|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 6, 2024 9:28:49 GMT
"parachuted in"? She's a councillor in Downham which is literally next door to this constituency. Grow up. "Parachuting-in" refers to any phenomenon where the central party chooses a candidate without consulting the local members. Geography has nothing to do with it, as you know perfectly well. No it doesn't. It specifically refers to the selection of a candidate, whether by the local members or not, where the candidate has no previous connection with the constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Nov 6, 2024 9:53:12 GMT
"parachuted in"? She's a councillor in Downham which is literally next door to this constituency. Grow up. "Parachuting-in" refers to any phenomenon where the central party chooses a candidate without consulting the local members. Geography has nothing to do with it, as you know perfectly well. Cut the cr*p, since life's too short. Thanks.
If you're a defender of the Party machine, perhaps you're familiar with the NEC's protestations that they "recognise" that members are unhappy with parachuting "and are committed" to reforming that.
More specific considerations applied in this year's campaign, however: central party were clearly terrified of the Corbynite rump amongst members. Since they couldn't be bothered to find anything out about Bromley they obviously assumed that local members might be stupid enough to choose a Corbynite candidate. That's a pretty flimsy excuse for sabotage on this scale. Had they stood no candidate we could all have voted for the LibDems (who were however a distant third, according to all the polling: a strong point we emphasised on the doorstep, and to which many potential voters were responsive). Don't be so rude. I have reported your comment. If you can't play nicely, please don't contribute to this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 6, 2024 10:52:40 GMT
This appears to be another of the ‘far reach’ seats that the party decided shouldn’t be fought actively with resources, including the candidate, diverted elsewhere. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was another and I recall another in the Eastern region.
While certainly hard on candidates (again selected very late in Bognor) and activists I can understand the principles of what was being done. While polls pointed toward.a landslide the party HQ, understandably, was sceptical. Indeed they may well have had polling indicating the softness of Labour preferences demonstrated in the final results. They wanted to be certain of seats that could produce a comfortable majority. If one of those seats was nearby (as Worthing West was in Bognor’s case) then the work needed to be done there. In some cases this was reinforced by preventing access to campaign tools online in non-target seats.
Tough, and of course many members didn’t comply or sat out the election. But rational.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Nov 6, 2024 11:41:17 GMT
This appears to be another of the ‘far reach’ seats that the party decided shouldn’t be fought actively with resources, including the candidate, diverted elsewhere. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was another and I recall another in the Eastern region. While certainly hard on candidates (again selected very late in Bognor) and activists I can understand the principles of what was being done. While polls pointed toward.a landslide the party HQ, understandably, was sceptical. Indeed they may well have had polling indicating the softness of Labour preferences demonstrated in the final results. They wanted to be certain of seats that could produce a comfortable majority. If one of those seats was nearby (as Worthing West was in Bognor’s case) then the work needed to be done there. In some cases this was reinforced by preventing access to campaign tools online in non-target seats. Tough, and of course many members didn’t comply or sat out the election. But rational. One thing you can be sure of is that the cabal that runs Central Office doesn't care a shit about party members, and if they had a choice would do without them. The upset local posting here is simply reflecting what many members think, even if the approach was "rational". |
|
|
|
Post by mikerodent on Nov 6, 2024 11:41:31 GMT
Tough, and of course many members didn’t comply or sat out the election. But rational. So because their judgement was rubbish their judgement was fiendishly clever. This is commonly known as "drinking the Kool-aid".
No. Where BBH was concerned, the bookies had the tools at their disposal to judge strongly a win for Labour.
Morgan McSweeney and the other teenagers at HQ worked out something that a 7-year-old could have worked out decades ago: concentrate campaigning resources where they are needed. Wow. Mastermind.
|
|
nyx
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,025
Member is Online
|
Post by nyx on Nov 6, 2024 11:55:56 GMT
This appears to be another of the ‘far reach’ seats that the party decided shouldn’t be fought actively with resources, including the candidate, diverted elsewhere. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was another and I recall another in the Eastern region. While certainly hard on candidates (again selected very late in Bognor) and activists I can understand the principles of what was being done. While polls pointed toward.a landslide the party HQ, understandably, was sceptical. Indeed they may well have had polling indicating the softness of Labour preferences demonstrated in the final results. They wanted to be certain of seats that could produce a comfortable majority. If one of those seats was nearby (as Worthing West was in Bognor’s case) then the work needed to be done there. In some cases this was reinforced by preventing access to campaign tools online in non-target seats. Tough, and of course many members didn’t comply or sat out the election. But rational. My explanation would be very different– it is in the interest of the Labour party to ensure that non-Labour centre-left parties are not amplified, and that therefore it made sense to intentionally throw the distant target seats to avoid the Lib Dems becoming the Official Opposition and gaining a much larger profile. |
|
|
|
Post by mikerodent on Nov 6, 2024 12:09:53 GMT
Huh? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. As it happens the LDs weren't campaigning at all in BBH, probably working off the same polling data as we saw (i.e. Labour = only challenger to the Tory replacement for the retiring incumbent Tory).
Honestly, if you have evidence that McSweeney and the others are as fiendishly Machiavellian and manipulative as you suggest, show us that evidence please. Otherwise Occam's razor most definitely applies.
|
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by iang on Nov 6, 2024 12:25:16 GMT
It's easy to assume with hindsight that a wider range of seats was winnable - that wasn't necessarily evident beforehand. It was the same with us to a degree. In Shropshire, we ran up a huge majority in Helen Morgan's seat and narrowly missed getting Matthew Green back in South Shropshire. Had we known Helen was going to win so easily, we could have certainly diverted resources and maybe won South Shropshire as well - but we've overstretched many times before and come away with nothing. Similarly in Westmoreland - Tim Farron got a ridiculous majority whilst we were nowhere near anywhere else in the county. In hindsight, we could have relaxed in W&L and put more effort into another seat, eg Penrith. But we'd have looked very stupid if the result of that had been to lose Westmoreland. It's always easy to see what you should have done with hindsight, not so easy at the time
|
|
|
|
Post by mikerodent on Nov 6, 2024 13:02:37 GMT
It's easy to assume with hindsight that a wider range of seats was winnable - that wasn't necessarily evident beforehand. It was the same with us to a degree. In Shropshire, we ran up a huge majority in Helen Morgan's seat and narrowly missed getting Matthew Green back in South Shropshire. Had we known Helen was going to win so easily, we could have certainly diverted resources and maybe won South Shropshire as well - but we've overstretched many times before and come away with nothing. Similarly in Westmoreland - Tim Farron got a ridiculous majority whilst we were nowhere near anywhere else in the county. In hindsight, we could have relaxed in W&L and put more effort into another seat, eg Penrith. But we'd have looked very stupid if the result of that had been to lose Westmoreland. It's always easy to see what you should have done with hindsight, not so easy at the time
Yes, judgements had to be made. This judgement to sabotage BBH completely, by all means available, over months and months, was simply wrong. The 300 votes prove that. The bookies also knew the real demographics: a more intelligent, less lazy and less insolent central organising team would have reached that conclusion.
The neighbouring seats, Beckenham and Penge and Eltham and Chislehurst, both went to Labour with absolutely gigantic swings. It was clear months before the election that both these were going to go Labour. It was patently clear by spring 2024 that these were not "battleground" seats, but instead safe wins for Labour. Colossal flows of party campaigning resources were devoted to both seats right till polling day.
To the end, some party members (some seemingly not actually BBH residents) were openly calling on BBH party members, in BBH's own Whatsapp group, to go and campaign in and for B&P and E&C, instead of BBH. This was out-and-out sabotage of a winnable battleground seat, BBH. It should not be forgiven or forgotten. Above all it should not be excused, or repeated. The only logical lesson to be drawn is that local active members must trust their own judgements about whether a seat is winnable.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 6, 2024 13:38:45 GMT
This appears to be another of the ‘far reach’ seats that the party decided shouldn’t be fought actively with resources, including the candidate, diverted elsewhere. Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was another and I recall another in the Eastern region. While certainly hard on candidates (again selected very late in Bognor) and activists I can understand the principles of what was being done. While polls pointed toward.a landslide the party HQ, understandably, was sceptical. Indeed they may well have had polling indicating the softness of Labour preferences demonstrated in the final results. They wanted to be certain of seats that could produce a comfortable majority. If one of those seats was nearby (as Worthing West was in Bognor’s case) then the work needed to be done there. In some cases this was reinforced by preventing access to campaign tools online in non-target seats. Tough, and of course many members didn’t comply or sat out the election. But rational. One thing you can be sure of is that the cabal that runs Central Office doesn't care a shit about party members, and if they had a choice would do without them. The upset local posting here is simply reflecting what many members think, even if the approach was "rational". As so often, both perspectives have something to be said for them. The national party persuing a cautious targeting strategy was at least arguably totally rational on previous experience, and even if not it was surely understandable (much the same happened at the 1997 GE) However the not untypical heavy-handedness with which Labour HQ attempted to "enforce" said strategy was rather less defensible. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 6, 2024 15:03:53 GMT
One thing you can be sure of is that the cabal that runs Central Office doesn't care a shit about party members, and if they had a choice would do without them. The upset local posting here is simply reflecting what many members think, even if the approach was "rational". As so often, both perspectives have something to be said for them. The national party following a cautious national targeting strategy was arguably totally rational on previous experience, and even if not it was surely understandable (much the same happened at the 1997 GE) However the not untypical heavy-handedness with which Labour HQ attempted to "enforce" said strategy was rather less defensible. I don't wish to intrude into areas of local Labour grief but I can add some reflections on the Conservative Party similar attitudes. The truisms are that many local parties will often fail to see the bigger picture or just plain ignore it for personal and local reasons. They often overhype their local chances to get help for an unworthy cause. And their enthusiasm and poor quality canvass returns can excite silly expectations. On the other side CO can frequently treat enthusiastic local volunteers as if they were paid staff and be rude, domineering and officious in their response and their demands. They may insist on mutual aid from people who are not big picture zealots but local little people solely concerned with their own candidate and constituency. They would rather have a huge majority than help win the next door seat and that is their undoubted right because they are volunteers and not paid staff. CO must try and sell mutual aid with charm, reason and a smile (I was good at that). They will always win some support and often a lot of support. But they must leave the localists to enjoy the home event and not deny them the means to continue to mount their campaign. And they should listen to the sage heads in that constituency who may have more recent and better intelligence to offer about a rapidly changing scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Nov 6, 2024 15:13:42 GMT
I wrote the profile of this constituency in the Almanac section here. I did find a Labour win improbable, as it seemed obvious that the Tory lead in Biggin Hill, Hayes & Coney Hall, Bickley & Sundridge & that part of Darwin which is included would rack up a sizable Tory lead, and that this would be at least slighly supplemented by Bromley Common & Holwood and the small part of Shortlands & Park Langley which is included. Labour were almost certain to get a decent lead in Plaistow, though this is a small ward in electorate, and probably might expect a slight lead in Bromley Town, but that didn't appear to be nearly enough. Labour can be forgiven for thinking that this was an impossible seat. In the event, Labour must have been competitive in Bromley Common & Holwood, and I suspect not that far behind even in Hayes & Coney Hall, coupled with what must have been a very handy lead in Bromley Town. But there wasn't much of a clue in the 2022 local elections that the constituency as a whole could be competitive
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Nov 6, 2024 15:14:01 GMT
As so often, both perspectives have something to be said for them. The national party following a cautious national targeting strategy was arguably totally rational on previous experience, and even if not it was surely understandable (much the same happened at the 1997 GE) However the not untypical heavy-handedness with which Labour HQ attempted to "enforce" said strategy was rather less defensible. I don't wish to intrude into areas of local Labour grief but I can add some reflections on the Conservative Party similar attitudes. The truisms are that many local parties will often fail to see the bigger picture or just plain ignore it for personal and local reasons. They often overhype their local chances to get help for an unworthy cause. And their enthusiasm and poor quality canvass returns can excite silly expectations. On the other side CO can frequently treat enthusiastic local volunteers as if they were paid staff and be rude, domineering and officious in their response and their demands. They may insist on mutual aid from people who are not big picture zealots but local little people solely concerned with their own candidate and constituency. They would rather have a huge majority than help win the next door seat and that is their undoubted right because they are volunteers and not paid staff. CO must try and sell mutual aid with charm, reason and a smile (I was good at that). They will always win some support and often a lot of support. But they must leave the localists to enjoy the home event and not deny them the means to continue to mount their campaign. And they should listen to the sage heads in that constituency who may have more recent and better intelligence to offer about a rapidly changing scenario. Very fair words that would apply to any of the major parties. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 6, 2024 15:28:39 GMT
It's easy to assume with hindsight that a wider range of seats was winnable - that wasn't necessarily evident beforehand. It was the same with us to a degree. In Shropshire, we ran up a huge majority in Helen Morgan's seat and narrowly missed getting Matthew Green back in South Shropshire. Had we known Helen was going to win so easily, we could have certainly diverted resources and maybe won South Shropshire as well - but we've overstretched many times before and come away with nothing. Similarly in Westmoreland - Tim Farron got a ridiculous majority whilst we were nowhere near anywhere else in the county. In hindsight, we could have relaxed in W&L and put more effort into another seat, eg Penrith. But we'd have looked very stupid if the result of that had been to lose Westmoreland. It's always easy to see what you should have done with hindsight, not so easy at the time And both Labour and the LibDems spread themselves too thinly in 2019, whatever the changed national climate in the interim that was bound to have an effect this year. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,774 
|
Post by john07 on Nov 6, 2024 19:03:12 GMT
One thing you can be sure of is that the cabal that runs Central Office doesn't care a shit about party members, and if they had a choice would do without them. The upset local posting here is simply reflecting what many members think, even if the approach was "rational". As so often, both perspectives have something to be said for them. The national party persuing a cautious targeting strategy was at least arguably totally rational on previous experience, and even if not it was surely understandable (much the same happened at the 1997 GE) However the not untypical heavy-handedness with which Labour HQ attempted to "enforce" said strategy was rather less defensible. Nothing of that is new. I joined the Labour Party in mid-1974. By early 1974 I was on the Constituency Management Committee and then on the Stockport District party which was there to organise local elections. At my fist meeting I was appointed as Secretary. That left me in the front line of organising election campaigns and implementing the Regional Office policy of focussing all efforts on defending existing council seats. Some followed this and worked on the five or so seats being defended. Some ignored it and worked their own ward. But a lot did nothing at all on the grounds that they either worked their own ward or not at all. High handed directives from above often go down badly with volunteers. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 6, 2024 20:19:43 GMT
I wrote the profile of this constituency in the Almanac section here. I did find a Labour win improbable, as it seemed obvious that the Tory lead in Biggin Hill, Hayes & Coney Hall, Bickley & Sundridge & that part of Darwin which is included would rack up a sizable Tory lead, and that this would be at least slighly supplemented by Bromley Common & Holwood and the small part of Shortlands & Park Langley which is included. Labour were almost certain to get a decent lead in Plaistow, though this is a small ward in electorate, and probably might expect a slight lead in Bromley Town, but that didn't appear to be nearly enough. Labour can be forgiven for thinking that this was an impossible seat. In the event, Labour must have been competitive in Bromley Common & Holwood, and I suspect not that far behind even in Hayes & Coney Hall, coupled with what must have been a very handy lead in Bromley Town. But there wasn't much of a clue in the 2022 local elections that the constituency as a whole could be competitive Darwin must be a pain to leaflet/canvass. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Nov 6, 2024 23:13:55 GMT
One thing you can be sure of is that the cabal that runs Central Office doesn't care a shit about party members, and if they had a choice would do without them. The upset local posting here is simply reflecting what many members think, even if the approach was "rational". As so often, both perspectives have something to be said for them. The national party persuing a cautious targeting strategy was at least arguably totally rational on previous experience, and even if not it was surely understandable (much the same happened at the 1997 GE) However the not untypical heavy-handedness with which Labour HQ attempted to "enforce" said strategy was rather less defensible. Yet more proof HQs are useless and should be severely de-financed. Put on the money on ground, not in offices. |
|
