|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 13, 2021 13:47:46 GMT
Northern Independence Party gain.
(I consider this seat to be in the north)
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 14:05:33 GMT
I agree with the first sentence. They will almost always win under FPTP for reasons everyone knows on this forum... Yes. We all do know. Under effective democracy they get the most votes and win. What you suggest is the loser's moaning contrivances to defeat that democracy with arcane and silly rules imposed to aid parties that get FEWER votes to be able to win anyway as a sort of handicap. Perhaps you feel football and the Olympics should be run that way as well? So that if the USA and Russia keep getting 'far too many' gold medals, the spectators should be allowed to deny the winners and grant gold to everyone's second favourite country instead? No one would stomach that. No more should we stomach gormless suggestions to move off FPTP. If you can't win a majority of seats on FPTP you don't deserve to win by stupid fiddling about until you can win 'by other means'. Get more popular or continue to fail. The right has its 1945s, 1966s, 1997s which prove it can be beaten by good leadership and better policies and/or by cocking things up and losing popularity. When they lose they try to improve. They don't moan and try to bend the rules to contrive a 'bent result'! |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 13, 2021 14:30:44 GMT
The Liberal Democrat results in wards within this seat were particularly disappointing: they only won two seats on Buckinghamshire council that are located in this seat, compared to 13 in the town of Aylesbury. Nevertheless they will probably waste a lot of resources and personnel on this by-election like they did in the 2019 general election on narrowly Remain-voting Conservative seats that in fact had no realistic chance of changing hands (e.g. Esher & Walton).
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 14:31:53 GMT
While it was slightly more severe in this seat Labour did very badly in lots of wealthy commuter belt seats in 2010 before recovering a bit in 2015. It seems pretty obvious that Gordon Brown played very badly in seats like this and that the financial crash had a big impact. So no issues with the candidate then? I always wonder this in these sorts of cases. Hemel Hempstead is another one which seems 'too bad to be true' which makes me think if it is candidate issues* or if the incumbent was extremely popular after 1 term, quite a shocking result given Labour lost it by just 499 votes in 2005 and ended up in 3rd in 2010 with a 13,000 majority for Sir Mike Penning, while Labour shed over 8,000 votes/declined almost 20% - apparently it was the highest swing in 2010. *Bassetlaw being a prime example of this - highest 2019 swing of course, <5,000 Lab majority -> 14,000 Tory majority. Everyone also talks about nearby Mansfield but not enough talk about Telford - Lucy Allan was first elected on tiny majorities for her first two elections, then suddenly a 10,000 majority, again makes you wonder if it is just Brexit, a sudden increase in popularity for her or Labour candidate unpopularity. Back to Chesham, I agree HS2 will be a key issue and the worst thing the Tories can do for their own chances is select a plastic 'get Brexit done' candidate to fill the lobbies. Are there any former MPs that are being touted with a possible return? a la Hartlepool? The candidates are nearly always largely unknown to most electors whatever we may think and hope. Even the long-term and well established, and said to be 'well-liked', have in actuality quite small 'personal votes'. 2000 would usually be a top end personal vote. What shifts most votes is tone in national politics and mood in the head of the elector. Few of you are mentioning differential TO within each party and I see that to be very important. The seriously miffed tend not to feel any better about the oppsition than they do about their own side. They don't swop parties even if the stats tend to show that they have. If LAB are down 11.6% and the CON up 9.6% it will seldon ever mean a 9.6% switch from one to the other, except in the old (and so much better!) days of the straight fight. What tends to happen with LAB on -11.6% is a small slippage to CON and some to Green, LD and UKIP but probably a majority just not voting at all. With the CON +9.6% it will be some from LD and some from UKIP (especially if they stop standing) but much much more a TO by some who did not vote last time or perhaps for some time. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,748
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 13, 2021 14:35:02 GMT
The Liberal Democrat results in wards within this seat were particularly disappointing: they only won two seats on Buckinghamshire council that are located in this seat, compared to 13 in the town of Aylesbury. Nevertheless they will probably waste a lot of resources and personnel on this by-election like they did in the 2019 general election on narrowly Remain-voting Conservative seats that in fact had no realistic chance of changing hands (e.g. Esher & Walton). Ooh, get you! In fact in E&W we came within 3,000 of taking the seat. A better (and more sensible) national campaign might have seen us over the line. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2021 14:36:16 GMT
The Liberal Democrat results in wards within this seat were particularly disappointing: they only won two seats on Buckinghamshire council that are located in this seat, compared to 13 in the town of Aylesbury. Nevertheless they will probably waste a lot of resources and personnel on this by-election like they did in the 2019 general election on narrowly Remain-voting Conservative seats that in fact had no realistic chance of changing hands (e.g. Esher & Walton). Just one actually (in Chiltern Ridges). The other seat they won was in Wing (Buckingham constituency) |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 13, 2021 14:43:03 GMT
The Liberal Democrat results in wards within this seat were particularly disappointing: they only won two seats on Buckinghamshire council that are located in this seat, compared to 13 in the town of Aylesbury. Nevertheless they will probably waste a lot of resources and personnel on this by-election like they did in the 2019 general election on narrowly Remain-voting Conservative seats that in fact had no realistic chance of changing hands (e.g. Esher & Walton). Ooh, get you! In fact in E&W we came within 3,000 of taking the seat. A better (and more sensible) national campaign might have seen us over the line. I do not think so. Dominic Raab brought much of the swing on himself over the handling of the Harry Dunn case. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 15:15:21 GMT
At the General Election the Conservative share of the vote was down and the Liberal Democrat vote went up. In view of the sleaze and cronyism allegations that have been made (and no doubt more to come) is this the sort of seat where there may be a strong protest vote which might lead to a shock upset? In a word 'No'. These matters have far less traction than you may think unless there are perceived to be many and it goes on as a drip feed for quite some time. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,099
|
Post by ilerda on May 13, 2021 15:20:10 GMT
At the General Election the Conservative share of the vote was down and the Liberal Democrat vote went up. In view of the sleaze and cronyism allegations that have been made (and no doubt more to come) is this the sort of seat where there may be a strong protest vote which might lead to a shock upset? In a word 'No'. These matters have far less traction than you may think unless there are perceived to be many and it goes on as a drip feed for quite some time. Agreed. I’d also argue they have to be accompanied by a general feeling the government is failing, incompetent, and lacking direction for there to be sufficient buildup that can swing a by-election like this. The results from last week would suggest this is very much not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2021 15:25:59 GMT
I wasn't going to vote in this poll on principle, because of the stupidity of including Labour and Green gains as possible outcomes. But I have decided to put my vote by the Labour gain option for now as doing so creates a percentage share for each party which quite accurately predicts their respective results (actually I think it will be a little closer than that, but it looks like a kind of normal result for this constituency)
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 15:31:28 GMT
I have totted up the local elections. A bit tricky since the ordnance survey have not caught up with the unitary ward/division boundaries. However there is a handy map here: buckscc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fccb21fc1a6f43e4b5d1b4fb299d16a0It was an election with 3 elected per ward, so I have used the top vote method , including the top vote of various independents, WEQ etc Tory 43% Lib Dem 24% Green 17% Lab 10% other 6% Lib dems have one councillor, in Chiltern Ridges, one Mohammed Fayyaz, who came second. They came 4th behind the three Tories in 5 wards. Greens came 4th in 2 wards. Lab came 4th with an Asian candidate in Chesham (And I see Ed Davey visited a mosque there in March...) Ward results are here buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=1&V=1Wards used: Amersham and Chesham Bois; Chalfont St Giles; Chalfont St Peters; Chesham; Chess Valley; Chiltern Ridges; Great Missenden; Little Chalfont and Amersham Common; Penn Wood and Old Amersham, if anyone wants to use a different calculation I wonder what the bar chart will look like. Subject to the usual tactical distortions necessary to providing the essential core semi virtual 'truth'. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 15:34:15 GMT
I have totted up the local elections. A bit tricky since the ordnance survey have not caught up with the unitary ward/division boundaries. However there is a handy map here: buckscc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fccb21fc1a6f43e4b5d1b4fb299d16a0It was an election with 3 elected per ward, so I have used the top vote method , including the top vote of various independents, WEQ etc Tory 43% Lib Dem 24% Green 17% Lab 10% other 6% Lib dems have one councillor, in Chiltern Ridges, one Mohammed Fayyaz, who came second. They came 4th behind the three Tories in 5 wards. Greens came 4th in 2 wards. Lab came 4th with an Asian candidate in Chesham (And I see Ed Davey visited a mosque there in March...) Ward results are here buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=1&V=1Wards used: Amersham and Chesham Bois; Chalfont St Giles; Chalfont St Peters; Chesham; Chess Valley; Chiltern Ridges; Great Missenden; Little Chalfont and Amersham Common; Penn Wood and Old Amersham, if anyone wants to use a different calculation In Amersham the Lib Dems took control of the Town Council 8 LD to 7 Conservative. Now! That is a really significant indicator and quite worrying. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 13, 2021 15:39:18 GMT
I agree with the first sentence. They will almost always win under FPTP for reasons everyone knows on this forum... Yes. We all do know. Under effective democracy they get the most votes and win. What you suggest is the loser's moaning contrivances to defeat that democracy with arcane and silly rules imposed to aid parties that get FEWER votes to be able to win anyway as a sort of handicap. Perhaps you feel football and the Olympics should be run that way as well? So that if the USA and Russia keep getting 'far too many' gold medals, the spectators should be allowed to deny the winners and grant gold to everyone's second favourite country instead? No one would stomach that. No more should we stomach gormless suggestions to move off FPTP. If you can't win a majority of seats on FPTP you don't deserve to win by stupid fiddling about until you can win 'by other means'. Get more popular or continue to fail. The right has its 1945s, 1966s, 1997s which prove it can be beaten by good leadership and better policies and/or by cocking things up and losing popularity. When they lose they try to improve. They don't moan and try to bend the rules to contrive a 'bent result'! With a democratic voting system, all Parties need to so is get more than 50% of the votes and they have a majority. The SNP have managed it in Scotland, so why not Labour or the Tories in the UK (or Great Britain, since they don't stand in NI but just have their proxies)? As it is, more people dislike the Tories than like them, and you should just get over it and stop pretending you have a "mandate" |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 15:42:32 GMT
Not sure. The Labour vote in Witney is difficult to squeeze, partly because of the demographics (much of it comes from the social housing and deprivation that exists in Witney town and Chippy) not being favourable to the LibDems, and partly because lots of Labour voters in Witney are surrounded by Tories and other Labour voters which makes the "tactical" argument harder to lose. Starting from third might have disadvantaged you but I think it's a stretch to say it cost you the seat Winning by-elections is not primarily about squeezing the third party but about getting switches from the first. For the Lib Dems to get Tory switchers they have to reassure them that there is no chance of Labour winning. Then, because it will not affect the government, just take them down a peg, they may switch. In General elections people act less rationally regarding the local situation, but also see their vote as more important. By elections can turn into a horse race where people want to back the winner. On the contrary, electors act much MORE rationally in a GE because the overall result matters much more. In a by-election where the government has a large majority they may feel that they can indulge themselves in the ultimate frivolity of voting for a LD by way of 'having a laugh'! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 13, 2021 16:01:33 GMT
Yes. We all do know. Under effective democracy they get the most votes and win. What you suggest is the loser's moaning contrivances to defeat that democracy with arcane and silly rules imposed to aid parties that get FEWER votes to be able to win anyway as a sort of handicap. Perhaps you feel football and the Olympics should be run that way as well? So that if the USA and Russia keep getting 'far too many' gold medals, the spectators should be allowed to deny the winners and grant gold to everyone's second favourite country instead? No one would stomach that. No more should we stomach gormless suggestions to move off FPTP. If you can't win a majority of seats on FPTP you don't deserve to win by stupid fiddling about until you can win 'by other means'. Get more popular or continue to fail. The right has its 1945s, 1966s, 1997s which prove it can be beaten by good leadership and better policies and/or by cocking things up and losing popularity. When they lose they try to improve. They don't moan and try to bend the rules to contrive a 'bent result'! With a democratic voting system, all Parties need to so is get more than 50% of the votes and they have a majority. The SNP have managed it in Scotland, so why not Labour or the Tories in the UK (or Great Britain, since they don't stand in NI but just have their proxies)? As it is, more people dislike the Tories than like them, and you should just get over it and stop pretending you have a "mandate" But 'My Dear', I don't care what you think or what you want or your daft precepts of intrinsic fairness. I never use the term mandate if I can avoid it because I don't feel it means much or has any potency either. And in most elections outside Merseyside, most MPs have more people who voted elsewhere than for them. It is only under ridiculous terminally bent rules that you can try to prove that your eventual AV 'winner' really did 'win' and really is 'popular'; but only after people are forced to give their second and third preference!!! For many like me, even the first vote is fairly negative in being for some twerp who just happensd to be less of a twerp that my second choice, and to be in a party I dislike less than all the other parties. And you have the counfounding cheek to suggest that such a system produce the 'fair' and the 'popular' choice?!! In fact it will produce the most bland and least offensive and most useless and colourless twerp by reductive elimination. In fact the person that at the outset most us did not want. And thus a government of useless nonentities merely because they were too bland to be eliminated! A recipe for the LDs to win which is the sole recommendation for it. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on May 13, 2021 16:10:42 GMT
why Carlton quoted a post of mine from over a month ago (and which was about FPTP, not the by-election) itself , is beyond me. However I dont want to turn this thread into a debate about voting systems, Suffice to say it's obvious why the Tories wouldnt want to change a system that massively overdelivers for them (turkeys dont vote for Xmas) and Labour dont seem to want to change it as they have a fantasy that they will appeal to the electorate, in significant numbers AND in the right places, more often than once every generation at best. So i agree that nothing will change so let's leave it at that
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on May 13, 2021 16:30:03 GMT
The Liberal Democrat results in wards within this seat were particularly disappointing: they only won two seats on Buckinghamshire council that are located in this seat, compared to 13 in the town of Aylesbury. Nevertheless they will probably waste a lot of resources and personnel on this by-election like they did in the 2019 general election on narrowly Remain-voting Conservative seats that in fact had no realistic chance of changing hands (e.g. Esher & Walton). By this logic the Green Party should only ever campaign in Brighton, given that your closest non-held target seat from 2019 in terms of swing requires you to overturn a majority of over 28,000 votes. This an especially superb comment as the example seat you use is one of the few seats where it is now entirely possible that we could win it within the next couple of election cycles, given how we are only 3,000 votes behind the Tories, based off a large swing due to throwing a lot resources and personnel on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 13, 2021 16:36:44 GMT
I don't like to stick the boot in but.. I believe the Greens will narrowly win this seat. At a local level they are clearly the only opposition to the Conservatives and furthermore Helen Geake has had a very successful fundraising campaign, in addition to having a strong profile outside politics through her work on "Time Team". GREEN gain from CON: Bury St Edmunds, Isle of Wight. GREEN gain from LAB: Bristol West. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 13, 2021 16:49:33 GMT
The Conservative party are likely to win this seat. It's a no hoper for Labour and always has been.
Both the LibDems and Greens will use it as something of a springboard to generate some enthusiasm, but I don't see either of them winning.
I don't know the position of the Conservative Candidate on HS2, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 13, 2021 17:35:25 GMT
Winning by-elections is not primarily about squeezing the third party but about getting switches from the first. For the Lib Dems to get Tory switchers they have to reassure them that there is no chance of Labour winning. Then, because it will not affect the government, just take them down a peg, they may switch. In General elections people act less rationally regarding the local situation, but also see their vote as more important. By elections can turn into a horse race where people want to back the winner. On the contrary, electors act much MORE rationally in a GE because the overall result matters much more. In a by-election where the government has a large majority they may feel that they can indulge themselves in the ultimate frivolity of voting for a LD by way of 'having a laugh'! That is pretty much what I said Carlton. |
|
