|
|
Post by marksenior on May 9, 2014 8:22:46 GMT
A good result from a standing start but very disappointing to see the Cameroon hold. The dual collapse of Labour and LibDems by over 14% each brought a bit of joy coupled with surprise and seeing LibDems reduced to derisory 1.5% deep joy. Where do our Labour and LibDem friends think their vote went...and why? I am not prepared to be simplistic enough to think that is was all 100% to UKIP. The Lab and LD vote did not collapse by over 14% each . You should remember that they both had only 1 candidate each in 2011 and there would have been an unknown number of voters who voted one vote for each party and perhaps a 3rd vote to a Conservative . Nor of course was the UKIP performance from a standing start . UKIP were actually starting from 1st position in the 2013CC elections when they had 41.2% of the vote , Labour 14.4% and LD 3.7% . The party that performed worst compared to 2013 was UKIP . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 8:31:29 GMT
So libdems got 1.5% of the vote and didn't have the worst performance according to you Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on May 9, 2014 11:10:54 GMT
So libdems got 1.5% of the vote and didn't have the worst performance according to you Mark Of course it was a bad performance but the best comparison is with the CC election last year when they got 3.odd% which also was a bad performance . |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 9, 2014 11:29:29 GMT
Those of us who predict council byelections regularly know that they can be very much influenced by very local factors.
In the case of Roman Bank, while it is true that last year the same UKIP candidate had narrowly won the county council division including this ward, the only candidate in yesterday's contest who lived in the ward was the Conservative (who resides in the village of Newton at the heart of its area).
I therefore felt that the most likely outcome was a C hold, though I did not expect by much.
So generalising from any one byelection about overall current strengths of parties is rarely very valid.
We know that the Liberal Democrats have often being doing very badly in local government wards where they are not competitive and putting in a specific effort. This is because due to the coalition government they have lost the 'none of the governing party' protest vote, much of which has gone to UKIP, in addition to UKIP's appeal on European and immigration issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 12:19:43 GMT
Guess it could have been worse Mark. The libdems could have been up against Elvis
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 9, 2014 12:30:12 GMT
Ah well, it was worth a punt. Or, put another way CL, it wasn't! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 9, 2014 12:31:05 GMT
Even using Mark's dubious comparison, UKIP lost less than 20% of their vote share from their very high base last May and the LDs lost more than half of their already pathetically low share from then. I look forward to hearing Mark's desperate spinning in a couple of weeks time
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 9, 2014 12:33:36 GMT
So libdems got 1.5% of the vote and didn't have the worst performance according to you Mark Of course it was a bad performance but the best comparison is with the CC election last year when they got 3.odd% which also was a bad performance . So even on your own slanted terms, you lose a further 50% of the previous catastrophic result....and we did worse. I hope we continue this trend of continuing to do worse, it is working so well. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on May 9, 2014 13:21:37 GMT
Of course it was a bad performance but the best comparison is with the CC election last year when they got 3.odd% which also was a bad performance . So even on your own slanted terms, you lose a further 50% of the previous catastrophic result....and we did worse. I hope we continue this trend of continuing to do worse, it is working so well. Where did I say you did worse . I simply said that UKIP were not starting from scratch but were in fact starting from 1st place and I did not mention that your candidate was the one who won last year . |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 9, 2014 13:34:44 GMT
So even on your own slanted terms, you lose a further 50% of the previous catastrophic result....and we did worse. I hope we continue this trend of continuing to do worse, it is working so well. Where did I say you did worse . I simply said that UKIP were not starting from scratch but were in fact starting from 1st place and I did not mention that your candidate was the one who won last year . In your reponse to me of 5-hours ago (as of now) in the last sentence, you explicitly say we did worst in comparative terms. Could that be clearer? |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on May 9, 2014 13:38:04 GMT
Where did I say you did worse . The party that performed worst compared to 2013 was UKIP . |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 9, 2014 13:46:55 GMT
The party that performed worst compared to 2013 was UKIP . What do you base that tortured assertion upon? My post, by the way, was in response to mark saying he hadn't said worst....he did. And you are both wrong and both doing poorly in real elections as well. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on May 9, 2014 13:52:08 GMT
What do you base that tortured assertion upon? My post, by the way, was in response to mark saying he hadn't said worst....he did. And you are both wrong and both doing poorly in real elections as well. Calm down. I am merely providing the evidence to Mark's enquiry about where he said that...  In other words I was on your side, but if you're going to be like that... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 9, 2014 14:18:31 GMT
What do you base that tortured assertion upon? My post, by the way, was in response to mark saying he hadn't said worst....he did. And you are both wrong and both doing poorly in real elections as well. Calm down. I am merely providing the evidence to Mark's enquiry about where he said that... In other words I was on your side, but if you're going to be like that... It was a 'quote' not an 'opinion'! Oh dear! Thanks for not using 'Dear'. Thanks for the support. Thanks for being your very reasonable self. I am back from a walk out to my post box. Soft rain, birds singing, new leaves everywhere, broom and gorse bloom......better than valium. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 14:31:54 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 14:38:56 GMT
Ah well, it was worth a punt. Or, put another way CL, it wasn't! I don't know, bloody UKIP letting me down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 9, 2014 15:32:09 GMT
Or, put another way CL, it wasn't! I don't know, bloody UKIP letting me down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quite so padre. You are right to be discomfited. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2014 16:26:30 GMT
Fits with a trend of decent UKIP by-election results in rural bits of the Fens, but not enough to win. One wonders how much this is about the Conservatives having had time to react and concentrate resources, or if this is just where things have stabilised. If so, it'd be interesting to see whether UKIP can do better in the towns come 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on May 9, 2014 16:43:12 GMT
As I said, it may be more to do with the C candidate being the only one living in the ward.
These comparisons with the 2013 elections are not entirely valid anyway, as that contest was not on the same boundaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 9, 2014 17:00:31 GMT
Yes, but UKIP won in 2013 with candidates who didn't live in their divisions against candidates who did. The local vote mattering is itself probably a sign of normality reasserting itself.
|
|
