|
|
Post by owainsutton on Mar 4, 2022 10:48:02 GMT
Just got back from the count, here are my takeaways from the result: - Apathy the biggest winner. Trying to draw national conclusions from a 27% turnout is a mug's game but... - Feels like it's an indicator that the current Labour lead in the polls is a purely due to anger with Boris, not any real feeling of enthuasism at the idea of Labour in Government. (This could also be a lack of enthuasism for Birmingham Labour's performance at running the City. This would back up what we're feeling in the wards we're going for in Brum this May.) - If I'm a Tory I'm quietly happy, given the awful last couple of months for the government. Probably indicates that they're not going to have an awful night in the City in May. - LD feast or famine since the 2019 GE continues, pretty much impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion from our result other than our floor is still so low in seats where we have no network or capacity. - Greens and the Farage-less Brexit Party are really bad at these kind of elections, where you'd think there'd be ample room for a "plague on both your houses" candidate.I think with the Greens there's a lot of sympathy for the party (people who would seriously consider voting for the party if the Greens were viewed as relevant), but people feel they need to vote for Labour or the Lib Dems (dependent of the seat) to ensure the Conservatives don't win the seat; I think there have been very clear signs of this in the recent by-election results: where the Lib Dems have done well, Labour have done very poorly (and vice-versa). The leader of the West Berkshire Greens stood as the candidate in Chesham and Amersham and noted there was a lot of support for the Green's policies, but anti-Conservative tactical voting lead to a reduction in the Green vote share (albeit a lot less than Labour saw). They also tried to treat C&A as a single-issue "Stop HS2" campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Mar 4, 2022 10:49:44 GMT
I'd be surprised if our agent had to spend more than 5 minutes completing the expenses return. Same here. All-out council elections in May mean they'll probably be doing it over lunch in a target ward, where they've been in recent weeks rather than doing anything in this by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Mar 4, 2022 10:51:55 GMT
There's a tendency for properly low turnouts here to be Bad News for Labour for various structural reasons and I suppose some of the expectation management seen in the evening might have reflected genuine (unnecessary) jitters relating to that rather than pure cynicism. Anyway. Not much of significance to note given the comedy turnout. The "low turnout is bad for Labour" days are gone. That was when the demographic which would most affect the turnout figure was strongly Labour-leaning. The demographic which stayed at home in GE2005, then went via UKIP and Brexit ending up with the Tories by GE2019. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 4, 2022 10:52:38 GMT
Decent result for Labour I thought, Tories not a total disaster, yet again third and down get smashed in by-elections (George Galloway in Batley and Spen the only exception i can think of). But the minor parties like Reform struggling to get noticed. Doubt Lib Dems will care much, I’m not aware of any real effort or spend going on and still dining out on North Shropshire.I thought the Tories leaking that video late told a story (and I didn’t think what she said 7 years ago was anything much anyway) if they thought it was tight they‘d have run it loud and early. Running it late it seemed more about making her less credible once elected. Finally, if I was Gary Sambrook I would be thinking long and hard tonight if I really thought I could hold my seat under Boris Johnson. Realistically the Lib Dems aren't going to win this seat, so there isn't much of a point in putting much effort or resources in. Conservative seats in the South and East of England will, and should, be the primary targets of the party. If the party can achieve 30+ seats in the next election, I think they'll be viewed more credibly again by the media and therefore the public - which will have a knock-on affect in seats where the Lib Dems have the potential to do well, but are currently too far away to make a serious challenge. A perfect strategy if they want voters like me to be put off for life, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Mar 4, 2022 11:12:46 GMT
Can we just have a word of praise for Birmingham's electoral services, who conducted a very efficient count which matched exactly the number of verified ballots, and managed to get the result out at 1 AM? It’s a very good performance. Must admit, ward counts have always been fine, often very good but the GE’s have been awkward sometimes. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 4, 2022 11:27:40 GMT
An OK result for the two main parties in a constituency that, other than in Timothy's fantasy world in 2017, is never likely to be very competitive. The very low turnout, even in a seat with a history of those, tells us little other than the absence of motivation for politics of any kind (they certainly couldn't complain about choice!). A look back at previous results also shows this seat has a relatively "inelastic" electorate. Add to that the low turnout and the fact Dromey was genuinely liked locally and the Labour score at least looks roughly what could be expected. Though when was the last time Labour/Tories scored over 90% in a Westminster byelection? Or the third placed candidate scored that low?? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 4, 2022 12:14:21 GMT
An OK result for the two main parties in a constituency that, other than in Timothy's fantasy world in 2017, is never likely to be very competitive. The very low turnout, even in a seat with a history of those, tells us little other than the absence of motivation for politics of any kind (they certainly couldn't complain about choice!). A look back at previous results also shows this seat has a relatively "inelastic" electorate. Add to that the low turnout and the fact Dromey was genuinely liked locally and the Labour score at least looks roughly what could be expected. Though when was the last time Labour/Tories scored over 90% in a Westminster byelection? Or the third placed candidate scored that low?? At the Tooting by-election of 2016. The Greens came third with 2.6%. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Mar 4, 2022 12:25:41 GMT
A look back at previous results also shows this seat has a relatively "inelastic" electorate. Add to that the low turnout and the fact Dromey was genuinely liked locally and the Labour score at least looks roughly what could be expected. Though when was the last time Labour/Tories scored over 90% in a Westminster byelection? Or the third placed candidate scored that low?? At the Tooting by-election of 2016. The Greens came third with 2.6%. 2.7% for UKIP in third place in Southend West last month, but obviously in rather unusual circumstances. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 4, 2022 12:31:05 GMT
At the Tooting by-election of 2016. The Greens came third with 2.6%. 2.7% for UKIP in third place in Southend West last month, but obviously in rather unusual circumstances. Though the 2.1% for third placed TUSC here is lower than either of those two. Tooting is indeed a good spot, though. |
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Mar 4, 2022 13:55:43 GMT
There's a tendency for properly low turnouts here to be Bad News for Labour for various structural reasons and I suppose some of the expectation management seen in the evening might have reflected genuine (unnecessary) jitters relating to that rather than pure cynicism. Anyway. Not much of significance to note given the comedy turnout. The "low turnout is bad for Labour" days are gone. That was when the demographic which would most affect the turnout figure was strongly Labour-leaning. The demographic which stayed at home in GE2005, then went via UKIP and Brexit ending up with the Tories by GE2019. having gone door knocking on Tuesday and almost everyone we spoke to was Labour, and almost everyone we spoke didn't actually vote; I'm not convinced those days are past us. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Mar 4, 2022 14:43:55 GMT
From the Birmindgham Mail. Seems the Tories are also playing the expectation management game (although not very well as absolutely nobody is going to believe that a Labour *majority* of over 50% is a realistic target). "Gary Sambrook: "Labour ought to win by 9,000 or this will be a bad night for them" Conservative MP Gary Sambrook insists the Conservatives are not expected to win tonight - but that it will be a 'bad night' for Labour if they don't win by a much bigger majority than at the 2019 turnout. It's a clear hint that a Tory victory is now highly unlikely - and that the Tory reaction is likely to be based around the margin between Robert Alden and Paulette Hamilton" Winning by 9000 would mean about 74% for Labour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2022 17:43:32 GMT
From the Birmindgham Mail. Seems the Tories are also playing the expectation management game (although not very well as absolutely nobody is going to believe that a Labour *majority* of over 50% is a realistic target). "Gary Sambrook: "Labour ought to win by 9,000 or this will be a bad night for them" Conservative MP Gary Sambrook insists the Conservatives are not expected to win tonight - but that it will be a 'bad night' for Labour if they don't win by a much bigger majority than at the 2019 turnout. It's a clear hint that a Tory victory is now highly unlikely - and that the Tory reaction is likely to be based around the margin between Robert Alden and Paulette Hamilton" Winning by 9000 would mean about 74% for Labour. Blair would’ve got that. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 4, 2022 18:03:15 GMT
2.7% for UKIP in third place in Southend West last month, but obviously in rather unusual circumstances. Though the 2.1% for third placed TUSC here is lower than either of those two. Tooting is indeed a good spot, though. There are as far as I know no parliamentary by-elections where a third placed candidate, in normal circumstances, polled less than 2.1%. The Holborn & St Pancras South by-election of 1953 comes pretty close with Liberal candidate Isaac Hyam polling only 2.3% and finishing third (and there were only 3 candidates!). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2022 18:17:05 GMT
There's a tendency for properly low turnouts here to be Bad News for Labour for various structural reasons and I suppose some of the expectation management seen in the evening might have reflected genuine (unnecessary) jitters relating to that rather than pure cynicism. Anyway. Not much of significance to note given the comedy turnout. The "low turnout is bad for Labour" days are gone. That was when the demographic which would most affect the turnout figure was strongly Labour-leaning. The demographic which stayed at home in GE2005, then went via UKIP and Brexit ending up with the Tories by GE2019. Why do some (either disingenuous or extraordinarily stupid) people insist on repeating this ridiculous, insane and contemptible bollocks that the demographics of UK elections have totally reversed since 2015? |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by YL on Mar 4, 2022 18:19:34 GMT
Though the 2.1% for third placed TUSC here is lower than either of those two. Tooting is indeed a good spot, though. There are as far as I know no parliamentary by-elections where a third placed candidate, in normal circumstances, polled less than 2.1%. The Holborn & St Pancras South by-election of 1953 comes pretty close with Liberal candidate Isaac Hyam polling only 2.3% and finishing third (and there were only 3 candidates!). It depends what you mean by "normal circumstances" but the third placed Labour candidate in Winchester 1997 got 1.7%. Also coming third with 1.7% was the Workers' Party candidate in East Antrim 1986, but that definitely wasn't a normal by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Mar 4, 2022 18:23:20 GMT
There are as far as I know no parliamentary by-elections where a third placed candidate, in normal circumstances, polled less than 2.1%. The Holborn & St Pancras South by-election of 1953 comes pretty close with Liberal candidate Isaac Hyam polling only 2.3% and finishing third (and there were only 3 candidates!). It depends what you mean by "normal circumstances" but the third placed Labour candidate in Winchester 1997 got 1.7%. Also coming third with 1.7% was the Workers' Party candidate in East Antrim 1986, but that definitely wasn't a normal by-election. The Winchester by-election of 1997 definitely holds the record for worst third place candidate finish in normal circumstances i.e. where both Labour and the Conservatives are contesting, where at least three candidates are contesting, and where no special factors apply (as was true of the 1986 East Antrim by-election, which was a resign to recontest scenario). |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Mar 4, 2022 18:43:13 GMT
The "low turnout is bad for Labour" days are gone. That was when the demographic which would most affect the turnout figure was strongly Labour-leaning. The demographic which stayed at home in GE2005, then went via UKIP and Brexit ending up with the Tories by GE2019. Why do some (either disingenuous or extraordinarily stupid) people insist on repeating this ridiculous, insane and contemptible bollocks that the demographics of UK elections have totally reversed since 2015? Try reading what I said. GE2005 was when Labour lost the demographic that's now electing Red Wall Tories. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Mar 4, 2022 20:04:26 GMT
Why do some (either disingenuous or extraordinarily stupid) people insist on repeating this ridiculous, insane and contemptible bollocks that the demographics of UK elections have totally reversed since 2015? Try reading what I said. GE2005 was when Labour lost the demographic that's now electing Red Wall Tories. Many traditional Labour voters also stayed at home in 2001 - hence the 59% turnout. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Mar 4, 2022 20:13:18 GMT
Try reading what I said. GE2005 was when Labour lost the demographic that's now electing Red Wall Tories. Many traditional Labour voters also stayed at home in 2001 - hence the 59% turnout. Oh crap, apologies. GE2001 was indeed what I meant to assert before, not GE2005. Anyway, that's further away still from GE2015!!! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Mar 4, 2022 21:15:18 GMT
Why do some (either disingenuous or extraordinarily stupid) people insist on repeating this ridiculous, insane and contemptible bollocks that the demographics of UK elections have totally reversed since 2015? Try reading what I said. GE2005 was when Labour lost the demographic that's now electing Red Wall Tories. My experience in Huddersfield 2019 looking at boxes, the Tory vote still correlates strongly with owner occupation, house size, and leafiness. But they do get more votes than they used to in WWC Council estates, still not enough to win. Labour do best in ethnic minority areas and trendy young graduate places now, while the votes used to pile up highest in social rental areas. Tories also win the postal vote in national elections where I am. Combination of the elderly and working professionals. That surely means they should do better in low turnout by-ekections, other things being equal. |
|
