Woking

[bigfatron]

Apr 2, 2024 11:56:02 GMT The Bishop said:

Apr 2, 2024 7:13:13 GMT bigfatron said:

Despite Graham’s relentless assertions across multiple seats, the Lib Dems will fight their forty top targets hard, including Woking, and will start as the clear alternative in this seat to the Tories.

Hopefully both us and Labour will avoid the fatuous lunacy of 2019 where at times both be parties seemed more intent on stopping the other from winning genuine targets than they were from winning their own…

I'm prepared to believe my party also did this to a degree, but if Labour attempted anything as egregious as the LibDems did in Kensington I would be interested to hear of it.

(before you mention Wimbledon, we were a clear second there in 2017 so were quite entitled to campaign properly - same is true of Finchley)

I’m not going to try to defend our campaign in 2019 - suffice to say I spent some days trying to kick Raab out, which (fortunately) was the target to which those in my constituency were pointed…

[stb12]

Apr 2, 2024 11:56:02 GMT The Bishop said:

Apr 2, 2024 7:13:13 GMT bigfatron said:

Despite Graham’s relentless assertions across multiple seats, the Lib Dems will fight their forty top targets hard, including Woking, and will start as the clear alternative in this seat to the Tories.

Hopefully both us and Labour will avoid the fatuous lunacy of 2019 where at times both be parties seemed more intent on stopping the other from winning genuine targets than they were from winning their own…

I'm prepared to believe my party also did this to a degree, but if Labour attempted anything as egregious as the LibDems did in Kensington I would be interested to hear of it.

(before you mention Wimbledon, we were a clear second there in 2017 so were quite entitled to campaign properly - same is true of Finchley)

Ultimately anyone is entitled to campaign anywhere surely

[The Bishop]

Yes, that is perfectly true as far as it goes. Others are also quite entitled to critique those decisions.

[finsobruce]

Apr 2, 2024 12:05:50 GMT stb12 said:

Apr 2, 2024 11:56:02 GMT The Bishop said:

I'm prepared to believe my party also did this to a degree, but if Labour attempted anything as egregious as the LibDems did in Kensington I would be interested to hear of it.

(before you mention Wimbledon, we were a clear second there in 2017 so were quite entitled to campaign properly - same is true of Finchley)

Ultimately anyone is entitled to campaign anywhere surely

You'd be surprised * how many people think this isn't the case when it suits them, and that is within parties themselves never mind with regard to your opponents!

*You wouldn't.

[The Bishop]

Apr 1, 2024 21:45:22 GMT batman said:

more often than not, yes. A particularly noteworthy example is the Liberal Democrats' ridiculous belief that they could beat Kate Hoey in Vauxhall in 2017. In fact she slightly increased her majority which was already over 20,000.

They actually sent significant numbers of party workers there in the last 48 hours - in pursuit of the political equivalent of a desert mirage.

Meanwhile, not that far away they lost Richmond Park by a few dozen votes. As you will of course remember

[stb12]

Apr 2, 2024 12:07:23 GMT The Bishop said:

Yes, that is perfectly true as far as it goes. Others are also quite entitled to critique those decisions.

Of course and as always I come at this from a non-party perspective, but short of a formal alliance where candidates aren’t stood against each other then I don’t see how you can credibly criticise a different party for campaigning in a seat. For the Kensington example the Lib Dems obviously thought it was somewhere that could suit their hardcore remain message, for this upcoming election Labour are so strong in the polls they‘ll probably want to look at at least building a base in some traditional no hope areas

I accept criticising campaign tactics and things like bar charts can be a different matter

[stb12]

Apr 2, 2024 7:46:09 GMT bigfatron said:

Being Lib Dems there is a complicated structure of targets of differing ranks - then there are the usual issues of geography (if there is no target in a county then maybe the ‘best’ seat becomes a de facto target as most activists won’t travel more than thirty miles or so).

But we seem to be:
a) far more realistic in our aspirations than 2019, targeting many fewer seats than 2019, and
b) more pragmatic and accepting that we may need to soft pedal in some places while Labour soft pedal in others to our mutual, but informal, convenience.

I still expect the few genuine 3-way marginals and one or two (Hallam?) Labour v Lib Dem seats to be keenly fought by both, but there will be none of Swinson’s hubristic nonsense…

Ed Davey does seem to be going in very hard on the idea that Labour and the Lib Dems aren’t fighting each other at all in this election. I can see he’s understandably being pragmatic with targeting and pretty much all those targets are Tory seats, but it could still come back to bite a bit if Labour don’t entirely reciprocate. Plus when Labour are in government the Lib Dems will be in opposition to them and presumably hoping to start challenging for more Labour held seats again (unless the election isn’t quite as expected and a coalition or confidence agreement has to happen)

[batman]

There's a qualitative difference here. In 2019, there was literally nothing except a hunch to explain the Liberal Democrats pouring resources into certain seats. In 2024, the opinion polls are strong evidence that Labour can indeed win, at least in these circumstances, in various seats that would normally not be winnable at all. On the basis of opinion polls, Labour would have some moral justification for campaigning hard in, for example, Woking or Epsom & Ewell, even though there are obviously seats which might be a better bet for various reasons. Whereas in 2019 the Lib Dems tried to argue that only they or the Tories could win Kensington, which was a lie. If however Labour were to campaign hard in Winchester or Harrogate, to give two further examples, that would be ridiculous & not justified by any polls, or even reasonable hunches.

[graham]

On the same basis, it would be absurd for Labour to be making such claims in North Devon or North Cornwall.

[stb12]

Apr 2, 2024 14:02:06 GMT batman said:

There's a qualitative difference here. In 2019, there was literally nothing except a hunch to explain the Liberal Democrats pouring resources into certain seats. In 2024, the opinion polls are strong evidence that Labour can indeed win, at least in these circumstances, in various seats that would normally not be winnable at all. On the basis of opinion polls, Labour would have some moral justification for campaigning hard in, for example, Woking or Epsom & Ewell, even though there are obviously seats which might be a better bet for various reasons. Whereas in 2019 the Lib Dems tried to argue that only they or the Tories could win Kensington, which was a lie. If however Labour were to campaign hard in Winchester or Harrogate, to give two further examples, that would be ridiculous & not justified by any polls, or even reasonable hunches.

I suppose my line of argument is mainly around this idea, why does a party need that kind of justification? Going in hard for a certain seat may be a total and embarrassing waste of time, money and resources but they’re still entitled to do it if they want. There might be a common interest in getting rid of the Tories after all these years but without Labour and the Lib Dems having a formal pact surely they can’t expect anything from each other as such

[bigfatron]

No moral justification is required, I agree - it is a purely pragmatic judgement.

However in a world of finite money and staff, it is a waste using scarce resources fighting for a seat that you are unlikely to win - this especially applies to the Lib Dems, but is a valid point in respect of Labour also.

And, in a ‘throw the bums out’ election like this, lots of three way fights risk a number of seats left in Tory hands that could be shared between Labour and Lib Dems with the application of a modicum of common sense on both sides.

[batman]

Apr 2, 2024 14:50:58 GMT graham said:

On the same basis, it would be absurd for Labour to be making such claims in North Devon or North Cornwall.

it would, and I don't think it's remotely likely they will.

[iang]

The targeting in 2919 was initially based on whether places voted remain, which led to some poor decisions, for example pouring a lot of effort into Warwick & Leamington, which resulted in a meagre increase and a distant third place. There was an assumption at the beginning of the campaign that Brexit would change voting patterns drastically and all previous bets were off, which turned out not to be the case, or at least not in a positive way for us (I presume there was something of the same rationale for targeting Vauxhall in 2017, Kate Hoey being a Brexiteer)

[YL]

Apr 2, 2024 12:28:57 GMT stb12 said:

Ed Davey does seem to be going in very hard on the idea that Labour and the Lib Dems aren’t fighting each other at all in this election. I can see he’s understandably being pragmatic with targeting and pretty much all those targets are Tory seats, but it could still come back to bite a bit if Labour don’t entirely reciprocate. Plus when Labour are in government the Lib Dems will be in opposition to them and presumably hoping to start challenging for more Labour held seats again (unless the election isn’t quite as expected and a coalition or confidence agreement has to happen)

My letter box can vouch for the fact that the Lib Dems and Labour are fighting each other somewhere, but it would be extremely surprising were that not the case.

For me the point is that the bulk of the Lib Dems' target seats are not realistic Labour seats (well, not outside of some sort of reverse 1931 scenario, anyway) and so on simple pragmatic grounds it does not make sense for Labour to put much effort into them, and the reverse is even more the case. So, outside a handful of seats which both parties have realistic ambitions in (perhaps Woking is one) you get something which looks like a de facto pact by default.

It also seems to me at the moment that Labour are being relatively cautious about targeting. This makes sense in many ways -- prioritise winning a majority over reaching out for some huge landslide, even if the polls hint at the latter -- but it does mean that they might let the Lib Dems establish themselves in some of those potential three-way contests. But there really aren't that many of them, and if the huge landslide comes then the national campaign will probably mean Labour take most of the other stretch targets anyway.

[finsobruce]

Apr 2, 2024 16:30:43 GMT iang said:

The targeting in 2919 was initially based on whether places voted remain, which led to some poor decisions, for example pouring a lot of effort into Warwick & Leamington, which resulted in a meagre increase and a distant third place. There was an assumption at the beginning of the campaign that Brexit would change voting patterns drastically and all previous bets were off, which turned out not to be the case, or at least not in a positive way for us (I presume there was something of the same rationale for targeting Vauxhall in 2017, Kate Hoey being a Brexiteer)

I think i've spotted a flaw in the strategy.

[gwynthegriff]

Apr 2, 2024 17:37:21 GMT finsobruce said:

Apr 2, 2024 16:30:43 GMT iang said:

The targeting in 2919 was initially based on whether places voted remain, which led to some poor decisions, for example pouring a lot of effort into Warwick & Leamington, which resulted in a meagre increase and a distant third place. There was an assumption at the beginning of the campaign that Brexit would change voting patterns drastically and all previous bets were off, which turned out not to be the case, or at least not in a positive way for us (I presume there was something of the same rationale for targeting Vauxhall in 2017, Kate Hoey being a Brexiteer)

I think i've spotted a flaw in the strategy.

I always encourage people to take the long view.

[batman]

If mankind is still alive.

[finsobruce]

Apr 2, 2024 18:39:11 GMT batman said:

If mankind is still alive.

Your arms hangin' limp at your sides

Your legs got nothin' to do

EDIT: If you ever wondered why Zager and Evans never managed another hit, here is their follow up "Mr Turnkey" which appears to be a song about a rapist committing suicide in prison. enjoy.

[iang]

I think I've just inadvertently revealed the extent to which our major success in 2019, where all our targets are gained and certain posters shut down their keyboards in despair is crucially dependant on the discovery of time travel

[flagman]

I think its Lib Dems for the taking and they don’t have to do much to win. Just keep bringing up the Hilton Hotel is still not completed and openand the council paid for the hotel knives and forks which has upset everybody . I can’t win on the horses , this will probably be my beefy bet to continue losing on the horses.