Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 8:54:39 GMT
How is 'badly' defined in the context of an election where we polled just 15% last time round? Arbitary, but I'd suggest 25% is a decent cut-off that you will miss. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 21, 2013 15:53:36 GMT
A bad result is one where the press mention how badly we did before they mention how badly the Tories did. A good result is the converse. Everything else, including the elections themselves, is window-dressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on May 21, 2013 16:08:02 GMT
Gut feeling is that Labour should get about 25%. More is slightly good for them. Less is slightly dissapointing. Breach the 20 or 30% and turn that slightly to extremely.Whatever the result they come out with heads high I suspect if they pip UKIP for 1st. Tory target is to not go 3rd. And before anyone asks LD target is not to be massacred. 1999 is an option although my gut says not quite so I would go for holding 6 seats, ie half of last time. I think too much Green vote has gone Labour for any risk of falling out of fourth place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 17:06:03 GMT
UKIP should be happy with 1st.
Beating UKIP will be near-impossible for labour, I wouldn't set their sights that high.
That would represent a fantastic performance (unless UKIP do much worse than expected) I honestly (as opposed to tactically, which I can't be arsed with) think that if Labour hit 30 they will have done pretty well. 25% would be acceptable. Beating the tories is a must, obviously.
You could claim that we will target not 3rd -> We have not a hope of getting 2nd. It would be nice to get 20%, but this will not happen, if it does ill be pretty happy. I think its to keep our heads down and hope labour do as badly as ourselves. Maybe within 10% of labour? Its not going to be pretty whatever.
I think the liberals will likely get 5th and not much more than 5%, 1989 level of the vote. 4th is probably the prime target for them. They will probably avoid any embarrassment though as expectation will be nearly as bad as the number of votes they will get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 17:33:43 GMT
Do the Greens have any hope of coming 4th in the Euros?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on May 21, 2013 18:05:26 GMT
Do the Greens have any hope of coming 4th in the Euros? I would say there is a chance, certainly. And 5th place would be something else for Clegg to live down  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 19:43:21 GMT
Yes. Last election the LDs got 13.7 and the greens 8.1
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 21, 2013 20:51:17 GMT
There might have been a chance if the Greens hadn't selected the most usless leader. I can't stand Caroline Lucas, but then I'm not part of the target market and I recognise she was reasonably effective at attracting support amongst those who are. This Natalie Bennett is a complete dud
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 21, 2013 21:07:22 GMT
There might have been a chance if the Greens hadn't selected the most usless leader. I can't stand Caroline Lucas, but then I'm not part of the target market and I recognise she was reasonably effective at attracting support amongst those who are. This Natalie Bennett is a complete dud Lucas is effective, but I suspect by far the greater part of the 2009 Green vote wasn't interested in who the leader was. For much of the electorate voting Green is a statement of identity, nothing more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 21:08:44 GMT
Tories at joint lowest with YG since 2000
UKIP at 16 must be close if not their highest with YG
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 21, 2013 21:13:17 GMT
Thats true as it is for all parties, but 8% represents far more than the core or those who really identify themselves as Green. There's a lot of the generic protest vote which was also enhanced in 2009 by the expenses scandal. UKIP are likely to corner that market more this time, though that might be partly offset by the Greens gaining some of the disgruntled LD vote. I'd expect the Green sshare to be down overall though - not by much perhaps but if they got say 7% (or even stayed on 8%) its hard to see the LDs falling below that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2013 21:22:56 GMT
I imagine that Caroline Lucas will still play a very central role in next year's campaign. In many ways, the 'Leader' of the Green Party of England & Wales is more of an internal role than necessarily the main public face of the party. I understand that part of the rational behind finding a new leader was to spread the workload somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on May 22, 2013 6:31:20 GMT
There might have been a chance if the Greens hadn't selected the most usless leader. I can't stand Caroline Lucas, but then I'm not part of the target market and I recognise she was reasonably effective at attracting support amongst those who are. This Natalie Bennett is a complete dud I have to say I agree with this. Natalie Bennett is not very effective in the media. I'm thinking for example of the BBC Question Time immediately before the local elections. The Green Party had had a very poor level of media coverage during the campaign but here she had equal billing with Nigel Farage. It would have been a great opportunity for her to present the Green Party as 'the real alternative'. Instead she allowed Nigel Farage to steamroller her somewhat and dominate the programme. I can't help but thinking that Caroline Lucas would have been much more effective in that situation. Incidentally I think this illustrates why Nigel Farage is completely correct not to be running in a by election. I know he has come in for much criticism for this, people saying 'he should have run in Eastleigh, he could have won'. I don't think that's correct. Firstly I think if he had run some people would have been put off voting UKIP because they might have seen him as a carpetbagger (I suspect this was the reason he came third in Buckingham in 2010). Secondly however if he had won he would have had to combine the roles of Party Leader and backbench MP. As Caroline Lucas found it's an impossible task when you don't have the support networks the larger party leaders have. CL had to quit her party leadership to be replaced by someone much less effective. The same would have happened to UKIP in Farage had been elected. (To be honest also I get the impression that NF is much less temperamentally suited to being a bckbench MP than someone like say Diane James) |
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on May 22, 2013 6:39:31 GMT
I imagine that Caroline Lucas will still play a very central role in next year's campaign. In many ways, the 'Leader' of the Green Party of England & Wales is more of an internal role than necessarily the main public face of the party. I understand that part of the rational behind finding a new leader was to spread the workload somewhat. The difficulty is that the leader to a large extent is the public face of the party. It was NB and not CL who was on BBC Question Time during the local elections, it is now NB who gets many of the Green Party media interviews. I think one trouble is that you elected a leader who may well be good with the 'internal' stuff but who had never successfully been elected to anything before. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 9:51:40 GMT
I've never been involved with any party led by Caroline Lucas or Natalie Bennett, so I have to admit that my perceptions are those of a sympathetic outside observer. I do agree that Caroline Lucas is a more effective public performer.
From what I understand, they are finding it useful to have another person who is able to do media interviews on behalf of the party. People mostly still ask Caroline Lucas, but if she's not available, the party's media office say that they can have the leader of the party instead, and nine times out of ten they will say yes. So it's increased their opportunities for exposure in many ways.
It's true that the position of party leader was effectively created for Caroline Lucas in order to boost her chances of getting elected in Brighton Pavilion. But now that that's been achieved, it's probably more important that she concentrate on holding her seat in 2015 -- and I'm not sure that being the sole media contact for her party and leading the party from within in addition to being its only MP is the best way for her to go about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 22, 2013 16:30:57 GMT
There might have been a chance if the Greens hadn't selected the most usless leader. I can't stand Caroline Lucas, but then I'm not part of the target market and I recognise she was reasonably effective at attracting support amongst those who are. This Natalie Bennett is a complete dud I have to say I agree with this. Natalie Bennett is not very effective in the media. I'm thinking for example of the BBC Question Time immediately before the local elections. The Green Party had had a very poor level of media coverage during the campaign but here she had equal billing with Nigel Farage. It would have been a great opportunity for her to present the Green Party as 'the real alternative'. Instead she allowed Nigel Farage to steamroller her somewhat and dominate the programme. I can't help but thinking that Caroline Lucas would have been much more effective in that situation. Yes, Natalie needs to improve her media skills (and she has already improved significantly from her earliest media appearances as party leader). But I think it's overstating things to say that she was steamrollered by Nigel. If the reactions of the studio audience were anything to go by, she was about as well-received as he was, which is to say significantly more so than the representatives of the big three. Yes, Caroline Lucas would probably have been more effective, because she's got far more experience. But having a leader who isn't Caroline meant that we managed to get slots on Question Time and Any Questions that week. And whilst Natalie still has a lot of room for improvement when it comes to media, she has probably managed to get more media time than any of the other leadership candidates would have done. And she does well enough to leave the average viewer with a positive impression of us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 16:34:43 GMT
The question time audience is incredibly left-centred. Being held mainly in large cities probably is one of the reasons. Attracting the disgruntled is probably another
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,818 
|
Post by john07 on May 22, 2013 23:50:19 GMT
The question time audience is incredibly left-centred. Being held mainly in large cities probably is one of the reasons. Attracting the disgruntled is probably another Yes indeed. Look at recent locations from last year (unspecified venues are omitted): 15/01/2012: Tower Hamlets 22/01/2012: Shrewsbury 29/01/2012: Plymouth 02/02/2012: Southport 09/02/2012: London 16/02/2012: Nottingham 23/02/2012: Tunbridge Wells 01/03/2012: Dewsbury 15/03/2012: St Andrews 22/03/2012: Grimsby 29/03/2012: Portsmouth 19/04/2012: Leeds 26/04/2012: Romford 03/05/2012: London 10/05/2012: Oldham 24/05/2012: Kings Lynn Yes they have ruthlessly selected Labour strongholds for every episode. Even 'disgusted from Tunbridge Wells' might agree! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 21:47:10 GMT
LibDems on 6% according to Opinium, their lowest ever in government and indeed their lowest in any poll since August 1990.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 1, 2013 21:53:04 GMT
LibDems on 6% according to Opinium, their lowest ever in government and indeed their lowest in any poll since August 1990. Full figures: Lab 37% Con 26% UKIP 21% LD 6% Highest UKIP figure with this pollster. |
|
