Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,892
|
Post by Tony Otim on Mar 20, 2012 9:45:36 GMT
Speak for yourself. Personally I prefera limited number of candidates, basically the big three plus UKIP, Green and BNP and maybe one party of the far-left variety, Respect or TUSC or whatever. Manchester Central would really not be that interesting, except I suppose to see how much the LD vote plummets compared with 2010. Otherwise yet another safe Labour seat which will tell us nothing about the state of the true electoral battleground and a very good result for Labour Cannock would have been perfect  and chance of a nice marginal coming through because of PC or Mayor elections ? Stuart here, outside chance. Oldham might well be considered marginal, but it doesn't really tell us much. Indeed, I would guess that currently there are few Labour seats with the LDs second that would tell us that much, however marginal they are. To start getting a better picture, we'd need a seat which wasn't currently Labour held, which we are yet to get. A Con-Lab marginal would be very interesting as would a Con-LD battle. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 20, 2012 12:26:09 GMT
Yes. What's happening with Chris Huhne's trial?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 20, 2012 13:12:01 GMT
Just to nip back to the candidate number question Here's a graph showing the number of candidates in by-elections held in the 1992-1997 parliament, that's the dark blue line. The pale line shows the difference between ballot paper sizes at the by-elections. Not meaning to be rude or anything, but what the F are you on about? That graph doesn't seem to have any relevance to the number of candidates in the by-elections. I remember (without even needing to look it up) that Newbury had a then-record number of 19 candidates, but your graph shows 4. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 13:15:15 GMT
Dual axes, John.
And it's not the most scientific study, I just thought of checking out what kind of statistics would come form putting in the figures and letting Excel do its magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 20, 2012 13:20:22 GMT
Dual axes, John. And it's not the most scientific study, I just thought of checking out what kind of statistics would come form putting in the figures and letting Excel do its magic. Perhaps I should re-phrase the question. Not meaning to be rude or anything, but what the F are you on about? That graph doesn't seem to have any relevance to the number of candidates in the by-elections. I remember (without even needing to look it up) that Newbury had a then-record number of 19 candidates, but your graph shows 4. And what the F does "The pale line shows the difference between ballot paper sizes at the by-elections" mean? How can a pale blue line show the difference between one thing? The "ballot paper size" at a by-election is a function of the number of candidates and the size taken on the paper for each candidate. So you are measuring the difference between what and what? |
|
|
|
Post by stepney on Mar 20, 2012 14:15:51 GMT
Just to nip back to the candidate number question Here's a graph showing the number of candidates in by-elections held in the 1992-1997 parliament, that's the dark blue line. The pale line shows the difference between ballot paper sizes at the by-elections.  Now the same for the current parliament - in two cases, fewer candidates at the by-election than at the General  I think your dark blue line is actually the number of candidates at the 1992/2010 General Election, not the by-election, and the difference line is the additional number of candidates at the by-election. The dual axes don't make it easy. Can I suggest a change? You're a Lib Dem, you'll probably find it easier to draw bar charts:  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 14:26:28 GMT
I did consider bar charts, actually! I haven't done a great job of explaining myself, tbf, though it was quite early in the morning.... Having read the posts on candidate numbers, I figured that looking at the number of candidates in by-elections compared to the corresponding general election would have been interesting, even if it was not directly relevant to the debate! So if I have it right, we've got 1992-7, during which every by-election had more candidates, and the current parliament, where overall the pattern is for about the same or fewer candidates in the subsequent by-elections. For the sake of finishing this off (and I think it's best if I did finish it off!!), here's the last parliament, with some curiosities knocking the already dubious exercise off course: Sedgefield was a record breaking ballot anyway, so the drop in numbers might not be a surprise, and Speaker Michael Martin didn't have a 'normal' ballot. So, yeah, it's more doktorbian silliness. Generally, by-elections this term have not attracted greater numbers of candidates, unlike 92-97, and the pattern could be said to have looked like going that way during the last election. The end!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 19:10:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 19:48:33 GMT
According to this link - labourlist.org/2012/03/organisation-committee-report/The Committee also agreed: • To trigger a further 14 early parliamentary selections (all 3 seats in Brighton & Hove based on the anticipated new boundaries, Carlisle, Redcar, Crewe & Nantwich, Gillingham & Rainham, Milton Keynes N, Reading E, Bristol S, Gloucester, Cannock Chase, Stafford, Tamworth & Staffs).
• A timetable for selecting mayoral candidates where referendums result in a “yes” vote (freeze date for being a member with voting rights of 5 May, short-listing by panels of a mixture of Regional Board and CLP reps on 16 May, OMOV ballot goes out on 25 May, hustings meetings by 10 June, ballot closes on 13 June and results declared on 15 June). The same ballot dates will apply to the NEC and NPF elections and the Police Commissioner selections.• Labour MPs selected as Mayoral or Police Commissioner candidates will have to resign from the Commons and trigger by-elections. • Guidelines for reorganising CLPs in January 2013 on the new boundaries.
• Model candidate contracts which involve a commitment to a lot of campaigning!
• Labour Movement for Europe and Labour Finance & Industry Group are to become formal affiliates of the Party. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 20:24:32 GMT
suspect all the candidates will resign together and spark all the elections the same day ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 20:26:07 GMT
They don't have to be so co-ordinated. Byelection timetables only start when the writ is moved. They can resign in April or June or August and the clock won't start.
I would assume that all parties would be of the view that having byelections in November would be the best thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 20, 2012 20:34:52 GMT
Holding the by-elections on the same day as the Police elections could lead to a distorted result due to differential turnout.
E.g. if there is a higher turnout in Manchester Central due to the by-election compared to other parts of Greater Manchester that would potentially benefit Labour. Probably won't matter in Gtr Man, but could be crucial in more marginal areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 20:48:37 GMT
as a lot seem to be labour candidates in safe seats the timing may not matter, but having a nice by election in Coventry would be good for whoever wins Labour PCC nomination.
as a lot will resign shortly will we have a mid June spree of by elections, Novemeber seems too far off
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Mar 30, 2012 9:58:59 GMT
I think Labour may have gone off the idea of a Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election after last night.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 10:01:56 GMT
I think Labour may have gone off the idea of a Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election after last night. you think Byrne could have won the nomination Also that seat is not the samne as Bradford West |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 30, 2012 10:05:35 GMT
And, again, would not be contested by Gorgeous in any case.......
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Mar 30, 2012 10:09:12 GMT
I think Labour may have gone off the idea of a Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election after last night. you think Byrne could have won the nomination Also that seat is not the samne as Bradford West I don't think he would have made a move for it if he didn't think he could win. I would say that Hodge Hill is in a very similar state to Bradford West, massive biraderi dependent votes. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 30, 2012 10:09:56 GMT
No - by madam instead
|
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Mar 30, 2012 10:10:01 GMT
And, again, would not be contested by Gorgeous in any case....... No, you'd get Madam instead. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 30, 2012 10:11:18 GMT
Yes, but unless Madam makes a comeback from her "ill health" who would be in a position to exploit that?? And that LB thinks he can win the nomination does not - to put it kindly - mean that he actually will  |
|
