jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,053 
|
Post by jamie on Feb 25, 2023 0:45:00 GMT
I know the system is somewhat different but the principle holds, Antony Green has calculated (prior to last year’s election for which I’ve not seen an analysis) that Labor pick up somewhere in the region of 45% of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party second preferences despite the obvious chasm in policy terms between the two parties. At the 2019 and 2022 elections they got 35% of One Nation preferences, but back in 2016 they actually broke 50/50. The other main right wing minor party (UAP) saw 40% of their voters prefer Labor over the Coalition, and even 15% of Greens voters (people voting for a decidedly ‘left of Labor’ party) preferred the Coalition over Labor. Under the semi-optional preferencing for the Senate, the right wing minor party vote tends to go all over the place, while under fully optional preferential voting they tend to just exhaust, often overwhelmingly, rather than go to either of the 2 major parties. Some of this is down to compulsory voting which forces a lot of disinterested and low-info people to vote for a load of parties when they wouldn’t otherwise do so in a country like the UK, but it also reflects that a good proportion of voters are not very ideological and their choice to cast a vote for supposedly more ‘extreme’ parties does not necessarily reflect a strong preference for the next most similar party eg; someone voting for a green party doesn’t necessarily favour all other left-liberal parties, someone voting for a right wing conservative party doesn’t necessarily favour a more moderate right wing party, someone voting for a hardline independence party may not want to vote for a more gradualist party with all the baggage it has after more than a decade in government etc etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2023 1:04:20 GMT
Indeed, you're totally right about 1) just for starters. This is one of the major reasons why a "Progressive Alliance" just can't work - while Labour supporters would overwhelmingly vote Lib Dem against Conservative if it came to it, the reverse just isn't the case to anything like the same degree. But there are other major reasons too. What would be the point in Lib Dem candidates being told to pull out if more of their supporters voted Conservative than Labour? In some constituencies, I think that's not as improbable as some think it is. A simple and obvious solution if that's the case. Labour stand down in Con/Lib Dem seats. Was this meant to be a joke? |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Feb 25, 2023 6:30:00 GMT
A simple and obvious solution if that's the case. Labour stand down in Con/Lib Dem seats. Was this meant to be a joke? In seats like Harrogate and Knarsborough a vote for Labour only ensures a Tory win. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 25, 2023 8:01:36 GMT
Indeed, you're totally right about 1) just for starters. This is one of the major reasons why a "Progressive Alliance" just can't work - while Labour supporters would overwhelmingly vote Lib Dem against Conservative if it came to it, the reverse just isn't the case to anything like the same degree. But there are other major reasons too. What would be the point in Lib Dem candidates being told to pull out if more of their supporters voted Conservative than Labour? In some constituencies, I think that's not as improbable as some think it is. A simple and obvious solution if that's the case. Labour stand down in Con/Lib Dem seats. There are plenty of problems with that. Persuading local Labour parties to adopt such an approach is one. But an explicit Lab/Lib Dem pact is manna from heaven to a Tory campaign. Any competent Tory would portray the Lib Dem as effectively a Labour candidate and that would harden the Tory vote. In many places picking up the small number of Labour votes that might not otherwise have been won by a Lib Dem “squeeze” campaign wouldn’t balance the soft Tories who might have voted Lib Dem but are appalled at the idea of voting for effectively a Labour candidate. The wisest plan is for parties to run weak campaigns in places where they are manifestly uncompetitive. If the Lib Dems can’t run a local “squeeze” campaign that would both be unusual and their fault. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 25, 2023 8:30:22 GMT
Was this meant to be a joke? In seats like Harrogate and Knarsborough a vote for Labour only ensures a Tory win. really? I could have sworn that the Liberal Democrats managed to win the seat 3 times when Labour did stand a candidate. Or maybe my memory is playing tricks with me. Keep the slogans for your campaigning on the ground not here. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 25, 2023 9:37:33 GMT
In seats like Harrogate and Knarsborough a vote for Labour only ensures a Tory win. really? I could have sworn that the Liberal Democrats managed to win the seat 3 times when Labour did stand a candidate. Or maybe my memory is playing tricks with me. Keep the slogans for your campaigning on the ground not here. Indeed, just statistically -the Labour vote dipped lowest (6.4%) in the year the Tories regained the seat -Labour's peak share in the seat was 20% in 2017. In the years the LDs won, the Tory vote dipped so low that a straight LD-to-Lab swing to mirror that 20% Labour share wouldn't have saved them. Nor would any kind of uniform Lab-to-LD swing flip the seat in any other years besides 2010. Everybody sympathizing more with Labour but susceptible to voting LD tactically has already been doing so in Harrogate (apart from 2017, when there was manifestly no point). |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 25, 2023 9:54:02 GMT
A simple and obvious solution if that's the case. Labour stand down in Con/Lib Dem seats. Was this meant to be a joke? No more so than their usual output? |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Feb 25, 2023 9:57:33 GMT
A simple and obvious solution if that's the case. Labour stand down in Con/Lib Dem seats. Was this meant to be a joke? I was just following the maths. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 25, 2023 11:46:29 GMT
Or rather the massive 457 netted at that stage. Really not a lot of Tory-Tartantory transfers. Probably. But note Labour pulling gradually away from the Tories. I am acquainted with that area but do not have the gut feel that our Kincardinshire/Fife correspondent might care to add. But it occurs to me that both SNP and Conservatives will have suffered a significant loss of votes because of the names of their candidates. There are definitely places where that might be an issue. A middle-class bit of Aberdeen wouldn't usually be top of that list, however.* One thing that does interest me about the transfers is the LD to SNP transfers. Locally the LDs are in coalition with the SNP, so I do wonder if that played a role in producing a slightly higher percentage of transfers in that direction than you'd normally expect. *Though the normal way of confirming that this is a factor is to note the difference in support between candidates of the same party in multi-member FPTP elections, and as that isn't how STV elections work the alphabet effect tends to conceal this factor. Note in this very ward the distribution of SNP preferences in 2017 and 2022 depending on whether the same candidate used the surname Samarai or Al-Samarai. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,887
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 25, 2023 12:58:47 GMT
I am acquainted with that area but do not have the gut feel that our Kincardinshire/Fife correspondent might care to add. But it occurs to me that both SNP and Conservatives will have suffered a significant loss of votes because of the names of their candidates. There are definitely places where that might be an issue. A middle-class bit of Aberdeen wouldn't usually be top of that list, however.* One thing that does interest me about the transfers is the LD to SNP transfers. Locally the LDs are in coalition with the SNP, so I do wonder if that played a role in producing a slightly higher percentage of transfers in that direction than you'd normally expect. *Though the normal way of confirming that this is a factor is to note the difference in support between candidates of the same party in multi-member FPTP elections, and as that isn't how STV elections work the alphabet effect tends to conceal this factor. Note in this very ward the distribution of SNP preferences in 2017 and 2022 depending on whether the same candidate used the surname Samarai or Al-Samarai. It may be, I now feel upon reflection, that the ward is less 'Scottish' and less old, and less staid than I had felt when first posting. This has expanded a lot and been much influenced by oil industry and air flight with many outsiders and young skilled people. If this had been in rural Banff, Moray or Nairn, my strictures would have had much more purchase. There is still a preference for obviously Scottish names and for people born and bred to the area in many settled rural staid wards. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 26, 2023 0:46:56 GMT
Was this meant to be a joke? In seats like Harrogate and Knar esborough a vote for Labour only ensures a Tory win. In seats like that and in all other constituencies, people voting Tory ensures a Tory win. It's been a long time since a Conservative was returned to Parliament with zero votes. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 26, 2023 6:54:50 GMT
In seats like Harrogate and Knar esborough a vote for Labour only ensures a Tory win. In seats like that and in all other constituencies, people voting Tory ensures a Tory win. It's been a long time since a Conservative was returned to Parliament with zero votes. Even in Old Sarum, although the resident human population was zero, there were 5 local landowners who "voted" for the Conservative MP. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 26, 2023 11:08:39 GMT
In seats like that and in all other constituencies, people voting Tory ensures a Tory win. It's been a long time since a Conservative was returned to Parliament with zero votes. Even in Old Sarum, although the resident human population was zero, there were 5 local landowners who "voted" for the Conservative MP. Impressive considering the last known contested election in Old Sarum was over a generation before the formation of the Pittites and the seat was abolished before they became the Conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 11:27:48 GMT
Even in Old Sarum, although the resident human population was zero, there were 5 local landowners who "voted" for the Conservative MP. Impressive considering the last known contested election in Old Sarum was over a generation before the formation of the Pittites and the seat was abolished before they became the Conservatives. Just shows how corrupt it all was. |
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by r34t on Feb 26, 2023 12:41:51 GMT
Was this meant to be a joke? I was just following the maths. You clearly have the delusion that Labour voters will automatically default to LDs if there is no Labour candidate. Which is nonsense. Apart from pro-Brexit Labour voters who wouldn’t touch the LDs with a barge pole, you would be surprised where people’s second choice lie, for a whole range of reasons. around here we have 2 member wards for the local council, a unitary. About 50% of the Labour vote is a block vote (people voting Lab x2) the rest is split, with any & every combination you can think of. At the last set of elections Lab+Green was the 2nd block, then Lab+UKIP, splits with LDs & Tories some distance back. your ‘maths’ don’t work I’m afraid. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Feb 26, 2023 12:48:50 GMT
I was just following the maths. You clearly have the delusion that Labour voters will automatically default to LDs if there is no Labour candidate. Which is nonsense. Apart from pro-Brexit Labour voters who wouldn’t touch the LDs with a barge pole, you would be surprised where people’s second choice lie, for a whole range of reasons. around here we have 2 member wards for the local council, a unitary. About 50% of the Labour vote is a block vote (people voting Lab x2) the rest is split, with any & every combination you can think of. At the last set of elections Lab+Green was the 2nd block, then Lab+UKIP, splits with LDs & Tories some distance back. your ‘maths’ don’t work I’m afraid. They weren't "my" maths. or my delusion. I was following the theory put forward by a Labour supporter that in the event of no Labour candidate most of the support would go Lib Dem, the opposite of what you are arguing. Whereas if there was no Lib Dem then they would necessarily or even mainly vote Labour. All I was sasying that if his point is correct then Labour should stand down but Lib Dems should not. |
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by r34t on Feb 26, 2023 13:22:50 GMT
You clearly have the delusion that Labour voters will automatically default to LDs if there is no Labour candidate. Which is nonsense. Apart from pro-Brexit Labour voters who wouldn’t touch the LDs with a barge pole, you would be surprised where people’s second choice lie, for a whole range of reasons. around here we have 2 member wards for the local council, a unitary. About 50% of the Labour vote is a block vote (people voting Lab x2) the rest is split, with any & every combination you can think of. At the last set of elections Lab+Green was the 2nd block, then Lab+UKIP, splits with LDs & Tories some distance back. your ‘maths’ don’t work I’m afraid. They weren't "my" maths. or my delusion. I was following the theory put forward by a Labour supporter that in the event of no Labour candidate most of the support would go Lib Dem, the opposite of what you are arguing. Whereas if there was no Lib Dem then they would necessarily or even mainly vote Labour. All I was sasying that if his point is correct then Labour should stand down but Lib Dems should not. Apologies, clearly grabbed the wrong end if the stick firmly in both hands ….. 🤔 |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 26, 2023 15:29:33 GMT
Indeed, you're totally right about 1) just for starters. This is one of the major reasons why a "Progressive Alliance" just can't work - while Labour supporters would overwhelmingly vote Lib Dem against Conservative if it came to it, the reverse just isn't the case to anything like the same degree. But there are other major reasons too. What would be the point in Lib Dem candidates being told to pull out if more of their supporters voted Conservative than Labour? In some constituencies, I think that's not as improbable as some think it is. And it doesn't work with the Greens either. That was thrown into stark relief where they have stood down in Lib Dem target seats in general elections due to deals and many of them (and in some cases a plurality) went Labour instead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 20:53:52 GMT
You clearly have the delusion that Labour voters will automatically default to LDs if there is no Labour candidate. Which is nonsense. Apart from pro-Brexit Labour voters who wouldn’t touch the LDs with a barge pole, you would be surprised where people’s second choice lie, for a whole range of reasons. around here we have 2 member wards for the local council, a unitary. About 50% of the Labour vote is a block vote (people voting Lab x2) the rest is split, with any & every combination you can think of. At the last set of elections Lab+Green was the 2nd block, then Lab+UKIP, splits with LDs & Tories some distance back. your ‘maths’ don’t work I’m afraid. They weren't "my" maths. or my delusion. I was following the theory put forward by a Labour supporter that in the event of no Labour candidate most of the support would go Lib Dem, the opposite of what you are arguing. Whereas if there was no Lib Dem then they would necessarily or even mainly vote Labour. All I was sasying that if his point is correct then Labour should stand down but Lib Dems should not.No. "The goal of the non-Tory parties is to remove the Tories" is far too simplistic a reading. The goal of Labour and the LDs is to get Labour and LD candidates elected, to advance Labour and LD values and put those values into practice as policy, which means they should stand in as many places as possible |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 26, 2023 21:15:47 GMT
Besides, the position of leading challenger in constituencies often changes. Just compare the results in Hastings in Rye in 1992 with the result only 2 elections later. Voters are generally intelligent enough to make their own minds up which opposition party has the best chance, if they are minded that way.
|
|
