|
|
Post by robbienicoll on Sept 20, 2019 11:35:25 GMT
Headline figures from last night.
Chestfield, Canterbury: 12.7% swing from Conservative to Lib Dem since 2019, 15.5% since 2015. Conservative hold.
Fulham Broadway, Hammersmith and Fulham: 16.7% swing from Labour to Lib Dem since 2018, 15.4% since 2014. Labour hold.
Old Swan, Liverpool: 11.7% swing from Labour to Liberal since 2019, 14.7% since 2018, 12.4% since 2016 and 14.2% since 2015. Labour hold.
Thorniewood, North Lanarkshire: 3.2% swing from Labour to SNP since 2017. Labour hold.
Vivary, West Somerset and Taunton: 11.5% swing from Conservative to Lib Dem since 2019. Lib Dem gain from Conservative.
Ethandune, Wiltshire: 14.8% swing from Conservative to Lib Dem since 2017 and 11.1% since 2013, but 3.0% from Lib Dem to Conservative from the 2014 by-election.
Also to emphasise that Thorniewood only represents Labour's fifth by-election win in Scotland since 2017, but that three of these five have been in North Lanarkshire. With two of the SNP's most marginal Holyrood seats being in this authority and the equivalent Westminster seat having been won by Labour in 2017, this could be an area to keep an eye out for in the next Scottish Parliament elections.
Next week has three Conservative defences where Labour are in a very obvious second place. My guess is that these will be more representative of Labour's fortunes than this week's crop.
|
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Sept 20, 2019 11:43:13 GMT
The by-election results are consistent with Labour's national poll ratings in the low 20's. Will you take that as well? The 2018 result in Fulham Broadway was exceptional for Labour, as many were in Hammersmith & Fulham last year. In the face of an unprecedented effort by the LDs, in an overwhelmingly Remain area, which we might reasonably have expected to affect the Labour more than the Conservative vote, and we thought could hand the ward to the Tories, we can be forgiven as Labour supporters for being pretty pleased to have kept the swing from Labour to the Tories to a fraction of one per cent, still much better than the 2014 result which was pretty good in itself. And of course it was in the immediate aftermath of the LD conference. It's reasonable to posit that if the election had been a week earlier the result might have been slightly better still. It's not possible to emphasize too strongly that the ward has an unusually prosperous owner-occupied section, in fact some streets are dead posh basically. It's not for nothing that the Tories won this ward twice and even in 2002 which was a strong Labour year the majority in this ward was very narrow. And as anyone who actually reads this forum properly would know, some polls have Labour's rating in the high rather than the low 20s (not that that is satisfactory of course, it isn't). A 12% fall in the vote when the party is in opposition nationally can't be passed off as a good result. If Labour really is at a higher standing than the most recent one shows then it makes this result even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 20, 2019 11:49:01 GMT
Chestfield ward is Whitstable's posh southern suburbs. Both Carlton's characterisation and David's here of Chestfield have elements of truth in them. It is not a traditional village and if it's posh its a bit footballers wives sort of posh. Its almost the last sort of place I would reckon to be fertile ground for a traditional Lib Dem campaign. Its Toryness would be more associated with new money not the last stand of the squirearchy you might find in some Kent villages, and its in the latter sort of place I have found happy hunting grounds in the past! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 11:50:00 GMT
I know it's quite easy to stand from the side lines dropping nasty comments but I for one am very pleased Barnaby has rejoined the fray. He's been an asset to the Labour Party and has been a real loss in the last few month. I'd like to thank him for contributing to Labour's hold in Fulham yesterday
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Sept 20, 2019 11:56:51 GMT
The by-election results are consistent with Labour's national poll ratings in the low 20's. Will you take that as well? The 2018 result in Fulham Broadway was exceptional for Labour, as many were in Hammersmith & Fulham last year. In the face of an unprecedented effort by the LDs, in an overwhelmingly Remain area, which we might reasonably have expected to affect the Labour more than the Conservative vote, and we thought could hand the ward to the Tories, we can be forgiven as Labour supporters for being pretty pleased to have kept the swing from Labour to the Tories to a fraction of one per cent, still much better than the 2014 result which was pretty good in itself. And of course it was in the immediate aftermath of the LD conference. It's reasonable to posit that if the election had been a week earlier the result might have been slightly better still. It's not possible to emphasize too strongly that the ward has an unusually prosperous owner-occupied section, in fact some streets are dead posh basically. It's not for nothing that the Tories won this ward twice and even in 2002 which was a strong Labour year the majority in this ward was very narrow. And as anyone who actually reads this forum properly would know, some polls have Labour's rating in the high rather than the low 20s (not that that is satisfactory of course, it isn't). ‘Unusually prosperous’? Not really, this Fulham we are talking about. The streets off shabby North End Road and Dawes Road are not exactly prime Fulham property territory. The monied Fulham resident, posh by Fulham standards, would wrinkle their nose at it. |
|
ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,619 
|
Post by ricmk on Sept 20, 2019 12:04:43 GMT
Is it really that much, though? Libs and LibDems both made an effort this time when they likely didn't in May. And of course this was once (just a decade ago) a LibDem ward, and by quite comfortable margins too. The proof will be next year's elections, but I wouldn't be surprised to then see Labour in around 70% territory again. -17% looks like quite a lot to me. And until we can clear Radford's mob out of the way, we're unlikely to be able to take this one back. But I think we're entitled to be encouraged by our move forward. In fact, we made advances in all the contests this week, anything from 5% to 21%, and made two or three seats into future targets as well as gaining one. I'm ok with that. I'm not sure a single result in a safe Labour ward lends itself to quite that detailed analysis. But what it does show is what Luciana Berger's chances would be of defending Wavertree as a Lib Dem - pretty slim. So I wonder if the real significance is to confirm to her to stand in a very different seat next time?
|
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Sept 20, 2019 13:03:29 GMT
-17% looks like quite a lot to me. And until we can clear Radford's mob out of the way, we're unlikely to be able to take this one back. But I think we're entitled to be encouraged by our move forward. In fact, we made advances in all the contests this week, anything from 5% to 21%, and made two or three seats into future targets as well as gaining one. I'm ok with that. I'm not sure a single result in a safe Labour ward lends itself to quite that detailed analysis. But what it does show is what Luciana Berger's chances would be of defending Wavertree as a Lib Dem - pretty slim. So I wonder if the real significance is to confirm to her to stand in a very different seat next time?
There are rumours that she will stand in one of the North London seats with a large Jewish community - Finchley & Golders Green has been mentioned. I don't think she could win Wavertree as a LibDem - Liverpool is one of the few places (possibly the only one left) where Corbyn and his 'movement' enjoy substantial public support. Luciana could get a respectable vote based on her incumbency and appealing to middle-class Remainers in the suburban parts of the constituency, and she could be helped by Labour's choice of candidate - Momentum, in their usual tin-eared way, are promoting a vocal Lexiteer as their nominee. But she would not be re-elected. As an aside, I thought it was a pretty poor show for the LibDems to finish third behind Steve Radford's rabble. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 20, 2019 13:17:57 GMT
North Lanarkshire Council have published further details about yesterday’s election.
Turnout 29.0%
Valid ballot papers 3,074
Rejected ballot papers 26
Quota 1,538
Stage 1
Lab 1,362
SNP 1,202
Con 296
LD 168
Green 46
Stage 2
Lab +8 = 1,370
SNP +19 = 1,221
Con +2 = 298
LD +8 = 176
Green -46 = 0
Non-transferable +9 = 9
Stage 3
Lab +54 = 1,424
SNP +24 = 1,245
Con +37 = 335
LD -176 = 0
Non-transferable +61 = 70
Stage 4
Lab +104 = 1,528
SNP +26 = 1,271
Con -335 = 0
Non-transferable +205 = 275
Stage 5
Lab +515 = 2,043
SNP -1,271 = 0
Non-transferable +756 = 1,031
I’m sorry this is not in table form, I’ve never been able to work out how to do it.
|
|
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 Sept 20, 2019 13:35:58 GMT
As an aside, I thought it was a pretty poor show for the LibDems to finish third behind Steve Radford's rabble. Radford's rabble seem capable of throwing the kitchen sink at a campaign when they deem it necessary, and here I would imagine that "stay ahead of the LDs at all costs" would have been their motivation; they surely can't have imagined that they would win it. And so they did, just, though we increased our share more than them. We need to find the right opportunity to delete them, but it hasn't arrived yet. How old is Steve Radford? What would their prospects be like without him? Would they collapse like the SDP did when Dr Whoen walked away? |
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Sept 20, 2019 13:39:26 GMT
As an aside, I thought it was a pretty poor show for the LibDems to finish third behind Steve Radford's rabble. Radford's rabble seem capable of throwing the kitchen sink at a campaign when they deem it necessary, and here I would imagine that "stay ahead of the LDs at all costs" would have been their motivation; they surely can't have imagined that they would win it. And so they did, just, though we increased our share more than them. We need to find the right opportunity to delete them, but it hasn't arrived yet. How old is Steve Radford? What would their prospects be like without him? Would they collapse like the SDP did when Dr Whoen walked away? I believe that Radford was first elected in the early 1980s, so he must be getting on a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by polaris on Sept 20, 2019 13:43:27 GMT
The 2018 result in Fulham Broadway was exceptional for Labour, as many were in Hammersmith & Fulham last year. In the face of an unprecedented effort by the LDs, in an overwhelmingly Remain area, which we might reasonably have expected to affect the Labour more than the Conservative vote, and we thought could hand the ward to the Tories, we can be forgiven as Labour supporters for being pretty pleased to have kept the swing from Labour to the Tories to a fraction of one per cent, still much better than the 2014 result which was pretty good in itself. And of course it was in the immediate aftermath of the LD conference. It's reasonable to posit that if the election had been a week earlier the result might have been slightly better still. It's not possible to emphasize too strongly that the ward has an unusually prosperous owner-occupied section, in fact some streets are dead posh basically. It's not for nothing that the Tories won this ward twice and even in 2002 which was a strong Labour year the majority in this ward was very narrow. And as anyone who actually reads this forum properly would know, some polls have Labour's rating in the high rather than the low 20s (not that that is satisfactory of course, it isn't). A 12% fall in the vote when the party is in opposition nationally can't be passed off as a good result. If Labour really is at a higher standing than the most recent one shows then it makes this result even worse. Looking at recent by-election results, and the European Elections earlier this year, I wonder if the LibDems might be able to give Sadiq Khan a run for his money next May? I don't imagine for a moment that they could win, but a respectable second place perhaps? Things could potentially get interesting if the Tories were pushed into third, and their second preferences were distributed. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 20, 2019 13:44:09 GMT
As an aside, I thought it was a pretty poor show for the LibDems to finish third behind Steve Radford's rabble. Radford's rabble seem capable of throwing the kitchen sink at a campaign when they deem it necessary, and here I would imagine that "stay ahead of the LDs at all costs" would have been their motivation; they surely can't have imagined that they would win it. And so they did, just, though we increased our share more than them. We need to find the right opportunity to delete them, but it hasn't arrived yet. How old is Steve Radford? What would their prospects be like without him? Would they collapse like the SDP did when Dr Whoen walked away? Born 1957 so not that old |
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Sept 20, 2019 14:04:25 GMT
Does anyone know the turnout at Old Swan please
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 20, 2019 14:28:29 GMT
Does anyone know the turnout at Old Swan please So far there's nothing official on Liverpool Council's web page and nothing either on the Liverpool Echo site. There were 2,082 valid votes in Old Swan yesterday. The best we can do for now is use the May 2019 electorate of the ward of 11,201 to get an approximation: 18.6%. |
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Sept 20, 2019 14:41:30 GMT
Does anyone know the turnout at Old Swan please So far there's nothing official on Liverpool Council's web page and nothing either on the Liverpool Echo site. There were 2,082 valid votes in Old Swan yesterday. The best we can do for now is use the May 2019 electorate of the ward of 11,201 to get an approximation: 18.6%. According to one source there were 9,455 electors, which seems a hell of a drop since May. It would mean a 22.04% turnout if true. |
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Sept 20, 2019 14:49:52 GMT
Cheers for the reply I had tried both the council and Echo nothing not even the result. I expect as it wasn't close or a upset it's not news
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 20, 2019 14:58:28 GMT
As an aside, I thought it was a pretty poor show for the LibDems to finish third behind Steve Radford's rabble. Radford's rabble seem capable of throwing the kitchen sink at a campaign when they deem it necessary, and here I would imagine that "stay ahead of the LDs at all costs" would have been their motivation; they surely can't have imagined that they would win it. And so they did, just, though we increased our share more than them. We need to find the right opportunity to delete them, but it hasn't arrived yet. How old is Steve Radford? What would their prospects be like without him? Would they collapse like the SDP did when Dr Whoen walked away? Remember its adjacent to his own ward so he's known in the area. But they've never been able to sustain any wards other than Tuebrook for more than one term and defections have been frequent |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Sept 20, 2019 15:11:45 GMT
North Lanarkshire Council have published further details about yesterday’s election. Turnout 29.0% Valid ballot papers 3,074 Rejected ballot papers 26 Quota 1,538 Stage 1Lab 1,362 SNP 1,202 Con 296 LD 168 Green 46 Stage 2Lab +8 = 1,370 SNP +19 = 1,221 Con +2 = 298 LD +8 = 176 Green -46 = 0 Non-transferrable +9 = 9 Stage 3Lab +54 = 1,424 SNP +24 = 1,245 Con +37 = 335 LD -176 = 0 Non-transferrable +61 = 70 Stage 4Lab +104 = 1,528 SNP +26 = 1,271 Con -335 = 0 Non-transferrable +205 = 275 Stage 5Lab +515 = 2,043 SNP -1,271 = 0 Non-transferrable +756 = 1,031 I’m sorry this is not in table form, I’ve never been able to work out how to do it. Just to point out for the umpteenth time that Stage 5 is absurd and mathematical nonsense. |
|
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 Sept 20, 2019 15:17:06 GMT
North Lanarkshire Council have published further details about yesterday’s election. Turnout 29.0% Valid ballot papers 3,074 Rejected ballot papers 26 Quota 1,538 Stage 1Lab 1,362 SNP 1,202 Con 296 LD 168 Green 46 Stage 2Lab +8 = 1,370 SNP +19 = 1,221 Con +2 = 298 LD +8 = 176 Green -46 = 0 Non-transferrable +9 = 9 Stage 3Lab +54 = 1,424 SNP +24 = 1,245 Con +37 = 335 LD -176 = 0 Non-transferrable +61 = 70 Stage 4Lab +104 = 1,528 SNP +26 = 1,271 Con -335 = 0 Non-transferrable +205 = 275 Stage 5Lab +515 = 2,043 SNP -1,271 = 0 Non-transferrable +756 = 1,031 I’m sorry this is not in table form, I’ve never been able to work out how to do it. Just to point out for the umpteenth time that Stage 5 is absurd and mathematical nonsense. Notable that the SNP only get the majority of transfers from the Greens, and even then only just. And yes, the final stage is worthless. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,902
|
Post by Tony Otim on Sept 20, 2019 16:53:57 GMT
Just to point out for the umpteenth time that Stage 5 is absurd and mathematical nonsense. Notable that the SNP only get the majority of transfers from the Greens, and even then only just. And yes, the final stage is worthless. And that yet again non-transferable wins the later stages... |
|
