|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Sept 14, 2024 9:11:40 GMT
As sanders has come in for quite a bit of stick from many of us over recent weeks I think he deserves some credit for his prediction this week. But he makes such predictions all the time. It is inevitable that he will get it right from time to time. The term 'stopped clock' comes to mind. And, as an example of a distinctly less accurate prediction - London Fields. There is admittedly some fuzziness as to just how bad the prediction was - a ward in which one Labour councillor has polled about 400 votes more than either of her Labour colleagues in each of the last three scheduled council elections, and in which the lead Green candidate did the same by comparison with her party colleagues in 2022, is likely to have enough volatility to reduce the accuracy of any predictions about by-elections, and sanders made some somewhat conflicting predictions about this one (from at least a probable independent victory to a likely marginal Labour victory because of a split opposition vote). But what does seem clear is that, despite a distinctly respectable showing by the independent candidate, none of sanders' predictions (to use an Americanism) landed in the ballpark. The independent candidate (a technically accurate but still mildly incongruous one, given the formal endorsements from both the Greens and the Socialist Independents) gained just under a third of the votes, comparable in percentage terms to the lead Green's result in 2022 and in numeric terms to those of her colleagues. But despite a somewhat sharp (if generally predictable, given inner London general election results) fall in the Labour vote since 2022, Labour still obtained an absolute majority of the votes. This does not seem to have been a by-election which, given even a modest amount of Labour campaigning, was ever at all likely to result in a Labour defeat. And, unless Labour is doing a lot worse in the polls nationally (as admittedly, on historic grounds, is quite possible in mid-term) or there are some specific major new issues working against Labour locally, London Fields looks like a (to put it politely) distinctly ambitious target for any other party in 2026. |
|
|
|
Post by sanders on Sept 14, 2024 9:37:01 GMT
But he makes such predictions all the time. It is inevitable that he will get it right from time to time. The term 'stopped clock' comes to mind. And, as an example of a distinctly less accurate prediction - London Fields. There is admittedly some fuzziness as to just how bad the prediction was - a ward in which one Labour councillor has polled about 400 votes more than either of her Labour colleagues in each of the last three scheduled council elections, and in which the lead Green candidate did the same by comparison with her party colleagues in 2022, is likely to have enough volatility to reduce the accuracy of any predictions about by-elections, and sanders made some somewhat conflicting predictions about this one (from at least a probable independent victory to a likely marginal Labour victory because of a split opposition vote). But what does seem clear is that, despite a distinctly respectable showing by the independent candidate, none of sanders' predictions (to use an Americanism) landed in the ballpark. The independent candidate (a technically accurate but still mildly incongruous one, given the formal endorsements from both the Greens and the Socialist Independents) gained just under a third of the votes, comparable in percentage terms to the lead Green's result in 2022 and in numeric terms to those of her colleagues. But despite a somewhat sharp (if generally predictable, given inner London general election results) fall in the Labour vote since 2022, Labour still obtained an absolute majority of the votes. This does not seem to have been a by-election which, given even a modest amount of Labour campaigning, was ever at all likely to result in a Labour defeat. And, unless Labour is doing a lot worse in the polls nationally (as admittedly, on historic grounds, is quite possible in mid-term) or there are some specific major new issues working against Labour locally, London Fields looks like a (to put it politely) distinctly ambitious target for any other party in 2026. Not if the Green Party run. Look at neighbouring De Beauvoir ward. People don’t like Gaza independent vibes. London Fielde isn’t a Muslim area. So the result makes sense really. Green-endorsed =/= a bona fide Green candidate. Proximity effect bias on full display. I used to live in Hackney. I’m not that bright quite honestly. I was the only one to predict a Tory gain at Redcar last week. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 14, 2024 10:17:08 GMT
As sanders has come in for quite a bit of stick from many of us over recent weeks I think he deserves some credit for his prediction this week. He predicted that Labour would lose all but one of its six defences, in the event they held all but one. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Sept 14, 2024 10:35:31 GMT
As sanders has come in for quite a bit of stick from many of us over recent weeks I think he deserves some credit for his prediction this week. He predicted that Labour would lose all but one of its six defences, in the event they held all but one. And yet he didn't have the wildest prediction of the week - which was surely a Green gain in North Norfolk. Of the ones he did predict - Bow and London Fields did seem highly unlikely but not totally impossible, Romsey a bit wilder than that. Bridges, however, was not an unreasonable punt. The result suggests that both the Lib Dems and Greens had a go, with neither being able to convince they were the main challenger so Labour survived on the split. This is not a complaint - the Lib Dems had every right to try and starting from 2nd we had the stronger case to make, so it was a much poorer result for us. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 14, 2024 11:07:48 GMT
Of marginal interest to me is is this the first time that RefUK have stood in any election where the 2nd preference of their voters is known? Their 55 voters gave their second preferences to Con 20, Ind 11, Lab 3, Green 1. Nobody ( or LD)20. That’s a very small sample size but is of marginal interest, with quite a few caveats, in terms of what might have happened if REFUK hadn’t stood/ hadn’t stood in specific Constituencies in the GE. There was a previous Scottish byelection with Reform last month, no? West Lothian IIRC. And their vote in that one was considerably bigger, so maybe the splits will be slightly more meaningful. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Sept 14, 2024 11:28:34 GMT
Of marginal interest to me is is this the first time that RefUK have stood in any election where the 2nd preference of their voters is known? Their 55 voters gave their second preferences to Con 20, Ind 11, Lab 3, Green 1. Nobody ( or LD)20. That’s a very small sample size but is of marginal interest, with quite a few caveats, in terms of what might have happened if REFUK hadn’t stood/ hadn’t stood in specific Constituencies in the GE. There was a previous Scottish byelection with Reform last month, no? West Lothian IIRC. And their vote in that one was considerably bigger, so maybe the splits will be slightly more meaningful. Although at point of elimination there were only SNP and Labour left in that case and about 2/3 of the Reform vote didn't transfer. It is possible to work things out from the full preference profile, but that takes some work, especially as in this case it hasn't been published in a very helpful order... |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 14, 2024 11:57:28 GMT
I think the only thing of marginal interest there are Labour being slightly more transfer friendly than the indy - including from the Greens, which given the indy's ex-SNP connections you wouldn't always expect. Conservatives benefit most from Reform transfers, but that's no great surprise. Of marginal interest to me is is this the first time that RefUK have stood in any election where the 2nd preference of their voters is known? Their 55 voters gave their second preferences to Con 20, Ind 11, Lab 3, Green 1. Nobody ( or LD)20. Well, technically they could all have 2nd preffed the LD.  |
|
|
|
Post by kevinf on Sept 14, 2024 18:20:38 GMT
He predicted that Labour would lose all but one of its six defences, in the event they held all but one. And yet he didn't have the wildest prediction of the week - which was surely a Green gain in North Norfolk. Of the ones he did predict - Bow and London Fields did seem highly unlikely but not totally impossible, Romsey a bit wilder than that. Bridges, however, was not an unreasonable punt. The result suggests that both the Lib Dems and Greens had a go, with neither being able to convince they were the main challenger so Labour survived on the split. This is not a complaint - the Lib Dems had every right to try and starting from 2nd we had the stronger case to make, so it was a much poorer result for us. Yeah, I have no idea where my North Norfolk prediction came from….Genuinely no idea! |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 14, 2024 18:23:42 GMT
There was a previous Scottish byelection with Reform last month, no? West Lothian IIRC. And their vote in that one was considerably bigger, so maybe the splits will be slightly more meaningful. Although at point of elimination there were only SNP and Labour left in that case and about 2/3 of the Reform vote didn't transfer. It is possible to work things out from the full preference profile, but that takes some work, especially as in this case it hasn't been published in a very helpful order... If I've got this right, the Reform second preferences in the Whitburn/Blackburn by-election on 29th August were (out of 519): 131 to the Conservatives (25.2%) 51 to Labour (9.8%) 44 to the Independence for Scotland Party (8.5%) 30 to the Lib Dems (5.8%) 27 to the SNP (5.2%) 13 to the Green Party (2.5%) 223 non-transferable (43.0%) |
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Sept 16, 2024 21:18:38 GMT
I would also note the absence of a Green candidate where the same candidate has stood repeatedly in all recent elections and was the candidate in the GE so is clearly still active. I do, therefore, wonder whether the Greens and possibly Lib Dems are tacitly supporting the indy?
According to the council website, the Norfolk Lib Dem group has been renamed from "Liberal Democrats" to "Liberal Democrat Alliance", and Simon Ring has immediately been added to it. |
|
