|
|
Post by islington on May 31, 2024 22:32:33 GMT
But I'm with Mr Palmer on this one. Assuming that the Lib Dems' national polling stays at 9 or 10% - and it shows no sign of shifting so far, although of course there's a long way to go -, I don't think they can possibly pack such a meagre vote so efficiently that they will poll 35% in seats like this. (In fact even 24% sounds rather high, although not totally implausible.) I'm surprised you think that it would be impossible. R&T have the notional 2019 result as 54-27-17, Con-LD-Lab, so if you think the winning line is 35% then it requires LD to put on an additional 8% in this constituency. Even with (for the sake of argument) a falling national vote share, that just isn't that much in an area that is strong locally, and wasn't targetted in 2019.
I don't think we'll win some incredible number of seats, I'd be extremely happy if we got past the SNP. We may well not win this seat (I don't even know if we're trying!) but the idea that winning seats like this is somehow impossible is just not sensible.
Well, I don't think I'd go quite so far as to call it 'impossible' but I'd be willing to put my name to 'highly unlikely' - always assuming, of course, that the LDs' national share on 4 Jul is in line with current polling. While I accept that the Lib Dems may surprise me in the odd seat here and there - and I suppose Bicester is as good a candidate as any - what I do think is virtually impossible is that the LDs, on current polling, will get to a potentially winning vote of 30 or 35% in scores of seats all across southern England. I mean, I know about tactical voting and all the rest of it, but to get 30 or 35% in a large number of seats, while only polling 9% nationally, implies an implausibly low vote share in seats where the LDs have no chance. Well, you may be about to prove me wrong, but I really don't believe that such accurate targeting is a practical possibility. And anyway, I'd point out that in 2019 the LDs won 11 seats with 11.6% of the national vote, so in predicting 17 seats from 9% I an actually making some allowance for increased tactical voting, albeit not so much as you think I should. It's a fascinating question and one of the key things to look out for on election night. We have, on the one hand, the Lib Dems' strength in local government elections and their sometimes stunning performance in Westminster byelections; as against, on the other hand, their wretchedly low polling numbers that, at least as yet, show no real sign of shifting. One of these two totally contradictory data sets is leading us astray; but which one? |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,436 
|
Post by iain on May 31, 2024 23:33:29 GMT
I think you might be underestimating the hundreds and hundreds of seats where the Lib Dems are going to poll 2,3 or 4%. If memory serves correctly, in the by-elections in the last Parliament with just 2 exceptions (Chester and Mid Beds) the Lib Dems either won (and generally won comfortably) or lost their deposit (sometimes with an embarrassingly tiny vote). Mid Beds was of course the only real three-way by-election fight. Chester remains inexplicable. Lib Dem high command is totally disinterested in share of the national vote which is seen as a pointless goal that does not actually win seats. Hence running a "safety first" national campaign with very mild policy proposals and nothing particularly distinctive just cheery feel-good stunts. It's something of a reaction against the memories of 2010 and 2019 when frothy national polling led to fanciful aspirations of hundreds of seats. I think this seat is right at the edge of what Lib Dems might win but the the hard facts are that for Labour to win here they have to be getting as big a swing (if not more) than nationally despite not targeting it AND not having won a single council seat during the whole parliament whereas the Lib Dems have won almost everywhere in the constituency for two years running AND a modest but non-negligible chunk of the seat is in a currently Lib Dem held seat. Doesn't seem likely to me at all that Labour will leap over the Lib Dems here. That isn't necessarily in the Lib Dem's favour though. If anything it means the notional result flatters their underlying vote share here as they are already maxed out in that area and would also have won lots of tactical Labour voters who might no longer feel the need to vote tactically. Kidlington was always pretty good ground for Labour before it was moved into OxWab Or the notional result undershoots the Lib Dem share on account of no campaign in some areas. These things work both ways (not that I particularly need to tell you of all people!). On the whole I’d say the new seat is of much more import than the old seat when it comes to the Lib Dems given our reliance on local campaigns. Earley & Woodley, for example, could see an almost total collapse. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Jun 1, 2024 6:11:22 GMT
To demonstrate the potential for a split between constituencies where the Lib Dems work and those they don't, consider the recent Sheffield City Council election. Sheffield has 28 wards, and in recent years the Lib Dems have consistently tried hard in 11 of these and had what have been more or less paper candidates in the other 17. They have consistently won a majority of the 11; indeed in 2023 they won all of them (but in 2024 only 7).
In 2024 the average Lib Dem vote share across the 11 wards where they try was 40.1%, with the lowest being 31.9%. Their average vote share in the other 17 wards was just 6.6%, with the highest being 9.0%.
Let's assume the Lib Dems try in 50 constituencies, and don't seriously try in the remaining 581 (excluding NI and Chorley), and use the above average vote shares for the two cases. Doing this (and assuming an equal number of votes in each constituency) gives a national vote share of 9.3%, quite in line with the current polls, but I think that if the Lib Dems got 40% where they're trying they'd win more than half of those seats.
Of course this is a fairly crude calculation, and I don't know whether my guess of 50 for the number of the seats where they're seriously trying is particularly close. But I don't think the idea that they might be averaging under 7%, or even lower, where they're not seriously trying is implausible, given their strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 1, 2024 7:05:31 GMT
To demonstrate the potential for a split between constituencies where the Lib Dems work and those they don't, consider the recent Sheffield City Council election. Sheffield has 28 wards, and in recent years the Lib Dems have consistently tried hard in 11 of these and had what have been more or less paper candidates in the other 17. They have consistently won a majority of the 11; indeed in 2023 they won all of them (but in 2024 only 7). In 2024 the average Lib Dem vote share across the 11 wards where they try was 40.1%, with the lowest being 31.9%. Their average vote share in the other 17 wards was just 6.6%, with the highest being 9.0%. Let's assume the Lib Dems try in 50 constituencies, and don't seriously try in the remaining 581 (excluding NI and Chorley), and use the above average vote shares for the two cases. Doing this (and assuming an equal number of votes in each constituency) gives a national vote share of 9.3%, quite in line with the current polls, but I think that if the Lib Dems got 40% where they're trying they'd win more than half of those seats. Of course this is a fairly crude calculation, and I don't know whether my guess of 50 for the number of the seats where they're seriously trying is particularly close. But I don't think the idea that they might be averaging under 7%, or even lower, where they're not seriously trying is implausible, given their strategy. Indeed. And they have been assisted by Labour making very public where they aren’t trying, at least at a national level. One of the outcomes of the Mid-Bedfordshire by-election was (informally) an acceptance that Labour would define their reach and the Lib Dems would work with that outcome. There are, obviously, a small number of seats where the two parties must and should be the rivals for the seat but it’s pretty clear that some paths have been deliberately cleared on both sides. Of course that doesn’t mean that the local parties, of either party, entirely accept that. Nor does it mean that such arrangements can stop the “rising tides lift all boats” effect of a general election campaign. If Labour remains close to current polling levels, without very effective local squeezing, the Lib Dems will be thwarted in some of their targets. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Jun 1, 2024 7:43:40 GMT
Can’t see the discussion on PB, I normally don’t wade through the BTL stuff there.
These sorts of seats are going to be determined by relative amounts of ground campaign effort. Both have significant graduate populations, a heavily Lib Dem local government base, and no sign of much by way of Labour organisation. Rogerg makes a persuasive case as to why Labour aren’t in the frame but the question is about how much of a factor the weak national LD position is, and whether local Tory attacks on Lib Dem councils make any impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jun 7, 2024 16:08:46 GMT
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,142
|
Post by cogload on Jun 13, 2024 16:44:19 GMT
If twatter is correct it seems the local Tories be bigging up Labour here (2 horse race etc) on the literature. Suppress that vote!
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 13, 2024 16:57:49 GMT
If twatter is correct it seems the local Tories be bigging up Labour here (2 horse race etc) on the literature. Suppress that vote! Telling people to vote for another party other than your own is never a good strategy, however clever you think you are being by doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 13, 2024 17:48:06 GMT
If twatter is correct it seems the local Tories be bigging up Labour here (2 horse race etc) on the literature. Suppress that vote! Because the Tories are very public spirited and would not want the public to get the wrong ideas. Do people actually fall for this? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jun 13, 2024 19:04:02 GMT
If twatter is correct it seems the local Tories be bigging up Labour here (2 horse race etc) on the literature. Suppress that vote! Because the Tories are very public spirited and would not want the public to get the wrong ideas. Do people actually fall for this? In 2017 when the LDs finished 2 votes behind the SNP in NE Fife, both the SNP and the Tories had been claiming it was a Con/SNP contest. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofkrautrock on Jun 13, 2024 20:02:44 GMT
They are both quoting an Electoral Calculus guesstimate from a month ago. Labour’s leaflet helpfully has a QR code that links to EC and its current, very different guesstimate…..
|
|
Ports
Non-Aligned
Posts: 605
|
Post by Ports on Jun 13, 2024 20:28:41 GMT
They are both quoting an Electoral Calculus guesstimate from a month ago. Labour’s leaflet helpfully has a QR code that links to EC and its current, very different guesstimate….. This is the case in quite a few similar seats in the area. However in most of those Labour only have sent out one leaflet anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2024 6:40:47 GMT
Harrison is good - if it comes to a fight between Eton (Harrison) and Dulwich (Farage) in a Tory leadership race, Eton should prevail over the South London cesspit.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 15, 2024 7:17:00 GMT
Dulwich really is not a cesspit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2024 7:17:49 GMT
Dulwich really is not a cesspit! The school is pretty awful, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 15, 2024 10:52:51 GMT
Harrison is good - if it comes to a fight between Eton (Harrison) and Dulwich (Farage) in a Tory leadership race, Eton should prevail over the South London cesspit. That appears to me to be a monumentally wrong-headed and stupid remark, predicated on a set of circumstances unlikely in the extreme to occur with added aggravation. Dulwich has attractive parts with some fine architecture and an important and significant art gallery. The premise of judging candidate quality on the basis of a misunderstanding of the qualities of where they were schooled (in quite different periods) is beyond absurdity. What was the point of this post? |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,913
|
Post by YL on Jun 15, 2024 10:56:34 GMT
Given Eton's recent track record, I guess Dulwich would be the better option. Not if it's someone who was well known during their time at the school to be an open fascist, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 15, 2024 11:06:25 GMT
Dulwich really is not a cesspit! The school is pretty awful, IMHO. Well Mr Heap, what exactly do you know about that school other than 4th hand anecdote? |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jun 15, 2024 11:46:47 GMT
Dulwich really is not a cesspit! The school is pretty awful, IMHO. Are you an alumnus of Dulwich College as well, then? |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jun 15, 2024 12:05:36 GMT
What me? No.
|
|
