a huge win in a place we didn't even stand in previously will have gone totally unnoticed in Lib Dem circles. Nor the less dramatic but similar pattern in Herefordshire. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Jul 12, 2019 10:18:43 GMT
You didn't bother to learn any post formatting. All your points are wrong, some very obviously, and in some you're just struggling to say anything in reply. I'm not going to bother going through them. I was too busy learning psephology to do post formatting 1.01. To cut it short for you and to type as slow as I can so that you'll get it. If your list is all the reasons for Labour doing so dreadfully in a by-election then show where they are doing well given the same factors in reverse. Wandsworth? Merton? The Rhondda? Forest of Dean? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 12, 2019 10:25:41 GMT
On the basis that Labour have stood every time, came second in 2011 and 2019, and were only beaten into third in 2015 when UKIP were on a s(pl)urge with Farage still at the helm. Whereas we've been absent since 2007 so have no recent track record of any kind, the Yorkshire Party are new on the scene, and UKIP are supposed to be on the way to extinction. Oh that's piss easy to unload. 1) The mere fact of a Labour candidate standing does not mean there was a Labour campaign. Bridlington North wasn't a winnable ward and they were just paper candidates - each time. 2) You omit to mention the number of Labour candidates: only in 2011 has Labour put up a full ticket. In 2011 and 2019 there was only one. When there are only four candidates and electors have three votes, a lot of voters cross-vote just to show they aren't owned by the big party. 3) In 2015 a UKIP candidate came from nowhere to win a seat. UKIP outpolled Labour in Bridlington North, whereas across the East Yorkshire constituency Labour outpolled UKIP. Clearly Bridlington North was far from the Labour stronghold. 4) UKIP's strongest wards are coastal towns on the East coast. That's the sort of ward where Labour has struggled. 5) The Yorkshire Party came from nowhere to win seats in Bridlington South in May. They didn't stand in the demographically similar Bridlington North. In a byelection they could use the same approach to win votes and it is likely to succeed. 6) Bridlington is a retirement area. If there's one section of the electorate where Labour has struggled particularly since 2010 it's with people over 65. Now fuck off and learn some psephology you annoying Lib Dem. Christ there's some serious special pleading going on there. No-one says Labour should have been challenging in a safe Tory seat. But it's bloody obvious that massively losing vote share at the same time as the Tories are doing even worse is a pretty epic fail. If you are suggesting that in places like Bridlington the LDs are much more likely to beat the Tories than Labour then I agree. The implications are not great for Labour though arguably worse for the Conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 12, 2019 10:30:32 GMT
You didn't bother to learn any post formatting. All your points are wrong, some very obviously, and in some you're just struggling to say anything in reply. I'm not going to bother going through them. I was too busy learning psephology to do post formatting 1.01. To cut it short for you and to type as slow as I can so that you'll get it. If your list is all the reasons for Labour doing so dreadfully in a by-election then ... (rest of this crap deleted) My list is an analysis of Labour's vote in this byelection in Bridlington North. No-one says Labour should have been challenging in a safe Tory seat. That's precisely what Chris from Brum was implying. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,440
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 12, 2019 11:04:40 GMT
Its not a good Labour result obviously, but the Tories are down by significantly more and certain posters don't seem terribly interested in that for some reason Going back to the Herefordshire result, it is pleasing to see the voters respond to the council's bureaucratic pettiness in the appropriate manner. It might also be noted that the Tories were also down there, despite the disappearance of a significant UKIP vote from May. A fair point: previously pretty solid Conservative ward in what looks like trad Tory territory and in which UKIP has previously done well. I don't think a 40%+ drop in Conservative vote share leading to a huge win in a place we didn't even stand in previously will have gone totally unnoticed in Lib Dem circles. Nor the less dramatic but similar pattern in Herefordshire. Question is whether it or similar can carry over to a general election. But it seems to me that local by elections in particular are getting ever more local and it's becoming more difficult to predict anything very much from them. Obviously it's a bad result for both us and the Tories. No great surprise there. But I still predict the Tories will win here and we won't- we didn't take it in 97 and it's demographics couldn't be worse for us. A seaside town full of old white people with a recent UKIP history on the east coast. Every demographic there indicating we won't win! |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Jul 12, 2019 11:11:37 GMT
I was too busy learning psephology to do post formatting 1.01. To cut it short for you and to type as slow as I can so that you'll get it. If your list is all the reasons for Labour doing so dreadfully in a by-election then ... (rest of this crap deleted) My list is an analysis of Labour's vote in this byelection in Bridlington North. No-one says Labour should have been challenging in a safe Tory seat. That's precisely what Chris from Brum was implying. And if your list is a proper assessment of the reasons you would have lost your deposit had there been one then you need to explain why the Labour vote isn't soaring where those factors don't apply. |
|
