Local Council by-election 16th January 2020

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Jan 17, 2020 9:41:26 GMT lbarnes said:

Jan 16, 2020 23:56:55 GMT timmullen1 said:

Looks like a Labour hold in Brislington East:

And has lost vote share in every one.

So Labour hasn't lost yet in the idiots Decade; they definitely have in the real one, as the next decade doesn't start for over 11 months.

👽

[andrew111]

Jan 17, 2020 0:18:17 GMT mboy said:

Pretty reasonable Lib Dems boost, but surprisingly firm Labour vote.

Labour were on about 32% in Jan 2016, so about par for them. Lib Dems were on about 6%, so also par or a bit better for them. Tories were on about 37%, so below par but probably reflecting lack of local effort.

[yellowperil]

Jan 17, 2020 9:46:34 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:41:26 GMT lbarnes said:

And has lost vote share in every one.

So Labour hasn't lost yet in the idiots Decade; they definitely have in the real one, as the next decade doesn't start for over 11 months.

👽

I haven't seen as much argument this time on that old perennial of when does the decade start and most people seem to have accepted the common sense (but for purists technically wrong) solution that 2020 is part of the twenties. I like to think of it that way too as I can then say I have lived in 10 decades, having been born in the 1930's. If you make me wait another 11 months or so I might never make it .

Anyway, it also means that not just Labour , but also Tories and Greens have lost vote share "this " decade, which can't be bad for a Lib Dem perspective.


And the SNP and Plaid have gone nowhere.

[andrew111]

Jan 17, 2020 9:46:34 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:41:26 GMT lbarnes said:

And has lost vote share in every one.

So Labour hasn't lost yet in the idiots Decade; they definitely have in the real one, as the next decade doesn't start for over 11 months.

👽

We will have to wait to see how they do in the next anally retentive decade then!

[yellowperil]

Jan 17, 2020 8:52:43 GMT edgbaston said:

Jan 17, 2020 8:49:28 GMT Chris from Brum said:

I love the way that map shows the large area of the sea contained within the boundaries of the city.

All those fish are LABOUR fish

There seems to be a small Tory fish being swallowed by a big Labour fish

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2020 10:10:09 GMT yellowperil said:

Jan 17, 2020 8:52:43 GMT edgbaston said:

All those fish are LABOUR fish

There seems to be a small Tory fish being swallowed by a big Labour fish

there's always a bigger fish

[mboy]

My "morning after" assessment here...

It shows that the LDs and Labour both worked this seat. To their credit, Labour spotted the LDs were working and getting some traction, and in the last week piled in hard (including throwing a several "Lib Dems are mean" stories into the media this week). They also presumably had a fair amount of recent canvass data from the GE last month, which they used on election day. I hear they had quite a lot of election posters up, which is very unusual for a by election - I'm guessing they just re-used the sites that had one last month.

Labour obviously realised that losing this seat in the run-up to May would be a disaster, both for image, but also losing their technical majority (and so all their committee majorities) would be a disaster in the run-up to May election. Labour had a good GE result in Bristol (uber-trendy, uber-metropolitan) and Corbyn lives on here.

I'm not sure it tells us a great deal about May, other than that the LDs are recovering from a historic low, and that where Labour campaign hard they can firm up their vote in their historic heartlands. Whether they can withstand being attacked from 3 sides as they will be in May, rather than just 1, is another matter entirely...

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Jan 17, 2020 10:06:45 GMT yellowperil said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:46:34 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

So Labour hasn't lost yet in the idiots Decade; they definitely have in the real one, as the next decade doesn't start for over 11 months.

👽

I haven't seen as much argument this time on that old perennial of when does the decade start and most people seem to have accepted the common sense (but for purists technically wrong) solution that 2020 is part of the twenties. I like to think of it that way too as I can then say I have lived in 10 decades, having been born in the 1930's. If you make me wait another 11 months or so I might never make it .

Anyway, it also means that not just Labour , but also Tories and Greens have lost vote share "this " decade, which can't be bad for a Lib Dem perspective.


And the SNP and Plaid have gone nowhere.

Common Sense, what a totally misnamed term, very few people anywhere have it.

👽

[Chris from Brum]

Jan 17, 2020 10:06:45 GMT yellowperil said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:46:34 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

So Labour hasn't lost yet in the idiots Decade; they definitely have in the real one, as the next decade doesn't start for over 11 months.

👽

I haven't seen as much argument this time on that old perennial of when does the decade start and most people seem to have accepted the common sense (but for purists technically wrong) solution that 2020 is part of the twenties. I like to think of it that way too as I can then say I have lived in 10 decades, having been born in the 1930's. If you make me wait another 11 months or so I might never make it .

Anyway, it also means that not just Labour , but also Tories and Greens have lost vote share "this " decade, which can't be bad for a Lib Dem perspective.


And the SNP and Plaid have gone nowhere.

It depends on whether you believe that centuries and decades have to align, and I don't think they do.  Centuries go from year 1 to year 100, there being no "Year 0", so the 20th century went from 1901 to 2000.  But decades called the "twenties", "thirties" and so on surely include the years from e.g. 1920-1929, 1930-1939?  Don't they?

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Jan 17, 2020 11:28:03 GMT Chris from Brum said:

Jan 17, 2020 10:06:45 GMT yellowperil said:

I haven't seen as much argument this time on that old perennial of when does the decade start and most people seem to have accepted the common sense (but for purists technically wrong) solution that 2020 is part of the twenties. I like to think of it that way too as I can then say I have lived in 10 decades, having been born in the 1930's. If you make me wait another 11 months or so I might never make it .

Anyway, it also means that not just Labour , but also Tories and Greens have lost vote share "this " decade, which can't be bad for a Lib Dem perspective.


And the SNP and Plaid have gone nowhere.

It depends on whether you believe that centuries and decades have to align, and I don't think they do.  Centuries go from year 1 to year 100, there being no "Year 0", so the 20th century went from 1901 to 2000.  But decades called the "twenties", "thirties" and so on surely include the years from e.g. 1920-1929, 1930-1939?  Don't they?

A decade is 10 years, so yes you can pick any 10 years, start it anytime; when the test card was first shown on TV is a good a date as any.

Mathematically however we're still in the 2nd decade of the twenty first century as we're in the 20th year of the Century.

👽

[andrew111]

Jan 17, 2020 11:37:51 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

Jan 17, 2020 11:28:03 GMT Chris from Brum said:

It depends on whether you believe that centuries and decades have to align, and I don't think they do.  Centuries go from year 1 to year 100, there being no "Year 0", so the 20th century went from 1901 to 2000.  But decades called the "twenties", "thirties" and so on surely include the years from e.g. 1920-1929, 1930-1939?  Don't they?

A decade is 10 years, so yes you can pick any 10 years, start it anytime; when the test card was first shown on TV is a good a date as any.

Mathematically however we're still in the 2nd decade of the twenty first century as we're in the 20th year of the Century.

👽

"mathematically" the most logical definition of a decade is when the digit representing 10 years changes. In other words we started a new decade at the beginning of 2020, and finished the last one at the end of 2019.

The issue arises because a 6th century monk decided that Jesus was born at 1 AD, exactly one year after 1 BC. This is completely unmathematical and also not how we measure the age of any other person. We all celebrated the new millennium on 1st January 2000,and quite right too!

[Defenestrated Fipplebox]

Jan 17, 2020 11:54:37 GMT andrew111 said:

Jan 17, 2020 11:37:51 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

A decade is 10 years, so yes you can pick any 10 years, start it anytime; when the test card was first shown on TV is a good a date as any.

Mathematically however we're still in the 2nd decade of the twenty first century as we're in the 20th year of the Century.

👽

"mathematically" the most logical definition of a decade is when the digit representing 10 years changes. In other words we started a new decade at the beginning of 2020, and finished the last one at the end of 2019.

Logically Jesus was the result of Joseph shagging Mary, from who's birth  we count years, decades and centuries because miraculously Mary was shagged by god according to Christians.

👽

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2020 10:20:05 GMT mboy said:

My "morning after" assessment here...

It shows that the LDs and Labour both worked this seat. To their credit, Labour spotted the LDs were working and getting some traction, and in the last week piled in hard (including throwing a several "Lib Dems are mean" stories into the media this week). They also presumably had a fair amount of recent canvass data from the GE last month, which they used on election day. I hear they had quite a lot of election posters up, which is very unusual for a by election - I'm guessing they just re-used the sites that had one last month.

Labour obviously realised that losing this seat in the run-up to May would be a disaster, both for image, but also losing their technical majority (and so all their committee majorities) would be a disaster in the run-up to May election. Labour had a good GE result in Bristol (uber-trendy, uber-metropolitan) and Corbyn lives on here.

I'm not sure it tells us a great deal about May, other than that the LDs are recovering from a historic low, and that where Labour campaign hard they can firm up their vote in their historic heartlands. Whether they can withstand being attacked from 3 sides as they will be in May, rather than just 1, is another matter entirely...

who was the one opposition in this seat? from the result and previous results it would suggest the Tories but your assessment suggests it was the Lib Dems

[November_Rain]

Brilliant result! Shows Bristol bucks the trend and let's hope we can keep the momentum into the locals in May.

[timmullen1]

Jan 17, 2020 12:25:02 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Jan 17, 2020 10:20:05 GMT mboy said:

My "morning after" assessment here...

It shows that the LDs and Labour both worked this seat. To their credit, Labour spotted the LDs were working and getting some traction, and in the last week piled in hard (including throwing a several "Lib Dems are mean" stories into the media this week). They also presumably had a fair amount of recent canvass data from the GE last month, which they used on election day. I hear they had quite a lot of election posters up, which is very unusual for a by election - I'm guessing they just re-used the sites that had one last month.

Labour obviously realised that losing this seat in the run-up to May would be a disaster, both for image, but also losing their technical majority (and so all their committee majorities) would be a disaster in the run-up to May election. Labour had a good GE result in Bristol (uber-trendy, uber-metropolitan) and Corbyn lives on here.

I'm not sure it tells us a great deal about May, other than that the LDs are recovering from a historic low, and that where Labour campaign hard they can firm up their vote in their historic heartlands. Whether they can withstand being attacked from 3 sides as they will be in May, rather than just 1, is another matter entirely...

who was the one opposition in this seat? from the result and previous results it would suggest the Tories but your assessment suggests it was the Lib Dems

I think the LDs see if as a Ward in which they could grow their vote; looking at Twitter they seemed to be more interested in attacking the Elected Mayor, so maybe figure if they expand their vote in Wards such as this they could creep in to the top two and benefit particularly from Green but other anti Labour preferences.

[timmullen1]

Jan 17, 2020 12:25:02 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Jan 17, 2020 10:20:05 GMT mboy said:

My "morning after" assessment here...

It shows that the LDs and Labour both worked this seat. To their credit, Labour spotted the LDs were working and getting some traction, and in the last week piled in hard (including throwing a several "Lib Dems are mean" stories into the media this week). They also presumably had a fair amount of recent canvass data from the GE last month, which they used on election day. I hear they had quite a lot of election posters up, which is very unusual for a by election - I'm guessing they just re-used the sites that had one last month.

Labour obviously realised that losing this seat in the run-up to May would be a disaster, both for image, but also losing their technical majority (and so all their committee majorities) would be a disaster in the run-up to May election. Labour had a good GE result in Bristol (uber-trendy, uber-metropolitan) and Corbyn lives on here.

I'm not sure it tells us a great deal about May, other than that the LDs are recovering from a historic low, and that where Labour campaign hard they can firm up their vote in their historic heartlands. Whether they can withstand being attacked from 3 sides as they will be in May, rather than just 1, is another matter entirely...

who was the one opposition in this seat? from the result and previous results it would suggest the Tories but your assessment suggests it was the Lib Dems

I think the LDs see if as a Ward in which they could grow their vote; looking at Twitter they seemed to be more interested in attacking the Elected Mayor, so maybe figure if they expand their vote in Wards such as this they could creep in to the top two and benefit particularly from Green but other anti Labour preferences.

[J.G.Harston]

Jan 17, 2020 10:06:45 GMT yellowperil said:

Jan 17, 2020 9:46:34 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

So Labour hasn't lost yet in the idiots Decade; they definitely have in the real one, as the next decade doesn't start for over 11 months.

👽

I haven't seen as much argument this time on that old perennial of when does the decade start and most people seem to have accepted the common sense (but for purists technically wrong) solution that 2020 is part of the twenties. I like to think of it that way too as I can then say I have lived in 10 decades, having been born in the 1930's. If you make me wait another 11 months or so I might never make it .

Anyway, it also means that not just Labour , but also Tories and Greens have lost vote share "this " decade, which can't be bad for a Lib Dem perspective.

And the SNP and Plaid have gone nowhere.

2020 *is* part of the 2020s, but it is *not* part of the third decade of the 21st century. Ordinals vs Cardinals.

[johnloony]

Jan 17, 2020 11:54:37 GMT andrew111 said:

...We all celebrated the new millennium on 1st January 2000,and quite right too!

"We"?!? "All"?!!!?! Speak for yourself! You, as an individual, may have celebrated the new millennium on 1st Jan 2000, and a tiny minority of frenziedly deranged idiots and morons might also have done so, but the vast and overwhelming majority of ordinary normal decent people celebrated it on 1st January 2001.

[andrewp]

It seemed on paper that Labour might have the strongest local candidate here. Unless there was anything not obvious that made that not the case.

[J.G.Harston]

Jan 17, 2020 11:54:37 GMT andrew111 said:

Jan 17, 2020 11:37:51 GMT Defenestrated Fipplebox said:

A decade is 10 years, so yes you can pick any 10 years, start it anytime; when the test card was first shown on TV is a good a date as any.

Mathematically however we're still in the 2nd decade of the twenty first century as we're in the 20th year of the Century.

👽

"mathematically" the most logical definition of a decade is when the digit representing 10 years changes. In other words we started a new decade at the beginning of 2020, and finished the last one at the end of 2019.

The issue arises because a 6th century monk decided that Jesus was born at 1 AD, exactly one year after 1 BC. This is completely unmathematical and also not how we measure the age of any other person. We all celebrated the new millennium on 1st January 2000,and quite right too!

Not quite, that mink decided that we should number years with ordinal numbers, the four hundred and twenty-fif*TH* year of the era of Christ's Lordship. If he had decided to use cardinal numbers, year four hundred and twenty-four, we would have been mathematically fine.