By-elections - September 24th

[The Bishop]

You made a genuine effort there and the low turnout probably hurt Labour more - UKIP are still some way short of their 2014 high point here.

(wasn't the weather really bad in Yorkshire yesterday?)

[Tony Otim]

Sept 25, 2015 9:51:22 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 24, 2015 22:41:35 GMT maxque said:

Con 40.0% (+11.5)
UKIP 16.9% (-3.2)
Lab 16.6% (-1.7)
Grn 11.6% (+0.5)
HC 11.2% (-4.3)
LD 3.6% (-1.3)

It would be helpful if organizations and individuals quoted their comparison dates please! This is a very good Conservative result but may still be showing the gradual unwind of the LD and the HC effect in that area, as seen in GE majority? Labour showing no Corbyn bounce there.

In this particular case the ward has only been contested once before - on GE day this May when new boundaries came into effect.

[carlton43]

Sept 25, 2015 9:58:07 GMT Tony Otim said:

Sept 25, 2015 9:51:22 GMT carlton43 said:

It would be helpful if organizations and individuals quoted their comparison dates please! This is a very good Conservative result but may still be showing the gradual unwind of the LD and the HC effect in that area, as seen in GE majority? Labour showing no Corbyn bounce there.

In this particular case the ward has only been contested once before - on GE day this May when new boundaries came into effect.

It must still be helpful to quote the date for those not knowing the full facts in their head and especially for latter research on this site in years to come.

[markgoodair]

Sept 25, 2015 9:57:54 GMT The Bishop said:

You made a genuine effort there and the low turnout probably hurt Labour more - UKIP are still some way short of their 2014 high point here.

(wasn't the weather really bad in Yorkshire yesterday?)

No it was lovely.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Sept 25, 2015 9:26:07 GMT The Bishop said:

If you want to take that line, it shows that people aren't queueing up to vote *against* him either

The real Jez effect, if there is one, will be from the current surge in membership feeding through into increased Labour activism.

Ah, you know I'm being facetious though

The fantasyland of Jezmania being trodden upon by the ultimate reality that is Pontefract was too tempting an image.

[maxque]

Sept 25, 2015 9:55:00 GMT carlton43 said:

Sept 24, 2015 22:44:15 GMT maxque said:

On 2015:

Lab -3.7
UKIP +2.3
Con -5.1
YF +6.5
LD +4.5
TUSC -0.2

That is always for me a fundamental moment when a once dominant party stops being majoritarian in its vote. We have Labour on less thn 50% in a Pontefract seat and UKIP still increasing in this dead period after a GE and with the bold new leader in place that the electorate have craved with proper left policies. That should be a worry.

Labour is so dominant in Pontefract North than Conservatives won it in 2008. And Pontefract South had 3 Con, 0 Lab from 2008 to 2011. In fact, 2014 was the first year since the new map Pontefract South had 3 Labour councillors.

As for Labour being over 50%, it was only the case in 2006, 2007 (not than a 53-47 win is impressive), 2011 and 2015. Only in 2011 and 2012 for South.

[Pete Whitehead]

You are aware that Pontefract has existed for longer than the past decade right?

[maxque]

Sept 25, 2015 11:07:09 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

You are aware that Pontefract has existed for longer than the past decade right?

I'm aware. My problem with what Carlton said is that he said than it was "a fundamental moment". No, that by-election isn't a fundamental moment, it's in line with the results since 2011. It's nothing special.

2008 was a fundamental moment. Labour falling under 50% when 2012 and 2014 were also under 50% isn't a fundamental moment. Labour had worse results in that ward recently too. It's a good result for UKIP, worse than the 36% they got in 2014 though, yes, but nothing fundamental, unlike 2008.

[marksenior]

Sept 25, 2015 11:24:51 GMT maxque said:

Sept 25, 2015 11:07:09 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

You are aware that Pontefract has existed for longer than the past decade right?

I'm aware. My problem with what Carlton said is that he said than it was "a fundamental moment". No, that by-election isn't a fundamental moment, it's in line with the results since 2011. It's nothing special.

2008 was a fundamental moment. Labour falling under 50% when 2012 and 2014 were also under 50% isn't a fundamental moment. Labour had worse results in that ward recently too. It's a good result for UKIP, worse than the 36% they got in 2014 though, yes, but nothing fundamental, unlike 2008.

Yep , Carlton showing his inability to look up the history of the ward and past voting behaviour . Interestingly UKIP had a higher % vote here back in 2004

[carlton43]

Sept 25, 2015 11:53:07 GMT marksenior said:

Sept 25, 2015 11:24:51 GMT maxque said:

I'm aware. My problem with what Carlton said is that he said than it was "a fundamental moment". No, that by-election isn't a fundamental moment, it's in line with the results since 2011. It's nothing special.

2008 was a fundamental moment. Labour falling under 50% when 2012 and 2014 were also under 50% isn't a fundamental moment. Labour had worse results in that ward recently too. It's a good result for UKIP, worse than the 36% they got in 2014 though, yes, but nothing fundamental, unlike 2008.

Yep , Carlton showing his inability to look up the history of the ward and past voting behaviour . Interestingly UKIP had a higher % vote here back in 2004

Yer' nowt but boys. I remember it being heavy Labour. Since when can fundamental only be applied once or on one occasion? Hey! But who cares? Labour have no Jezza buzz nor are they bouncing back from a duff GE. Good news all round.

And Mark, much huff and puff from you on backing of piss poor result.

[Yorkie]

No real surprises for us in Pontefract North. Perhaps expected the Tories to do a little better, but they really didn't run much of a campaign.

Still, always nice for Yorkshire First to beat a party that was, until recently, in government. On to the next one (wherever that might be!).

[ColinJ]

Sept 25, 2015 10:12:15 GMT markgoodair said:

Sept 25, 2015 9:57:54 GMT The Bishop said:

You made a genuine effort there and the low turnout probably hurt Labour more - UKIP are still some way short of their 2014 high point here.

(wasn't the weather really bad in Yorkshire yesterday?)

No it was lovely.

Indeed, although I noticed a short rain delay at lunchtime at Headingley where Yorkshire are playing (beating!) Sussex.

[carlton43]

Sept 25, 2015 15:06:27 GMT @trident said:

Sept 25, 2015 9:26:07 GMT The Bishop said:

The real Jez effect, if there is one, will be from the current surge in membership feeding through into increased Labour activism.

There's no guarantee that effect will be a positive one, of course.

Quite so!  With his programme a totally silent campaign without anyone on the doorstep is advised.

[timmullen1]

Sept 25, 2015 15:06:27 GMT @trident said:

Sept 25, 2015 9:26:07 GMT The Bishop said:

The real Jez effect, if there is one, will be from the current surge in membership feeding through into increased Labour activism.

There's no guarantee that effect will be a positive one, of course.

Indeed not; it seems to be common consensus that the Labour ground game was far superior to anyone else's (SNP excepted maybe) in the run-up to May, but unless you actually do more than sprint from door-to-door recording voting intentions you achieve nothing. It'd also be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of these new members; from what we've seen in our three constitutuencies, most are returnees who left over Iraq, or even ex-miners who left because of Kinnock's alleged betrayal during the miners' strike so, given their advancing years, activism in the sense of hitting the streets may not be enhanced.

[The Bishop]

There are a lot of young members joining as well, I doubt if Stoke is *that* much of an exception.

And the flaw in Labour's "superior ground game" in May was that it ultimately put quantity over quality.

The thought out Tory targeting, much of which was obviously US-derived and bore Messina's clear influence, was ultimately more effective and amply compensated for their lack of activists. There is nothing that says this *has* to be true in future elections.....

[finsobruce]

Sept 26, 2015 9:41:01 GMT The Bishop said:

There are a lot of young members joining as well, I doubt if Stoke is *that* much of an exception.

And the flaw in Labour's "superior ground game" in May was that it ultimately put quantity over quality.

The thought out Tory targeting, much of which was obviously US-derived and bore Messina's clear influence, was ultimately more effective and amply compensated for their lack of activists. There is nothing that says this *has* to be true in future elections.....

You've been around long enough bish to know that Stoke is an exception to every rule.  Some of those new young members have probably already joined the City Independents citing irreconcilable differences....

[The Bishop]

So true

[Tony Otim]

Sept 26, 2015 7:35:07 GMT timmullen1 said:

Sept 25, 2015 15:06:27 GMT @trident said:

There's no guarantee that effect will be a positive one, of course.

Indeed not; it seems to be common consensus that the Labour ground game was far superior to anyone else's (SNP excepted maybe) in the run-up to May, but unless you actually do more than sprint from door-to-door recording voting intentions you achieve nothing. It'd also be interesting to see a demographic breakdown of these new members; from what we've seen in our three constitutuencies, most are returnees who left over Iraq, or even ex-miners who left because of Kinnock's alleged betrayal during the miners' strike so, given their advancing years, activism in the sense of hitting the streets may not be enhanced.

Believe it or not, the SNp's ground game was really not that hot, but you don't really need one when you have a tidal wave behind you.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Sept 26, 2015 9:41:01 GMT The Bishop said:

There are a lot of young members joining as well, I doubt if Stoke is *that* much of an exception.

And the flaw in Labour's "superior ground game" in May was that it ultimately put quantity over quality.

The thought out Tory targeting, much of which was obviously US-derived and bore Messina's clear influence, was ultimately more effective and amply compensated for their lack of activists. There is nothing that says this *has* to be true in future elections.....

Ann Black's NEC report said that the average age of members fell from 53 to 42, which does suggest a big influx of youngsters.

That said, teenagers aren't always the most useful canvassers, because they're less likely to stay in a single area and build up knowledge and less likely to be taken seriously. If there is a marked benefit, it'll come from new activists around a decade older.

[timmullen1]

Funny you should say that finsobruce, but one Councillor who was part of "Stoke says jezwecan" has already defected to the City Independents!

I don't know about Stoke Central or North, but South's Vice Chair Membership reckoned on an initial run through last week that the average age had dropped by two years, but at 50 I'm still amongst the youngest members.