Local Council by-elections 11th July

[yorkshireluke]

Considering recent events, this isn't the thread that I'd thought would start a Lab-Lib Dem war...

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jul 12, 2019 18:47:11 GMT lbarnes said:

Jul 12, 2019 18:23:34 GMT AdminSTB said:

You were doing well until that last sentence. I don't think Chris was suggesting Labour should have been challenging to win, but be the leading challenger - that is, coming second rather than fifth.

You're a valued and knowledgeable member of this forum, but there really is no need to be abusive if you think someone is wrong or misguided - finsobruce has already taken you to task for this in recent weeks. I'm reluctant to go down the sanctions route as I happen to think you're an asset to the forum and the political blogosphere as a whole - but please make your points without the insults going forward.

He wasn't doing very well at all and the last sentence just made it worse.

In a desperate effort to show why it was't a terrible result for Labour to lost 6/7ths of its share of the vote and finish on just 4%, he went off on some sidetrack of hastily cobbled together factoids and stats.  Some of these turn out to be contradictory, others to show up even further how badly they are performing among demographics where they should be doing better, and many where the obstacles are stacked even higher for the Lib Dems.  And then he becomes his normal abusive self when taken to task.

You have not been able to dispute any of the points made.

You know that your analysis is total bunk.

Come off it man, you're not fooling anyone with what your agenda was here.

[Merseymike]

I think the debate on this thread between someone who I don't think would object to being described as the most clearly Labour right-wing member here, and two LibDem centrists, shows that unity on the centre is not about to emerge....

[Pete Whitehead]

Jul 12, 2019 19:28:19 GMT Merseymike said:

I think the debate on this thread between someone who I don't think would object to being described as the most clearly Labour right-wing member here, and two LibDem centrists, shows that unity on the centre is not about to emerge....

It's been noted before that it is often those most firmly on the 'moderate' or right wing of the Labour party (and to a certain lesser extent this has a mirror on the Tory left) who are the most vociferously tribal and partisan, probably precisely in order to provide some differentiation in the absence of any real ideological differences with their ostensible political opponents

[yellowperil]

Jul 12, 2019 19:28:19 GMT Merseymike said:

I think the debate on this thread between someone who I don't think would object to being described as the most clearly Labour right-wing member here, and two LibDem centrists, shows that unity on the centre is not about to emerge....

Yes this probably indicates that the debate between Labour rightists like David and Liberal Democrats isn't really ideological or policy driven. The LibDems may be well to the left of the Labour right on many issues but not necessarily on everything because we don't necessarily buy the left/right divide. But this little spat is not really about ideology, it's very much about political power and the ability to deliver the message... whatever that is.

[lbarnes]

Jul 12, 2019 19:11:38 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jul 12, 2019 18:47:11 GMT lbarnes said:

He wasn't doing very well at all and the last sentence just made it worse.

In a desperate effort to show why it was't a terrible result for Labour to lost 6/7ths of its share of the vote and finish on just 4%, he went off on some sidetrack of hastily cobbled together factoids and stats.  Some of these turn out to be contradictory, others to show up even further how badly they are performing among demographics where they should be doing better, and many where the obstacles are stacked even higher for the Lib Dems.  And then he becomes his normal abusive self when taken to task.

You have not been able to dispute any of the points made.

You know that your analysis is total bunk.

Come off it man, you're not fooling anyone with what your agenda was here.

I disputed every single one of your points, if only you'd noticed.  You might not agree with my arguments but you just can't say that they weren't disputations.  Let's just take one to give him less room to wriggle>

Virtually everyone I've ever heard from any party on the issue says that it is best to field a full slate in multi member wards.  This is to avoid supporters giving their other votes to candidates from an opposing party.  Boothroyd (because it suits his argument here) says just the opposite.  

[cogload]

I think people are reading far too much into a council byelection.

Relax folks. Tis getting a bit mad and frothy in 'ere recently loike.

[The Bishop]

Jul 12, 2019 19:42:03 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jul 12, 2019 19:28:19 GMT Merseymike said:

I think the debate on this thread between someone who I don't think would object to being described as the most clearly Labour right-wing member here, and two LibDem centrists, shows that unity on the centre is not about to emerge....

It's been noted before that it is often those most firmly on the 'moderate' or right wing of the Labour party (and to a certain lesser extent this has a mirror on the Tory left) who are the most vociferously tribal and partisan, probably precisely in order to provide some differentiation in the absence of any real ideological differences with their ostensible political opponents

As seen on here with stepney (and their possible other incarnations)

[finsobruce]

Jul 13, 2019 9:15:58 GMT The Bishop said:

Jul 12, 2019 19:42:03 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

It's been noted before that it is often those most firmly on the 'moderate' or right wing of the Labour party (and to a certain lesser extent this has a mirror on the Tory left) who are the most vociferously tribal and partisan, probably precisely in order to provide some differentiation in the absence of any real ideological differences with their ostensible political opponents

As seen on here with stepney (and their possible other incarnations)

But still not actually true.

[Deleted]

Jul 13, 2019 9:32:44 GMT finsobruce said:

Jul 13, 2019 9:15:58 GMT The Bishop said:

As seen on here with stepney (and their possible other incarnations)

But still not actually true.

It may not be a universal law, but it is certainly observable in quite a few people on here.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jul 12, 2019 22:04:48 GMT lbarnes said:

Virtually everyone I've ever heard from any party on the issue says that it is best to field a full slate in multi member wards.  This is to avoid supporters giving their other votes to candidates from an opposing party.  Boothroyd says just the opposite.  

Snide crap deleted.

No, it isn't always the case that a party stands a better chance if it fields a full slate in a multi-member ward. In particular it considerably helps smaller and insurgent parties to run only one candidate in a multimember ward. This was the case when the BNP and UKIP were winning seats: they could get plumpers to vote for them, and they could add to that the voters sharing votes between the parties, and it made it a lot easier for them to take one seat in multimember elections. If they stood multiple candidates their vote would be dissipated and they would win nothing. The same thing can also sometimes be seen with the Green Party.

I'm increasingly of the belief that the more accurate and realistic way of rendering multimember FPTP into party percentages, when parties stand different numbers of candidates, is to use the total vote method and not averages.

[finsobruce]

Jul 13, 2019 9:36:20 GMT @goodoldcause2 said:

Jul 13, 2019 9:32:44 GMT finsobruce said:

But still not actually true.

It may not be a universal law, but it is certainly observable in quite a few people on here.

As is the opposite case.

Sample size too small.

[carlton43]

Jul 12, 2019 19:28:19 GMT Merseymike said:

I think the debate on this thread between someone who I don't think would object to being described as the most clearly Labour right-wing member here, and two LibDem centrists, shows that unity on the centre is not about to emerge....

But this is not reasoned discussion around differences in political policy and nuances within the centre to centre right at all, is it?  This is a spat between an angst-ridden Labourite in a mild strop and fairly triumphalist LDs over-excited by inconsequential wins in local authority by-elections. Bald men grabbing for a toothless comb. Pay no attention.

[cibwr]

A good win for the Lib Dems, and a respectable outing for the Yorkshire Party too

[lbarnes]

Jul 13, 2019 9:38:11 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jul 12, 2019 22:04:48 GMT lbarnes said:

Virtually everyone I've ever heard from any party on the issue says that it is best to field a full slate in multi member wards.  This is to avoid supporters giving their other votes to candidates from an opposing party.  Boothroyd says just the opposite.  

Snide crap deleted.

No, it isn't always the case that a party stands a better chance if it fields a full slate in a multi-member ward. In particular it considerably helps smaller and insurgent parties to run only one candidate in a multimember ward. This was the case when the BNP and UKIP were winning seats: they could get plumpers to vote for them, and they could add to that the voters sharing votes between the parties, and it made it a lot easier for them to take one seat in multimember elections. If they stood multiple candidates their vote would be dissipated and they would win nothing. The same thing can also sometimes be seen with the Green Party.

I'm increasingly of the belief that the more accurate and realistic way of rendering multimember FPTP into party percentages, when parties stand different numbers of candidates, is to use the total vote method and not averages.

There's no way of knowing which of those is true unless you follow the evidence.  It's called psephology and you should try it some time.

Insurgent parties when they are on a roll often miss out on gaining seats in multimember wards when they don't field a full slate.  The fact that one gets elected when they only put a single candidate up does not prove it's a successful tactic.  All the Electoral Commission data shows that the vast majority of people use all their vote entitlement regardless of how many candidates there are from their preferred party.  

[J.G.Harston]

Jul 13, 2019 9:38:11 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jul 12, 2019 22:04:48 GMT lbarnes said:

Virtually everyone I've ever heard from any party on the issue says that it is best to field a full slate in multi member wards.  This is to avoid supporters giving their other votes to candidates from an opposing party.  Boothroyd says just the opposite.  

No, it isn't always the case that a party stands a better chance if it fields a full slate in a multi-member ward.

Plus it may not always be possible to find 50/60/70/100 people to stand.

I tend to the opinion that you should aim to at least have at least one candidate in as many wards as possible, to show your supporters that you work across the whole borough, and from a practical point of view, to gather information from across the whole borough.

If I had 20 candidates available to me across a 50-seat council, I would far more prefer to have one in each ward than have two in half the wards.

[Merseymike]

Jul 13, 2019 14:38:32 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Jul 13, 2019 9:38:11 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

No, it isn't always the case that a party stands a better chance if it fields a full slate in a multi-member ward.

Plus it may not always be possible to find 50/60/70/100 people to stand.

I tend to the opinion that you should aim to at least have at least one candidate in as many wards as possible, to show your supporters that you work across the whole borough, and from a practical point of view, to gather information from across the whole borough.

If I had 20 candidates available to me across a 50-seat council, I would far more prefer to have one in each ward than have two in half the wards.

Yes. And in wards which you know you won't win, it is literally about keeping a presence so that come a national election, people won't drift over to the other opposition party they have voted for constantly at local elections, because you didn't stand.

[timrollpickering]

Jul 13, 2019 9:38:11 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I'm increasingly of the belief that the more accurate and realistic way of rendering multimember FPTP into party percentages, when parties stand different numbers of candidates, is to use the total vote method and not averages.

I mostly agree but a slight modification is needed to divide the totals by available votes. That solves the problem of combined totals for authorities (or constituencies or divisions) when the wards have different numbers of councillors.

[greenchristian]

Jul 13, 2019 9:38:11 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jul 12, 2019 22:04:48 GMT lbarnes said:

Virtually everyone I've ever heard from any party on the issue says that it is best to field a full slate in multi member wards.  This is to avoid supporters giving their other votes to candidates from an opposing party.  Boothroyd says just the opposite.  

Snide crap deleted.

No, it isn't always the case that a party stands a better chance if it fields a full slate in a multi-member ward. In particular it considerably helps smaller and insurgent parties to run only one candidate in a multimember ward. This was the case when the BNP and UKIP were winning seats: they could get plumpers to vote for them, and they could add to that the voters sharing votes between the parties, and it made it a lot easier for them to take one seat in multimember elections. If they stood multiple candidates their vote would be dissipated and they would win nothing. The same thing can also sometimes be seen with the Green Party.

I'm increasingly of the belief that the more accurate and realistic way of rendering multimember FPTP into party percentages, when parties stand different numbers of candidates, is to use the total vote method and not averages.

I'm struggling to think of any clear-cut examples of this happening. I can't think of a single example where a Green has been elected in a multi-member ward when we were the only party under-nominating

And even then, some examples of us winning when we under-nominated are - when you look at them - likely cases where the under-nomination. Take Huntingdon and Hatherton ward in South Staffordshire. It's a two-seater ward, and there were three parties standing one candidate each this year (Conservative, Green, Labour). We won the second seat there, presumably in part from second votes from Conservative and Labour. But looking at the result, there's 1087 valid votes from a turnout of 847. Unusually for multi-seat FPTP the majority of voters only used a single vote. Given how unusual this is, it seems likely that the main reason for this is that there was only one candidate per party - which may have led voters to think that this was a single-seat contest. Therefore, the presence of a second Green would likely have led to most of the second votes being used (and not just from the Green-only voters). In such a scenario, the Greens are almost certainly going to attract the lion's share of newly split votes from both Labour and Conservatives. Thus it's extremely unlikely that we would have come third and fourth if we'd nominated two candidates here and reasonably likely that we would have come first and second.

[johnloony]

Jul 12, 2019 18:30:16 GMT andrew111 said:

Jul 12, 2019 18:28:08 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

I have enough Scots blood that 'Nemo me impune lacessit' is never entirely absent from me. And Lib Dems with brainless posts provoke me. They should learn to think before they post.

Shall we take that as an apology David? (Trumpian version thereof!)

Of core snot! What David wrote was an apology in exactly the same way that Jacob Rees-Mogg is the great-grandmother of a million aardvarks.