|
|
Post by olympian95 on Jun 10, 2021 23:10:15 GMT
Counting tonight apparently Grove Green is a Lab hold with LDs second - not sure of figures yet And Lab hold in Lea Bridge |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Walker on Jun 10, 2021 23:23:41 GMT
Lea Bridge
Con: 436
LDem: 116
Grn: 181
Ind: 441
Lab: 1176
Grove Green
LDem: 541
Grn: 205
Con: 142
TUSC: 40
Lab: 1301
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 10, 2021 23:28:27 GMT
The Independent who came second in Lea Bridge is a well known local historian who ran as on a left-environmentalist programme. claireforleabridgeleyton.co.uk |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jun 11, 2021 0:06:57 GMT
Waltham Forest: Grove Green - Labour hold | Party | 2021 votes | 2021 share | since 2018 "top" | since 2018 "average" | since 2014 "top" | since 2014 "average" | | Labour | 1,301 | 58.4% | +4.1% | +1.4% | +10.5% | +9.8% | | Liberal Democrat | 541 | 24.3% | +0.5% | +3.3% | -1.7% | -0.8% | | Green | 205 | 9.2% | -2.9% | -3.0% | -3.9% | -4.5% | | Conservative | 142 | 6.4% | -0.2% | +0.2% | -2.5% | -2.9% | | TUSC | 40 | 1.8% | -1.6% | -1.8% | -2.3% | -1.6% | | Total votes | 2,229 |
| 59% | 63% | 57% | 63% |
Swing: Liberal Democrat to Labour 1¾% since 2018 on "top"vote basis but 1% Labour to Liberal democrat on "average" vote - Liberal Democrat to Labour 6% / 5¼% since 2014 Council now 46 Labour, 14 Conservative Waltham Forest: Lea Bridge - Labour hold | Party | 2021 votes | 2021 share | since 2018 "top" | since 2018 "average" | since 2014 "top" | since 2014 "average" | | Labour | 1,176 | 50.0% | -8.6% | -9.1% | -7.0% | -6.3% | | Independent | 441 | 18.8% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Conservative | 436 | 18.6% | +8.2% | +10.4% | +9.0% | +9.0% | | Green | 181 | 7.7% | -9.0% | -10.4% | -7.9% | -9.3% | | Liberal Democrat | 116 | 4.9% | -1.5% | -1.2% | -5.9% | -4.6% | | TUSC |
|
| -5.4% | -5.9% | -7.0% | -7.6% | | Duma Polska |
|
| -2.5% | -2.7% |
|
| | Total votes | 2,350 |
| 60% | 64% | 59% | 65% |
Swing: if at all meaningful Labour to Conservative ~ 9% since 2018 and ~ 8% since 2014
Council now 46 Labour, 14 Conservative
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 11, 2021 7:46:52 GMT
I recommend reading, if only for this: Is the implication that the river Lea is only marginally fluid?Probably right. (and I am firmly in the Lea camp, having lived in Tottenham and Leytonstone, what's all this Lee nonsense?) |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 11, 2021 7:52:32 GMT
The Independent who came second in Lea Bridge is a well known local historian who ran as on a left-environmentalist programme. claireforleabridgeleyton.co.ukDo wish I'd seen that before entering the prediction competition. |
|
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 Jun 11, 2021 8:04:04 GMT
I recommend reading, if only for this: Is the implication that the river Lea is only marginally fluid?Probably right. (and I am firmly in the Lea camp, having lived in Tottenham and Leytonstone, what's all this Lee nonsense?) Cf also River Trent or Piddle in Dorset, I think everyone calls that the Piddle. Anyway, "Lea or Lee" is what appears on all the maps. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 11, 2021 9:37:11 GMT
I think quite a few were expecting the Greens to do a bit better in these?
|
|
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 Jun 11, 2021 9:53:28 GMT
I think quite a few were expecting the Greens to do a bit better in these? The Greens will, I think, be disappointed (a) to slip behind the Tories in Lea Bridge, and (b) not to get closer to the Lib Dems in Grove Green - in fact they slipped back somewhat there as well. There could easily have been a narrative that the Greens were ahead of the Lib Dems all over London after the Mayoral election, but maybe that was a one-off and doesn't feed into council elections. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jun 11, 2021 10:18:56 GMT
I think quite a few were expecting the Greens to do a bit better in these? The Greens will, I think, be disappointed (a) to slip behind the Tories in Lea Bridge, and (b) not to get closer to the Lib Dems in Grove Green - in fact they slipped back somewhat there as well. There could easily have been a narrative that the Greens were ahead of the Lib Dems all over London after the Mayoral election, but maybe that was a one-off and doesn't feed into council elections. I would think the Lea Bridge result was skewed by the performance of the Indy - I suspect she was a pretty active candidate for an Indy, with a programme that might have appealed to Greens and LibDems, so she took votes from those generic party candidates but barely dented the Labour one. Otherwise, it might be the old problem for the Greens that they so often they seem to underperform at by-elections having advanced in mainstream elections |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 11, 2021 13:53:01 GMT
The point being is that local and national policy clashed dramtically. Wirral South's grammar schools came under Wirral council as LEA. Labour won majority control of Wirral council in May 1995 for the first time ever. Under the law as it stood at the time it would have been perfectly possible for the council to propose reorganisation of secondary education, to convert the grammar schools to comprehensives. No such reorganisation was proposed and even before David Blunkett's speech Labour was making it clear that there were no proposals to change the schools. You have yet to cite any evidence to back up your assertion. I thought I'd let these by-elections pass before replying. If you were to ask everybody to back up their claims no matter which party was being accused of different messaging to different areas then I might just post up the scan of the leaflet I have from Liverpool Central Library. Until then two words - "Phil Woolas". |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 11, 2021 14:16:57 GMT
Wirral South's grammar schools came under Wirral council as LEA. Labour won majority control of Wirral council in May 1995 for the first time ever. Under the law as it stood at the time it would have been perfectly possible for the council to propose reorganisation of secondary education, to convert the grammar schools to comprehensives. No such reorganisation was proposed and even before David Blunkett's speech Labour was making it clear that there were no proposals to change the schools. You have yet to cite any evidence to back up your assertion. I thought I'd let these by-elections pass before replying. If you were to ask everybody to back up their claims no matter which party was being accused of different messaging to different areas then I might just post up the scan of the leaflet I have from Liverpool Central Library. Don't know what that's supposed to mean. Oh I know - it means you're trying blatant distraction. Don't look over here for the evidence, look over there at something which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 11, 2021 14:33:40 GMT
I thought I'd let these by-elections pass before replying. If you were to ask everybody to back up their claims no matter which party was being accused of different messaging to different areas then I might just post up the scan of the leaflet I have from Liverpool Central Library. Don't know what that's supposed to mean. Oh I know - it means you're trying blatant distraction. Don't look over here for the evidence, look over there at something which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. It has everything to do with what you did and didn't say. There have been several examples of parties targeting different messages but the only ones you want evidence of is when Labour stand accused. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 11, 2021 14:42:22 GMT
Don't know what that's supposed to mean. Oh I know - it means you're trying blatant distraction. Don't look over here for the evidence, look over there at something which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. It has everything to do with what you did and didn't say. There have been several examples of parties targeting different messages but the only ones you want evidence of is when Labour stand accused. You're just making nonsense points here. Whether I'm a Labour supporter or not is irrelevant to whether in fact there was ever a Labour leaflet, issued as part of the Wirral South byelection in 1997, which said Labour would end selective education in the constituency. What went on in a different seat at another time does not have any relevance (and in fact the claim there wasn't inconsistency in leaflets delivered to different areas, but that a claim made about an opponent was factually wrong). Produce evidence for your claim or back down. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbon on Jun 11, 2021 15:26:27 GMT
Did the Greens supporting the Tories and the Lib Dems on the GLA and in Lancaster affect their vote in this area? From talking to others I get the impression that left leaning voters are rather disappointed about this. People in Leeds remember the Greens joining the Tories and Lib Dems in a coalition in 2004.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 12, 2021 18:07:40 GMT
It has everything to do with what you did and didn't say. There have been several examples of parties targeting different messages but the only ones you want evidence of is when Labour stand accused. You're just making nonsense points here. Whether I'm a Labour supporter or not is irrelevant to whether in fact there was ever a Labour leaflet, issued as part of the Wirral South byelection in 1997, which said Labour would end selective education in the constituency. What went on in a different seat at another time does not have any relevance (and in fact the claim there wasn't inconsistency in leaflets delivered to different areas, but that a claim made about an opponent was factually wrong). Produce evidence for your claim or back down. The fact that you're a Labour supporter isn't irrelevant at all. In fact it's the whole point. If you were to make the same officious demands of evidence when other parties were accused then you might just have the makings of a case. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 12, 2021 18:30:02 GMT
You're just making nonsense points here. Whether I'm a Labour supporter or not is irrelevant to whether in fact there was ever a Labour leaflet, issued as part of the Wirral South byelection in 1997, which said Labour would end selective education in the constituency. What went on in a different seat at another time does not have any relevance (and in fact the claim there wasn't inconsistency in leaflets delivered to different areas, but that a claim made about an opponent was factually wrong). Produce evidence for your claim or back down. The fact that you're a Labour supporter isn't irrelevant at all. In fact it's the whole point. If you were to make the same officious demands of evidence when other parties were accused then you might just have the makings of a case. You are unbelievable. You made a claim which, as I pointed out, went against the known facts. If your claim was correct then there was direct evidence for it, and all you had to do was produce it. Your response has been bluster and irrelevance, and your latest post is yet more of it. If there was a Labour leaflet in the Wirral South byelection pledging to end selective secondary education, FFS produce it. If you can't, we will all draw the obvious conclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 13, 2021 9:42:09 GMT
The fact that you're a Labour supporter isn't irrelevant at all. In fact it's the whole point. If you were to make the same officious demands of evidence when other parties were accused then you might just have the makings of a case. You are unbelievable. You made a claim which, as I pointed out, went against the known facts. If your claim was correct then there was direct evidence for it, and all you had to do was produce it. Your response has been bluster and irrelevance, and your latest post is yet more of it. If there was a Labour leaflet in the Wirral South byelection pledging to end selective secondary education, FFS produce it. If you can't, we will all draw the obvious conclusion. And as I also said, if you'd made the same officious demand in the same aggressive tone to anyone making a claim of dual-messaging regardless of party then I might have complied. As it is I think I'll wait until the most opportune moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 13, 2021 9:44:06 GMT
You are unbelievable. You made a claim which, as I pointed out, went against the known facts. If your claim was correct then there was direct evidence for it, and all you had to do was produce it. Your response has been bluster and irrelevance, and your latest post is yet more of it. If there was a Labour leaflet in the Wirral South byelection pledging to end selective secondary education, FFS produce it. If you can't, we will all draw the obvious conclusion. And as I also said, if you'd made the same officious demand in the same aggressive tone to anyone making a claim of dual-messaging regardless of party then I might have complied. As it is I think I'll wait until the most opportune moment. Thank you, proven liar Graham Murray. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jun 13, 2021 10:01:45 GMT
And as I also said, if you'd made the same officious demand in the same aggressive tone to anyone making a claim of dual-messaging regardless of party then I might have complied. As it is I think I'll wait until the most opportune moment. Thank you, proven liar Graham Murray. From David Boothroyd I don't know whether to take that as the ultimate insult or an intended compliment. |
|
