|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 25, 2014 4:05:42 GMT
I've just got back from conference. One of the email briefings PPCs got invited us to go canvassing in Heywood & Middleton after Ed Miliband's speech, but it was an 'if you feel like it' rather than a 'YOU MUST'. So far as I can tell, the idea wasn't even mentioned to anybody else, even though Middleton is only a few miles down the road. If there is worry, it clearly hasn't percolated back to party HQ yet and I can't believe that they haven't got a direct line to the campaign. On the flip side, Shneur Odze was ramping UKIP's prospects in Middleton during the fringe event referred to by the MEN report. If anything in the rest of his remarks had been credible or coherent, that might have been worth taking into consideration. Conference without a definite article is more widespread than in my youth when it was only a Labour usage. It was a noted part of 'the' conference season, rather like the use of composite for motions cobbled together and moved by Union Barons. They were always barons and it was always pronounced 'com-po-site'. A certain type of medic and children's nurse always refers to 'Baby' rather than the baby. The oddities of language usage. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 25, 2014 9:42:58 GMT
Did you predict a Tory gain there? I'm too young to have been aware of Grimsby and Ashfield when they happened in 1977 - but the comparison of people "expecting" (Conservatives) to lose Clacton but "expecting" (Labour) to hold Heywood & Middleton is an obvious parallel to the situation when people were "expecting" Labour to hold Ashfield but lose Grimsby. To what extent local people on the ground realised that Labour might lose Ashfield, I have no idea. I believe it came as an almost complete shock, from accounts I have seen. If you really think there is a chance of UKIP winning H/W but not Clacton, you can get odds of about 100/1 on it I believe...... |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780 
|
Post by john07 on Sept 25, 2014 10:10:41 GMT
Ashfield did come as a complete shock largely because David Marquand had a 22,000 majority in October 1974.
One point was that the electorate tended to punish the incumbent party for creating a needless by election. Plum jobs in Europe or elevation to the House of Lords being prime examples along with making way for a cabinet minister who had lost a seat at the general election. By elections caused by death of an incumbent were much more likely to be held.
There were also local issues. Ken Coates tried to get the nomination and was knocked back. He subsequently wrote a pamphlet outline the failings of Labour in Ashfield over the years building up to the by election. The chosen candidate who many perceived to have been parachuted in did not go down well with the locals. A Socialist Workers candidate got more votes than the Tory majority.
Most of the attention was focussed on Grimsby and that all contributed to a perfect storm.
None of the above issues appears to be present at Middleton and Heywood.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Sept 25, 2014 12:27:14 GMT
Patrick Gordon-Walker was the last (presumptive, in this case) minister to lose a seat and get parachuted into one, I think? Obviously he lost that one as well only to return later on.
I wonder what happened to people like Marquand. Somewhere along the line, possibly between the deaths of Crossman and Crosland, Labour seemed to stop recruiting capable intellectuals and instead focused on individuals spouting garbage about neo endogenous classical growth theory (not just him, though. They're all pretty vacuous). The same is true of the other parties, we need another political intellectual flowering.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 25, 2014 17:55:03 GMT
If I were genuinely concerned about a freak by-election loss, this isn't how I'd go about letting people know. Anyway, UKIP would probably need to poll around 40% to be in with a shot of winning here, which instinctively sounds too high, even if stranger things have been known to happen. We averaged 32.3% over the 8 wards we contested in May, so 40% is not impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Sept 25, 2014 18:50:04 GMT
Patrick Gordon-Walker was the last (presumptive, in this case) minister to lose a seat and get parachuted into one, I think? Obviously he lost that one as well only to return later on. You could argue Norman Lamont. Not quite the same but definite parallels. |
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Sept 25, 2014 22:15:40 GMT
I wonder what happened to people like Marquand. Somewhere along the line, possibly between the deaths of Crossman and Crosland, Labour seemed to stop recruiting capable intellectuals and instead focused on individuals spouting garbage about neo endogenous classical growth theory (not just him, though. They're all pretty vacuous). The same is true of the other parties, we need another political intellectual flowering. Generally, the appetite for intellectual politics has diminished: the political world simply isn't interested. Whenever our political leaders try to make a speech which genuinely tries to wrestle with fundamental arguments, it is ignored, or an incidental bit of spin is focused on instead. More narrowly, the argument for traditional varieties of socialism, or for mid-century social democracy, have been hollowed out; but the emotional attachment of the centre-left to such arguments is such that abandonment is impossible. The only alternative left for centre-left politicians is to manoeuvre between short-term positions that split the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 27, 2014 10:30:14 GMT
If I were genuinely concerned about a freak by-election loss, this isn't how I'd go about letting people know. Anyway, UKIP would probably need to poll around 40% to be in with a shot of winning here, which instinctively sounds too high, even if stranger things have been known to happen. We averaged 32.3% over the 8 wards we contested in May, so 40% is not impossible. Though presumably the two wards you didn't contest are less favourable to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Zardoz on Sept 27, 2014 11:01:00 GMT
We averaged 32.3% over the 8 wards we contested in May, so 40% is not impossible. Though presumably the two wards you didn't contest are less favourable to you. That's not necessarily the case. Less established parties that are struggling to find a full slate often put up candidates wherever they are willing to stand. That's not always in their 'best' wards and, unless they have a record of contesting all wards in a given area, they might not know which are their strongest or weakest anyway. Strong/weak areas might be obvious to Labour and Tories but not always to parties that are less class based. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 27, 2014 12:53:37 GMT
Though presumably the two wards you didn't contest are less favourable to you. That's not necessarily the case. Less established parties that are struggling to find a full slate often put up candidates wherever they are willing to stand. That's not always in their 'best' wards and, unless they have a record of contesting all wards in a given area, they might not know which are their strongest or weakest anyway. Strong/weak areas might be obvious to Labour and Tories but not always to parties that are less class based. Not the case at all. Rochdale Is/was a newly formed branch. They did struggle to get their candidates in place in time for May 22nd. Bamford and Castleton are Chalk and Cheese, one strongly Conservative the other fiercely Labour. I believe had we had candidates in both wards the aggragate percentage would have been very similar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 12:45:36 GMT
Who wants to see a LibDem barchart tweet?
/photo/1
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 2, 2014 13:06:42 GMT
Who wants to see a LibDem barchart tweet? /photo/1 It almost seems...made-up. I bet we'll see a lot of Crick, given that he's a Mancunian. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Oct 2, 2014 13:37:01 GMT
Who wants to see a LibDem barchart tweet? /photo/1 It almost seems...made-up. I bet we'll see a lot of Crick, given that he's a Mancunian. Well yes if Hazel Grove counts? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 2, 2014 14:41:09 GMT
It almost seems...made-up. I bet we'll see a lot of Crick, given that he's a Mancunian. Well yes if Hazel Grove counts? Works for me. And he did go to Manchester Grammar. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 20:58:43 GMT
Survation/The Sun
50% (+10) Labour
31% (+28) UKIP
13% (-14) Conservative
4% (-19) Lib Dems
Fine for Labour.. but still good for the kippers.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 3, 2014 0:31:27 GMT
I hear that Labour are rather more worried than this poll would suggest.
|
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Oct 3, 2014 8:46:44 GMT
I hear that Labour are rather more worried than this poll would suggest. Old Blairite Mind trick |
|
|
|
Post by coolhandluke on Oct 3, 2014 11:08:01 GMT
A 31% vote share would be the best performance for UKIP in a Labour seat. Looking at the Survation data, Labour's strength seems to be coming largely from the Middleton wards? Is it typical not to weigh for which party people voted for in 2010? In Table 8 it shows more people supporting Labour in 2010 than actually did and that's before you even include other Labour voters who fall into the don't remember or refused to answer? And the recalled LD 2010 vote looks significantly lower? Presumably it not important statistically to try and reflect previous GE voting behaviour locally to ensure you poll a representative sample?
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 3, 2014 11:31:32 GMT
I hear that Labour are rather more worried than this poll would suggest. Who are you hearing that from? Do you have friends who are working on the Heywood and Middleton campaign? I do indeed. Admittedly they did have one or two bad days this week so possibly that's coloured the impression. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 3, 2014 11:40:56 GMT
A 31% vote share would be the best performance for UKIP in a Labour seat. Looking at the Survation data, Labour's strength seems to be coming largely from the Middleton wards? Is it typical not to weigh for which party people voted for in 2010? In Table 8 it shows more people supporting Labour in 2010 than actually did and that's before you even include other Labour voters who fall into the don't remember or refused to answer? And the recalled LD 2010 vote looks significantly lower? Presumably it not important statistically to try and reflect previous GE voting behaviour locally to ensure you poll a representative sample? Depends on the polling company. Some pollsters adjust for past vote to a greater or lesser extent, some believe false recall makes this a bad yardstick. |
|
