Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 22:58:40 GMT
Adur Tory hold
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 23:07:50 GMT
Con 340
Lab 223
UKIP 216
Green 106
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Dec 5, 2014 23:31:55 GMT
Adur, St Mary's - Conservative hold
| Party | 2014 B votes | 2014 B share | since 2014 | since 2012 | since 2010 | since 2008 | | Conservative | 340 | 38.4% | +1.3% | +2.8% | -3.2% | -11.3% | | Labour | 223 | 25.2% | +2.6% | -1.1% | -1.7% | +12.0% | | UKIP | 216 | 24.4% | +3.3% | +13.5% | +12.4% | +17.3% | | Green | 106 | 12.0% | -0.7% | -9.8% | -7.6% | -8.5% | | Liberal Democrat |
|
| -6.4% | -5.4% |
| -9.6% | | Total votes | 885 |
| 65% | 94% | 43% | 86% |
Swing Conservative to Labour ~0.6% since May 2014, Labour to Conservative ~2% since 2012 but Conservative to Labour ¾% since 2010 and ~11½ since 2008 Mansfield, Netherfield - Labour gain from Mansfield Independent Forum who did not contest the seat| Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2011 | | Labour | 347 | 57.7% | +12.1% | | UKIP | 225 | 37.4% | from nowhere | | TUSAC | 29 | 4.8% | from nowhere | | Mansfield Independent Forum |
|
| -50.5% | | Liberal Democrat |
|
| -3.9% | | Total votes | 601 |
| 68% |
Swing not meaningful Rossendale Longholme - Labour hold | Party | 2014 B votes | 2014 B share | since 2014 | since 2012 | since 2011 | since 2010 | | Labour | 505 | 43.8% | +0.9% | -10.3% | -7.8% | +7.6% | | Conservative | 390 | 33.8% | +0.6% | +5.2% | -14.6% | +5.2% | | UKIP | 258 | 22.4% | -1.4% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Liberal Democrat |
|
|
| -17.3% |
| -35.2% | | Total votes | 1,153 |
| 69% | 82% | 63% | 42% |
Swing negligible since May 2014, ~7¾% Labour to Conservative since 2012 but Conservative to Labour ~3½% since 2011 and 1¼% since 2010 Thurrock, Aveley & Uplands - UKIP hold | Party | 2014 B votes | 2014 B share | since 2014 | since 2012 | since 2011 | since 2010 | | UKIP | 747 | 41.0% | -6.2% | +12.0% | +17.5% | +26.5% | | Conservative | 520 | 28.5% | -1.1% | +2.3% | +0.7% | -4.6% | | Labour | 338 | 18.6% | +2.4% | -4.0% | -3.6% | -4.8% | | Independent | 217 | 11.9% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Liberal Democrat | |
| -7.0% | -1.7% | -2.0% |
| | Previous Independents | |
|
| -20.5% | -24.5% | -19.3% | | BNP | |
|
|
|
| -9.7% | | Total votes | 1,822 |
| 79% | 107% | 81% | 48% |
Swing UKIP to Conservative 2½% since May 2014 but Conservative to UKIP ~5% since 2012, ~8½% since 2011 and ~15½% since 2010
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Dec 5, 2014 23:39:01 GMT
Not sure these week's results tell us much, other than that cheap crude attacks on your opponents aren't always successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Dec 5, 2014 23:48:57 GMT
Not sure these week's results tell us much, other than that cheap crude attacks on your opponents aren't always successful. I would say that negative campaigning almost never works. Either because it nearly always back fires or perhaps because people who have to resort to it are perhaps already losing. And yet nobody ever learns, sadly. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Dec 5, 2014 23:50:56 GMT
Not sure these week's results tell us much, other than that cheap crude attacks on your opponents aren't always successful. I would say that negative campaigning almost never works. Either because it nearly always back fires or perhaps because people who have to resort to it are perhaps already losing. Also it doesn't give people a positive reason to vote for the party. If it works (and very often it doesn't), it may give people a reason to vote for another party, but that other party isn't necessarily going to be your party, it could be any of the other candidates who are standing. There may be reasons for some negative campagining and for opposition parties it is perhaps more natural to have attacks on government policies and such like. These should really not form the centrepiece of a political campaign, merely an extra if necessary. From our party, more positive campaigning on the economy and less negative campaigning like on that stupid leaflet would be a good starting point. When reading the leaflet, little stood out in that leaflet as to why I should support the conservative candidate. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 6, 2014 1:33:39 GMT
And yet nobody ever learns, sadly. True but they tend to get their comeuppance. Especially in local elections negative campaigning really turns me off as a voter. Attack an opponents record or proposals (ideally a candidate should just be positive about their own and not even mention the other candidates) but calling them a fat puff for instance doesn't cut ice with me. But!!! The Conservatives did not suffer from this at all. There was a technical swing to them which is probably down to the differential pull of the new Independent from the two parties? It does seem to have stalled any sign of a further swing to UKIP which I had expected at Conservative expense. In that particular demographic it may have played on a nerve not present in most constituencies? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Dec 6, 2014 6:31:03 GMT
The confusion in Rossendale is probably due to the Conservative candidate's surname, which is double-barrelled on the declaration of result of poll (and second in the alphabetical list), but single-barrelled on the list of candidates (and third in the alphabetical list). This is perhaps a separate issue, but in Croydon this year I noticed that there were at least 4 candidates (out of a total of 316) whose names were different in the Statement of Persons Nominated from the one in the declaration of the result (and thus there were some wards where the order of candidates' names were different). This caused a bit of confusion at the count, because we were listening to the declarations but writing down the results on our lists from the SOPNs. I think it's because of the difference between the "commonly known as " names, and the full legal names. There has been a slight change in the law which means that it's no longer necessary to have both on the ballot paper. I don't know the precise details but perhaps DBIV will know. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 6, 2014 11:26:24 GMT
Not sure these week's results tell us much, other than that cheap crude attacks on your opponents aren't always successful. I would say that negative campaigning almost never works. Either because it nearly always back fires or perhaps because people who have to resort to it are perhaps already losing. Its also been a major contributor to the general malaise about politics |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 6, 2014 11:42:25 GMT
The confusion in Rossendale is probably due to the Conservative candidate's surname, which is double-barrelled on the declaration of result of poll (and second in the alphabetical list), but single-barrelled on the list of candidates (and third in the alphabetical list). This is perhaps a separate issue, but in Croydon this year I noticed that there were at least 4 candidates (out of a total of 316) whose names were different in the Statement of Persons Nominated from the one in the declaration of the result (and thus there were some wards where the order of candidates' names were different). This caused a bit of confusion at the count, because we were listening to the declarations but writing down the results on our lists from the SOPNs. I think it's because of the difference between the "commonly known as " names, and the full legal names. There has been a slight change in the law which means that it's no longer necessary to have both on the ballot paper. I don't know the precise details but perhaps DBIV will know. The change was Electoral Administration Act 2006 s. 21. Instead of the ballot paper stating the candidate's full name and then "commonly known as", it now gives just the "commonly known as" name. Returning officers take varying approaches to what to do with the full name. Some have it appear on the SOPN, others have it on the notice of election agents only, some dispense with it on official notices entirely. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 6, 2014 12:16:55 GMT
This is perhaps a separate issue, but in Croydon this year I noticed that there were at least 4 candidates (out of a total of 316) whose names were different in the Statement of Persons Nominated from the one in the declaration of the result (and thus there were some wards where the order of candidates' names were different). This caused a bit of confusion at the count, because we were listening to the declarations but writing down the results on our lists from the SOPNs. I think it's because of the difference between the "commonly known as " names, and the full legal names. There has been a slight change in the law which means that it's no longer necessary to have both on the ballot paper. I don't know the precise details but perhaps DBIV will know. The change was Electoral Administration Act 2006 s. 21. Instead of the ballot paper stating the candidate's full name and then "commonly known as", it now gives just the "commonly known as" name. Returning officers take varying approaches to what to do with the full name. Some have it appear on the SOPN, others have it on the notice of election agents only, some dispense with it on official notices entirely. IMO that was a particularly silly clause in the act. I don't think there should be any truck with short-form names, silly names or 'commonly known as'. One should be compelled to stand on basis of the full name as on birth cert or as legally amended by deed poll or marriage convention. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 6, 2014 12:21:47 GMT
Arguably it should only be used when the "commonly known as" bears no relation to the actual legal name (cf "Paddy" Ashdown and "Tim" Rathbone)
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Dec 6, 2014 13:10:19 GMT
I would have preferred if this change had not been made. It makes it very difficult to get candidates' full names.
I'm often accused of being obsessed with getting people's full names. But given that I have no middle name and don't abbreviate my first name, everyone knows me by my full name, and I don't see why anyone else should be treated differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Dec 6, 2014 15:46:17 GMT
I would have preferred if this change had not been made. It makes it very difficult to get candidates' full names. I'm often accused of being obsessed with getting people's full names. But given that I have no middle name and don't abbreviate my first name, everyone knows me by my full name, and I don't see why anyone else should be treated differently. There needs to be some leeway though. I have no objection to my full name being on a ballot paper, but given that the name I'm commonly known by is just about the only usual contraction of my first name, it shouldn't be unreasonable that I should use the contraction. Admittedly if my name was really Jehoshaphat and I put Colin or Dave down instead, it should make it clear as to your actual legal name. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Dec 6, 2014 21:24:01 GMT
That's so hammishly Atwateresque that I almost love it. Ah but Atwater actually won elections for his party and had a surprisingly good singing voice. |
|
