|
Post by uhurasmazda on Sept 26, 2018 9:13:11 GMT
I've just discovered that, contrary to what I'd previously been aware of, Social Credit in the UK didn't end along with John Hargrave's enthusiasm in 1951. It seems that a former member of the Party, C. J. Hunt of Bradford, re-established an organisation in the 1970s. This new Social Credit Party never stood for Parliament, but an individual called Mr J. Jennings stood three times in Manningham for the Bradford city council - a division later known for being one of the few places to elect a RESPECT Councillor.
In the 1973 all-ups, Jennings got 102 votes (2.8%), even coming behind all three candidates of the British Campaign to Stop Immigration. In 1975, he got 106 votes (3.3%). In 1976, he got 74 votes (1.9%).
As far as I can tell, this is the only example of someone standing as Social Credit after 1950, so any other examples, or other facts about Hunt or Jennings, would be appreciated. Quite a different picture from those of the Socred parties of Canada and New Zealand at that time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 9:57:52 GMT
The last time a Democrat was elected to the US Senate in Tennessee was in 1990.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Sept 27, 2018 22:20:13 GMT
The last time a Democrat was elected to the US Senate in Tennessee was in 1990. It's rather telling that 10 years later Al Gore couldn't win his old home state in the presidential election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 6:22:10 GMT
The last time a Democrat was elected to the US Senate in Tennessee was in 1990. It's rather telling that 10 years later Al Gore couldn't win his old home state in the presidential election. To a point. Clinton won it by only 40,000 votes in 1996 though. The state that Gore really shouldn’t have lost in 2000 was New Hampshire. Had he won it, he would’ve won the election. And unlike Tennessee it voted Democrat in the preceding 2 elections and has done in every election since. Then there’s the fact that the Gore campaign only spent something like $300 in West Virginia...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,454
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 28, 2018 9:54:21 GMT
Then there’s the fact that the Gore campaign only spent something like $300 in West Virginia... Was that because they thought it was safe? Good point about NH too, a Dem win there would have made all the fuss in Florida irrelevant - and it was another state where Nader made the difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 10:01:26 GMT
Then there’s the fact that the Gore campaign only spent something like $300 in West Virginia... Was that because they thought it was safe? Good point about NH too, a Dem win there would have made all the fuss in Florida irrelevant - and it was another state where Nader made the difference. The Democrats should blame themselves for losing voters rather than blaming 3rd party candidates for taking them.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,454
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 28, 2018 10:04:17 GMT
I agree with that generally, but Nader is still not fondly remembered by many. "No difference between Gush and Bore" indeed......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 10:06:41 GMT
It's rather telling that 10 years later Al Gore couldn't win his old home state in the presidential election. To a point. Clinton won it by only 40,000 votes in 1996 though. The state that Gore really shouldn’t have lost in 2000 was New Hampshire. Had he won it, he would’ve won the election. And unlike Tennessee it voted Democrat in the preceding 2 elections and has done in every election since. Then there’s the fact that the Gore campaign only spent something like $300 in West Virginia... Is "only" the right word though? I would say Tennessee is usually a pretty safe Republican state which occasionally votes Democrat.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,454
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 28, 2018 11:25:41 GMT
Tennessee was also notable IIRC for giving Perot his lowest score (outside DC, of course) in 1992.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 28, 2018 11:29:28 GMT
Was that because they thought it was safe? Good point about NH too, a Dem win there would have made all the fuss in Florida irrelevant - and it was another state where Nader made the difference. The Democrats should blame themselves for losing voters rather than blaming 3rd party candidates for taking them. This behaviour is typical of de facto two-party systems around the world, not just the USA-a major party blaming "spoilers" of some sort. However, because Florida and New Hampshire happened to be the only states won by the Republicans in that election where the Green vote was larger than the Republican majority over the Democrats and which proved decisive to the overall outcome, the spoiler effect was easier to believe than usual.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,454
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 28, 2018 11:45:20 GMT
Worth noting that whilst 2016 was another "wrong winner" result the same didn't apply there. If every single Stein voter had supported HRC, she would still have lost the EC.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Sept 28, 2018 14:37:32 GMT
To a point. Clinton won it by only 40,000 votes in 1996 though. The state that Gore really shouldn’t have lost in 2000 was New Hampshire. Had he won it, he would’ve won the election. And unlike Tennessee it voted Democrat in the preceding 2 elections and has done in every election since. Then there’s the fact that the Gore campaign only spent something like $300 in West Virginia... Is "only" the right word though? I would say Tennessee is usually a pretty safe Republican state which occasionally votes Democrat.These days I'd agree with that, but back in the 1990s it was arguably more of a swing state*, and long before then a reasonably safe Democratic state that occasionally voted Republican. * Though the nature of the candidate would've mattered immensely. Whilst Bill Clinton was a decent fit for the state in 1992 & 1996, I honestly cannot imagine the likes of Dukakis or such ever gaining much traction there...
|
|
|
Post by catking on Sept 28, 2018 14:56:58 GMT
Then there’s the fact that the Gore campaign only spent something like $300 in West Virginia... Was that because they thought it was safe? Good point about NH too, a Dem win there would have made all the fuss in Florida irrelevant - and it was another state where Nader made the difference. There are a load of states Gore should have done better in and if he had he'd have won. But he didn't because he was a weak sitting VP who ran a poor campaign.
The one thing that gets forgotten in all of the Florida fuss is that if it wasn't for the networks prematurely calling the state for Gore before the polls had even closed in the panhandle, it is likely Bush would have won it more comfortably.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 17:04:57 GMT
Was that because they thought it was safe? Good point about NH too, a Dem win there would have made all the fuss in Florida irrelevant - and it was another state where Nader made the difference. There are a load of states Gore should have done better in and if he had he'd have won. But he didn't because he was a weak sitting VP who ran a poor campaign.
The one thing that gets forgotten in all of the Florida fuss is that if it wasn't for the networks prematurely calling the state for Gore before the polls had even closed in the panhandle, it is likely Bush would have won it more comfortably.
Surely them calling it for the Democrats before the polls closed motivated Republican voters if anything.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,826
|
Post by Sibboleth on Sept 28, 2018 17:23:33 GMT
There are a load of states Gore should have done better in and if he had he'd have won. But he didn't because he was a weak sitting VP who ran a poor campaign. Have you ever looked at where the polls were early in the campaign? Gore made some costly strategic errors (e.g. conceding Ohio as lost, not seriously contesting several smaller Southern/Southern-ish states for whatever reason) but they were only so because it ended up being much closer than anticipated at the time those errors were made. Very different situation to 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 12:33:03 GMT
In 1994, then future MPs Meg Hillier and Stephen Twigg were both elected in Sussex ward in Islington.
This was also the last time a Conservative was elected in Islington.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 7, 2018 12:55:41 GMT
The number of London borough councillors who have served continuously since the 1970s is the same as the number of Members of Parliament who have done so, despite there being nearly three times as many London borough councillors as seats in Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 7, 2018 13:06:16 GMT
The number of London borough councillors who have served continunously since the 1970s is the same as the number of Members of Parliament who have done so, despite there being nearly three times as many London borough councillors as seats in Parliament. Zero. how many councillors are there nationally who have served continuously since the 1970’s? 30 maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 7, 2018 13:12:03 GMT
The number of London borough councillors who have served continuously since the 1970s is the same as the number of Members of Parliament who have done so, despite there being nearly three times as many London borough councillors as seats in Parliament. Zero. Six of each.
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 7, 2018 13:20:51 GMT
Ah ok. My mistake- I read it as members of parliament from London so I was surprised that the councillor total would be zero who are the 6 councillors?
|
|