|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Oct 18, 2023 18:41:08 GMT
The Lib Dems were campaigning from the off (start of June), not when Dories actually left. Labour was campaigning by the end of June - so not much in it. Moreover, until Dorries formally resigned in early September it had to be sotto voce - ie unofficial - or campaign expenses would have been incurred. By-election expense limits are much higher (£100k) compared to a normal election so that isn’t really relevant here. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,718
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 18, 2023 18:51:37 GMT
Impressive if he wins, perhaps? No, actually impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 18, 2023 19:04:21 GMT
Labour was campaigning by the end of June - so not much in it. Moreover, until Dorries formally resigned in early September it had to be sotto voce - ie unofficial - or campaign expenses would have been incurred. By-election expense limits are much higher (£100k) compared to a normal election so that isn’t really relevant here. It is absurd that they are that high-the general election expenses limit of ~£15000 is more reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Oct 18, 2023 19:12:28 GMT
By-election expense limits are much higher (£100k) compared to a normal election so that isn’t really relevant here. It is absurd that they are that high-the general election expenses limit of ~£15000 is more reasonable. I’m not disagreeing with you. The by-election limit hasn’t been altered for 20(?) years. Imagine if it had increased in line with inflation. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,379 
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 18, 2023 19:24:57 GMT
There is a real prospect of an almighty meltdown from the Twitter left if the Tories win and their majority is smaller than the total votes of the third-placed party. Which tempts one to consider the following - let's say there were to be a by-election in Liverpool (any of the parliamentary seats will do as an example) and the Tories came within a few percent of winning the seat, with the Reform Party vote being bigger than the Labour majority. Would (or should) the Tories take to social media in such a situation and whinge and complain, or should they take it as an excellent result and a sign that the Labour Party is in trouble in its strongholds and nationally etc? A fair few I remember in 2019 grumbled over Farage not standing down everywhere, because without the then-Brexit party, they feel they could have unseated Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, etc, whose majorities are smaller than the Brexit Party vote. This of course is based on the simplistic assumption that ALL Brexit Party votes in 2019 would otherwise have gone to the Get Brexit Done party, whereas a lot if not most of them were clearly ‘would never vote Tory either’. Six / one half of a dozen really, because it could equally be argued that Brexit Party standing in Labour held seats helped more readily drain Labour votes away in places like Blyth, allowing the Tories to win. Many of the ‘Red wall’ losses really had a very modest Tory vote share increase, just that Labour plummeted across the board instead. Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 18, 2023 20:19:47 GMT
By-election expense limits are much higher (£100k) compared to a normal election so that isn’t really relevant here. It is absurd that they are that high-the general election expenses limit of ~£15000 is more reasonable. Having been closely involved in one I suspect the real spending is often significantly higher than even £100k . . . |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Oct 18, 2023 21:04:27 GMT
Having been closely involved in one I suspect the real spending is often significantly higher than even £100k . . . I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you! |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Oct 19, 2023 7:40:52 GMT
There is a real prospect of an almighty meltdown from the Twitter left if the Tories win and their majority is smaller than the total votes of the third-placed party. Which tempts one to consider the following - let's say there were to be a by-election in Liverpool (any of the parliamentary seats will do as an example) and the Tories came within a few percent of winning the seat, with the Reform Party vote being bigger than the Labour majority. Would (or should) the Tories take to social media in such a situation and whinge and complain, or should they take it as an excellent result and a sign that the Labour Party is in trouble in its strongholds and nationally etc? Liked as strangely i had a similar thought earlier on same day re a future Lab govt defending massive majorities in Liverpool and nearly being beaten but you've expressed it far more eloquently than I could, given that Mid beds and Tamworth need swings of over 19% and 21% to Lab to fall just falling short would still show substantial anti Tory swings(enough to make them worry deeply) but the headline news would be they had held them |
|
|
|
Post by nigelashton on Oct 19, 2023 8:29:21 GMT
The Lib Dems were campaigning from the off (start of June), not when Dories actually left. Labour was campaigning by the end of June - so not much in it. Moreover, until Dorries formally resigned in early September it had to be sotto voce - ie unofficial - or campaign expenses would have been incurred. That hasn’t been the case since 2008. The regulated period for election expenses doesn’t start until Notice of Poll. It gets rid of all that bollocks about ‘prospective’. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,731
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Oct 19, 2023 8:33:32 GMT
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 19, 2023 8:40:50 GMT
Labour was campaigning by the end of June - so not much in it. Moreover, until Dorries formally resigned in early September it had to be sotto voce - ie unofficial - or campaign expenses would have been incurred. That hasn’t been the case since 2008. The regulated period for election expenses doesn’t start until Notice of Poll. It gets rid of all that bollocks about ‘prospective’. I had not realised that! So the term PPC is now out of date - in that a candidate's name can be referred to as soon as he/she is selected? |
|
|
|
Post by MeirionGwril on Oct 19, 2023 9:24:39 GMT
Apologies if already posted, but is Mid Beds counting tonight?
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,345
|
Post by graham on Oct 19, 2023 10:09:27 GMT
Apologies if already posted, but is Mid Beds counting tonight? Yes - both seats count tonight. |
|
Max
Labour
Posts: 208
|
Post by Max on Oct 19, 2023 11:17:37 GMT
A fair few I remember in 2019 grumbled over Farage not standing down everywhere, because without the then-Brexit party, they feel they could have unseated Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, etc, whose majorities are smaller than the Brexit Party vote. This of course is based on the simplistic assumption that ALL Brexit Party votes in 2019 would otherwise have gone to the Get Brexit Done party, whereas a lot if not most of them were clearly ‘would never vote Tory either’. Six / one half of a dozen really, because it could equally be argued that Brexit Party standing in Labour held seats helped more readily drain Labour votes away in places like Blyth, allowing the Tories to win. Many of the ‘Red wall’ losses really had a very modest Tory vote share increase, just that Labour plummeted across the board instead. Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have And the Referendum Party were necessary so the descendants of Spencer Perceval could have their vengeance on the descendants of John Bellingham in North West Norfolk. |
|
|
|
Post by nigelashton on Oct 19, 2023 12:45:21 GMT
That hasn’t been the case since 2008. The regulated period for election expenses doesn’t start until Notice of Poll. It gets rid of all that bollocks about ‘prospective’. I had not realised that! So the term PPC is now out of date - in that a candidate's name can be referred to as soon as he/she is selected? Yes, that is correct. I think parties still refer to PPCs simply because the term is so ingrained. There is a complication with national campaign expense reporting during the last 12 months of a full-term Parliament, but that doesn't affect local parties campaigning for their constituency candidate as soon as they are selected. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 19, 2023 13:34:05 GMT
A fair few I remember in 2019 grumbled over Farage not standing down everywhere, because without the then-Brexit party, they feel they could have unseated Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, etc, whose majorities are smaller than the Brexit Party vote. This of course is based on the simplistic assumption that ALL Brexit Party votes in 2019 would otherwise have gone to the Get Brexit Done party, whereas a lot if not most of them were clearly ‘would never vote Tory either’. Six / one half of a dozen really, because it could equally be argued that Brexit Party standing in Labour held seats helped more readily drain Labour votes away in places like Blyth, allowing the Tories to win. Many of the ‘Red wall’ losses really had a very modest Tory vote share increase, just that Labour plummeted across the board instead. Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have Curtice and Steed calculated it at only 6 seats; with 2 due to UKIP intervention; Kettering Wellingborough Milton Keynes NE Winchester Torbay Kingston and Surbiton |
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,034
|
Post by nyx on Oct 19, 2023 13:44:00 GMT
Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have On the other hand the Lib Dems were far bigger than the Referendum Party, and there's a good argument that were it not for the anti Conservative vote being split Lab-LD, they could have easily ended up well under 100 seats... |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,907
|
Post by YL on Oct 19, 2023 14:07:16 GMT
Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have Curtice and Steed calculated it at only 6 seats; with 2 due to UKIP intervention; Kettering Wellingborough Milton Keynes NE Winchester Torbay Kingston and Surbiton Winchester of course also had a fake Lib Dem candidate and a former Tory MP for the constituency standing as an Independent. So it’s quite hard to disentangle the effects. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 19, 2023 14:43:34 GMT
Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have On the other hand the Lib Dems were far bigger than the Referendum Party, and there's a good argument that were it not for the anti Conservative vote being split Lab-LD, they could have easily ended up well under 100 seats... Curtice and Steed ponder this. And it's quite pertinent to both the by-election and coming GE. The public paid attention to the national polls, which showed a decline in the Lib Dem vote on 1992. So voters relied on two measures before voting tactically. The Lib Dem campaign (bar chart alert) in their target seats which mattered more than Labour's campaign in it's target seats which didn't seem to matter ('rising tide floats all boats') The Lib Dem performance in local elections; voters who voted Lib Dem or at least remembered them winning; particularly the line south and west of Bristol-Oxford-Brighton which curiously based on the 2023 locals has broadly re-established itself. |
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Oct 19, 2023 16:34:03 GMT
A fair few I remember in 2019 grumbled over Farage not standing down everywhere, because without the then-Brexit party, they feel they could have unseated Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband, etc, whose majorities are smaller than the Brexit Party vote. This of course is based on the simplistic assumption that ALL Brexit Party votes in 2019 would otherwise have gone to the Get Brexit Done party, whereas a lot if not most of them were clearly ‘would never vote Tory either’. Six / one half of a dozen really, because it could equally be argued that Brexit Party standing in Labour held seats helped more readily drain Labour votes away in places like Blyth, allowing the Tories to win. Many of the ‘Red wall’ losses really had a very modest Tory vote share increase, just that Labour plummeted across the board instead. Obviously pre-social media but were there not some complaints about the Referendum Party splitting the Tory vote in 1997? Obviously not that it would have made any difference to Labour's very comfortable win but that it maybe helped the Tories lose a few more seats than they would have An awful lot of us who voted Referendum Party in 1997 wouldn't have voted for Conservative Party in any circumstances at that election. |
|
