|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 20, 2019 16:59:17 GMT
Labour vote down in every result so far. Trist iawn. Very sad.  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 20, 2019 17:05:49 GMT
Chestfield ward is Whitstable's posh southern suburbs. No. Not in any way posh. It is show off arriviste country. Old Whitstable has posh bits and is going up-market all the time. Posh is in heartland Kent like the Darenth valley, upper Medway (Tonbridge-Edenbridge) and the Tenterden-Benenden-Goudhurst axis! Chestfield is showy and brash like best end Doncaster and Sheffield and a lot of Cheshire. The blighted WAGgy bit in the former Macclesfield Borough is scarcely "a lot" of Cheshire. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 20, 2019 17:10:10 GMT
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. (cough) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 20, 2019 17:11:33 GMT
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 and I would stress that "born 1957" is emphatically not old! |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Sept 20, 2019 17:41:10 GMT
Born 1957 so not that old and I would stress that "born 1957" is emphatically not old! I knew I had to be careful 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 20, 2019 18:26:14 GMT
Born 1957 so not that old and I would stress that "born 1957" is emphatically not old! Quite! |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 20, 2019 18:53:36 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. Interesting as always and I'm not sure I agree entirely about the final stage. Obviously it doesn't affect the result in any way, and if that had to be done manually it would be a total waste of time. But it is telling us how many of the final SNP vote would in the last resort accept the Labour victor on the basis that's the will of the people, and how many would rather the seat was left empty than than a Labour councillor be elected. I think that's quite interesting information if it comes cost-free. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 20, 2019 19:17:22 GMT
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. Interesting as always and I'm not sure I agree entirely about the final stage. Obviously it doesn't affect the result in any way, and if that had to be done manually it would be a total waste of time. But it is telling us how many of the final SNP vote would in the last resort accept the Labour victor on the basis that's the will of the people, and how many would rather the seat was left empty than than a Labour councillor be elected. I think that's quite interesting information if it comes cost-free. I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Some of the non-transferable ballot papers from the SNP might have been expressing second preferences for already eliminated candidates, i.e. Conservative, Green and Lib Dem. Other ballot papers will simply have expressed a first preference and no further preference. I don't think you can claim that any of these electors would really like to see the seat left empty, and I suspect all know this is not going to happen! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 20, 2019 19:53:20 GMT
Interesting as always and I'm not sure I agree entirely about the final stage. Obviously it doesn't affect the result in any way, and if that had to be done manually it would be a total waste of time. But it is telling us how many of the final SNP vote would in the last resort accept the Labour victor on the basis that's the will of the people, and how many would rather the seat was left empty than than a Labour councillor be elected. I think that's quite interesting information if it comes cost-free. I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Some of the non-transferable ballot papers from the SNP might have been expressing second preferences for already eliminated candidates, i.e. Conservative, Green and Lib Dem. Other ballot papers will simply have expressed a first preference and no further preference. I don't think you can claim that any of these electors would really like to see the seat left empty, and I suspect all know this is not going to happen! I agree that it doesn't necessarily suggest how many SNP voters would prefer an empty seat or even that the ones who transferred were "accepting the will of the people", but I'd take it as giving some sign of the proportion of SNP voters who could, in the right circs, contemplate voting Labour - perhaps if they were in a Lab-Con marginal. It does nothing for the democracy of the outcome but I'd have thought it was quite interesting psephologically, especially if one looked at trends over time - Labour strategists might get some indication as to whether it was worth trying to reach out to SNP voters or whether they were a lost cause, whether attitudes toward them were hardening or softening and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 20, 2019 20:16:18 GMT
In STV voting there is no practical difference in a N-candidate contest between a voter filling in N or N-1 preferences.
In fact, filling in the Nth preference may mean the voter wants to emphasise that a particular candidate is their choice of last resort, not that they consider them an acceptable candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by redtony on Sept 20, 2019 20:45:05 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?
|
|
|
|
Post by redtony on Sept 20, 2019 21:07:26 GMT
There are No safe Labour seats in Fulham. Last year Labour did not treat Fulham Broadway as safe hence they never ran a full campaign in any Tory wards except Town. although a 700 vote majority meant a lot of Labour voters thought it was save and hence did not vote.
Canvassing indicated that Labour lost 20% of their vote to the Lib Dems as they were seen as the remain Party. For real posh areas you have to go to Parsons Green and Putney Bridge the rest is all to play for. Like the rest of London there have been demographic changes in Labour's favour the significant rise in Private tenants and the corresponding fall in Owner Occupiers
|
|
|
|
Post by redtony on Sept 20, 2019 21:17:09 GMT
First time the Tories have been third in any Fulham ward on the current boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Sept 20, 2019 22:29:09 GMT
Reports that they were very depressed at the count.
|
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067 
|
Post by Toylyyev on Sept 20, 2019 22:56:58 GMT
Following up from this discussion on the prediction thread i have compiled the Conservative transfer shares from Thorniewood to Labour & SNP compared to the same transfer pattern in two Fife ward results from the 2017 locals and DUP to APNI & SF transfers from the 2019 locals result in the Mid and East Antrim Bannside ward. Thorniewood Dunfermline N Buckhaven & al Bannside
BE919 IV LE17 IV LE17 VII LE19 VII & VIII
Con 88.4% Con 88.3% Con 86.1% | DUP 83.3%
Lab 104 31% 37.1 44.2% 196.2 34.6% | APNI 88 32.2%
SNP 26 7.8% 3 3.6% 25 4.4% | SF 0 0%
nt¹ 205 61.2% 43.9 52.3% 345.9 61% | nt¹ 185.64 67.8%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum&vv² 335 28.7% 84 45.2% 567 39.6% | Sum&vv² 273.64 56.1%
- The Conservative transfers for Thorniewood contain 88.4% own first preference votes, plus 11% LibDem and .6% Green transfers.
- In Dunfermline North they had 88.3% own first prefs, plus 11% LibDem and .7% Green transfers. Transfers are from surplus over quota.
- In Buckhaven, Methil and Wemyss Villages they had 86.1% first prefs, plus 5.4% LibDem, 5.4% Ind, 2.3% Lab, and .8% Green transfers.
- The DUP transfers for Bannside contain 55.5% first prefs, 27.8% transfers from another DUP candidate, plus 11.1% TUV, and 3.3% UUP transfers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Fife_Council_election#Dunfermline_Northen.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Fife_Council_election#Buckhaven,_Methil_and_Wemyss_Villageswww.eoni.org.uk/Elections/Election-results-and-statistics/Election-results-and-statistics-2003-onwards/Elections-2019/Local-Council-Election-ResultsEdit: (27/9) Curiosity drove me to go look for the flows in the reverse direction, and in doing so i also came across a slightly more generous take by Con voters in an Aberdonian ward. E Lothian Fife Glasgow Aberdeen
Tranent & al Kirkcaldy N Cardonald Northfield & al
LE17 VI LE17 VI LE17 IX LE17 V
SNP 95.6% SNP 96.6% SNP 94.9% | Con 87.3%
Lab 219.9 29.5% 124.8 30.9% 7.7 2.3% | Lab 200.9 46.7%
Con 35.1 4.7% 18.6 4.6% 83.5 24.6% | SNP 24.9 5.8%
nt¹ 491.3 65.8% 261 64.5% 248.2 73.2% | nt¹ 204.9 47.6%
-----------------------------------------------|---------------------
Sum&vv² 746.3 42.7% 404.4 41.1% 339.4 40.5% | Sum&vv² 430.6 35.7%
- In Tranent / Wallyford / Macmerry the SNP had 62.2% first prefs, 33.4% transfers from another SNP candidate, plus 2.8% Libdem and 1.6% TUSC transfers.
- In Kirkcaldy North they had 64.2% first prefs, 32.4% transfers from another SNP candidate, plus 2.4% Green, .6% Lab, and .2% LibDem transfers.
- In Cardonald it was 60.8% first prefs, 34.1% transfers from other SNP candidates, plus 3.4% Green, 1% Solidarity, .8% UKIP, and .5% LibDem transfers. Transfers are from surplus over quota.
- In Northfield / Mastrick North Cons had 87.3% first prefs, plus 8.1% LibDem, 3.7% Ind, and .9% SNP transfers.
[1] Not transferable. [2] Total of votes to be transferred and valid votes share of total electorate. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 21, 2019 11:59:15 GMT
In STV voting there is no practical difference in a N-candidate contest between a voter filling in N or N-1 preferences. In fact, filling in the Nth preference may mean the voter wants to emphasise that a particular candidate is their choice of last resort, not that they consider them an acceptable candidate. In one internal LD election I had to go down to my 34th preference to ensure somebody would be my last choice.  Not that I would name her, of course. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Sept 21, 2019 12:24:44 GMT
In STV voting there is no practical difference in a N-candidate contest between a voter filling in N or N-1 preferences. In fact, filling in the Nth preference may mean the voter wants to emphasise that a particular candidate is their choice of last resort, not that they consider them an acceptable candidate. In one internal LD election I had to go down to my 34th preference to ensure somebody would be my last choice. Not that I would name her, of course. Was she wearing a nazi uniform?  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 21, 2019 12:49:07 GMT
In one internal LD election I had to go down to my 34th preference to ensure somebody would be my last choice. Not that I would name her, of course. Was she wearing a nazi uniform? Nope. She'd told people not to come to help at the Crewe & Nantwich byelection because a leaflet (which she hadn't seen and which I had personally approved) was racist. So I made sure she was my 35th preference on an election to National Policy Committee or something. |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Sept 21, 2019 20:50:04 GMT
In STV voting there is no practical difference in a N-candidate contest between a voter filling in N or N-1 preferences. In fact, filling in the Nth preference may mean the voter wants to emphasise that a particular candidate is their choice of last resort, not that they consider them an acceptable candidate. In one internal LD election I had to go down to my 34th preference to ensure somebody would be my last choice. Not that I would name her, of course. We've all played those games. But of course the "last choice" is actually not a choice at all. It's the person you are definitively voting against. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 21, 2019 21:05:16 GMT
In one internal LD election I had to go down to my 34th preference to ensure somebody would be my last choice. Not that I would name her, of course. We've all played those games. But of course the "last choice" is actually not a choice at all. It's the person you are definitively voting against. On the contrary - leaving someone off the ballot is a worse indictment than putting them as one's last choice. The latter indicates that however low one's level of confidence in them, they're at least worth a tick in a box. |
|
