bjt
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7 
|
Post by bjt on Jan 18, 2014 10:11:59 GMT
Inevitably the morning after the result all major parties will clamour to get onto the Today programme and explain how their tally was good news regardless of who actually wins the seat.
I'm curious though as to what everyone thinks would constitute a good result (so we can test these claims at a later date, obviously)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 18, 2014 11:37:40 GMT
Rosa Battle would be a good choice for Labour. Reasonably local, reasonably good name recognition.
I always fear that Karney will appear for these things.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2014 12:29:38 GMT
Rosa Battle would be a good choice for Labour. Reasonably local, reasonably good name recognition. And a great surname for campaign slogans, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 18, 2014 13:12:25 GMT
There's a neat symmetry - Rosa Battle is the niece of former Labour MP John Battle (who was the first person to give me a job in politics and is also a very nice man).
Before he became an MP John Battle was Director of Church Action on Poverty.
When he resigned after winning election to Parliament, his successor as Director was Paul Goggins.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 18, 2014 13:20:05 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 13:27:27 GMT
There's a neat symmetry - Rosa Battle is the niece of former Labour MP John Battle (who was the first person to give me a job in politics and is also a very nice man). Before he became an MP John Battle was Director of Church Action on Poverty. When he resigned after winning election to Parliament, his successor as Director was Paul Goggins. Based on those links I would guess a shoe in and especially if made an AWS ? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 18, 2014 14:45:10 GMT
My God, something by Karney worth reading! Good article. |
|
|
|
Post by timokane on Jan 18, 2014 15:10:01 GMT
Labour short listing and selection tabled for Friday January 24th.
|
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,772
|
Post by andrea on Jan 18, 2014 15:57:20 GMT
Labour hopefuls should send CV by 10 AM at Monday 20th. Interviews will take place on January 22th. I guess shortlist will emerge on 22th evening. Manchester Evening News quoting "it is believed" and "sources close" to say: *Polling day likely to be 13 February For Labour - "The current front-runner appears to be Manchester council’s culture chief, Rosa Battle. The councillor, who lives in Baguley, has run for selection before and is ambitious to reach Westminster. Meanwhile Mike Kane, once aide to former minister and Tameside MP James Purnell, is also understood to be interested, along with Fallowfield councillor Mike Amesbury" Battle and Amesbury were on Manchester Central shortlist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 17:01:40 GMT
Inevitably the morning after the result all major parties will clamour to get onto the Today programme and explain how their tally was good news regardless of who actually wins the seat. I'm curious though as to what everyone thinks would constitute a good result (so we can test these claims at a later date, obviously)? Given differential supporter turnout on what will be a low poll in a seat Labour should easily win, anything over 40% for Labour would please me. Coming second for UKIP would be great for them, even if the percentage woasn't particularly high, although I would expect the Tories to be second here. For the Tories, keeping over 20% given UKIP's presence would be great. For the Lib Dems, not disappearing completely could be seen as a less than disasterous result; I would guess around 8% would give them some satisfaction. If the BNP stand, they would hope to save their deposit but didn't manage that last time so I think anything like the share they had in 2010 (3.9%) would allow them to claim success. I am not sure who else is standing. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Jan 18, 2014 17:22:41 GMT
Inevitably the morning after the result all major parties will clamour to get onto the Today programme and explain how their tally was good news regardless of who actually wins the seat. I'm curious though as to what everyone thinks would constitute a good result (so we can test these claims at a later date, obviously)? Given differential supporter turnout on what will be a low poll in a seat Labour should easily win, anything over 40% for Labour would please me. Coming second for UKIP would be great for them, even if the percentage wasn't particularly high, although I would expect the Tories to be second here. For the Tories, keeping over 20% given UKIP's presence would be great. For the Lib Dems, not disappearing completely could be seen as a less than disasterous result; I would guess around 8% would give them some satisfaction. If the BNP stand, they would hope to save their deposit but didn't manage that last time so I think anything like the share they had in 2010 (3.9%) would allow them to claim success. I am not sure who else is standing. For labour, getting over 55% would be excellent, 50% would be good and 44-49% would be adequate (given that they got 44% in 2010. Anything below their 2010 share should really be a disappointment. I would expect labour to get a good portion of the 2010 lib dem vote (especially in the wards that are part of manchester council). This by-election is not as promising for UKIP as Rotherham, even with all the resources poured into it. The circumstances of the by-election are very different, there has been no scandal with the local council and UKIP are performing better locally in Rotherham than here. I expect them to get third place though. Second place would be a good achievement for them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 17:46:57 GMT
On a record beating low turnout, UKIP only just missed saving their deposit. If they fail again, a picture building up of the NW being a no-go area for them would make for interesting repercussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianj on Jan 18, 2014 19:07:08 GMT
Inevitably the morning after the result all major parties will clamour to get onto the Today programme and explain how their tally was good news regardless of who actually wins the seat. I'm curious though as to what everyone thinks would constitute a good result (so we can test these claims at a later date, obviously)? Let me try with a four-point scale: Labour: Great: Win over 50%. Good: Win, over 44% (2010 total). Bad: Win, under 44%. Terrible: Lose by any margin. UKIP: Great: Win. Good: Second. Bad: Third. Terrible: Fourth or worse. Conservatives: Great: Win or Second and within 15%. Good: Second and over 22% (2010). Bad: Third and under 22%. Terrible: Fourth or under 12%. LibDems: Great: Win or second. Good: Third. Bad: Fourth or worse, keep deposit. Terrible: Lose deposit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 19:34:37 GMT
Think that is totally fair Brian, but for UKIP I think I would scale it on % of vote instead and just how close they get to the Tories. they could be third for example but only 1% behind Tories and that would be good.
|
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Jan 18, 2014 19:36:44 GMT
I don't agree that Labour getting the same result as in 2010 would represent a good result for them. How are they going to win a majority of seats if that is all they're able to acheive a year and a bit beforehand?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 20:33:43 GMT
Inevitably the morning after the result all major parties will clamour to get onto the Today programme and explain how their tally was good news regardless of who actually wins the seat. I'm curious though as to what everyone thinks would constitute a good result (so we can test these claims at a later date, obviously)? Let me try with a four-point scale: Labour: Great: Win over 50%. Good: Win, over 44% (2010 total). Bad: Win, under 44%. Terrible: Lose by any margin. UKIP: Great: Win. Good: Second. Bad: Third. Terrible: Fourth or worse. Conservatives: Great: Win or Second and within 15%. Good: Second and over 22% (2010). Bad: Third and under 22%. Terrible: Fourth or under 12%. LibDems: Great: Win or second. Good: Third. Bad: Fourth or worse, keep deposit. Terrible: Lose deposit. Thats the standard spin that everyone tries to put on by elections: Its a bit unfair that our target is the same as 2010 and so is labours. Thats an election where we did significantly better than labour AND by-elections exaggerate national swings. Besides, what if we are second with under 22% (very possible) - that isn't in the list your scenarios. Tories: My target for the tories here is 2nd - and thats it. Not an easy target, but an achievable one. Maintaing 2010 share would be excellent. 3rd would be pretty poor, 4th a disaster. Labour: I would be looking at getting 50% (that isn't great, its merely the equivalent of a 36% national share if we apply UNS since 2010 ... hardly setting the world alight for mid-term opposition) but that would be ok for them. 60% would represent an excellent result (46% national share UNS). UKIPs aim should be 2nd - its not an easy seat for them. 3rd wouldn't be a disaster, but it would be disappointing. 4th would be a bit of a disaster. Lib Dems - beating the tories or UKIP would be good, probably not going to happen though. 2nd would be excellent. Over 10% would not be a disaster. Certainly don't lose the deposit. I think what I have said is genuinely non partisan. |
|
|
|
Post by brianj on Jan 18, 2014 20:45:55 GMT
I did try to make it so that everyone can't claim that they "exceeded expectations," not like that will stop anyone in the real world, and with some expectations about by-elections in general. Your case that any second would probably be a Good result for the Conservatives is reasonable.
And as for UKIP, well, the bookies say they "should" finish second, so who am I to disagree? They are my preferred party, but I'm ready for the days of moral victories to be over.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 20:54:37 GMT
I did try to make it so that everyone can't claim that they "exceeded expectations," not like that will stop anyone in the real world, and with some expectations about by-elections in general. Your case that any second would probably be a Good result for the Conservatives is reasonable. And as for UKIP, well, the bookies say they "should" finish second, so who am I to disagree? They are my preferred party, but I'm ready for the days of moral victories to be over. Apologies - thought you were labour, as your targets for labour were rather on the generous side! I totally agree with your UKIP and LD targets. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 18, 2014 23:40:25 GMT
I don't agree that Labour getting the same result as in 2010 would represent a good result for them. How are they going to win a majority of seats if that is all they're able to acheive a year and a bit beforehand? Because it's a by-election where we're the establishment. We can't play the change card there in the way we can in a seat we don't hold. Don't get me wrong, I think we ought to beat our 2010 figure, but I'd be surprised if we do better in the by-election than we do in 2015 in the seat. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 18, 2014 23:43:30 GMT
Mister lefty. Maybe you should Google monkey blog and his evidence of labour postal ballot fraud. Maybe I shouldn't because a) the blog in question covers South Tyneside, not Wythenshawe; b) it's author appears to be a delusional lunatic; c) he doesn't actually provide anything a reasonable mind might call "evidence" and d) if I want to read the deranged ravings of a madman, I don't have to search Google to find them. |
|
