|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jun 29, 2012 11:32:16 GMT
Considering they were defending the ward then it clearly wasn't a fairly decent result for them locally - the swing from 1999 was something like 15%. In 1995 Labour won the ward by two to one (gaining the ward from the Tories then on a swing of over 20%) Comparisons with 1995 or 1999 are interesting but not really statistically meaningful. There are many places where we aren't doing anything like as well as 1995, but there are others where we are doing as well, or better (like my own borough). There has been a swing of just over 4% against the Tories since May 2011 which is broadly in line with the opinion polls and this year's local elections, so I'd say that this result was about par. I wasn't really seeking to draw those kind of comparisons, I was just providing a bit more context to Andy's comments re: the 2003 result |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 29, 2012 11:43:08 GMT
Comparisons with 1995 or 1999 are interesting but not really statistically meaningful. There are many places where we aren't doing anything like as well as 1995, but there are others where we are doing as well, or better (like my own borough). There has been a swing of just over 4% against the Tories since May 2011 which is broadly in line with the opinion polls and this year's local elections, so I'd say that this result was about par. I wasn't really seeking to draw those kind of comparisons, I was just providing a bit more context to Andy's comments re: the 2003 result Whenever I make a comment like that without researching it I expect to be corrected.  |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 29, 2012 13:27:20 GMT
The gap between Con and Lab in the two Chelmsford contests was a lot smaller than expected by most people
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 29, 2012 13:39:39 GMT
The gap between Con and Lab in the two Chelmsford contests was a lot smaller than expected by most people That's true, although mainly caused by UKIP taking a larger chunk of the Tory vote than most anticipated rather than by any significant increase in the Labour share - the gap between LD and Con here was also rather larger than expected by most. Pretty poor Conservative performances here. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 29, 2012 13:42:26 GMT
Labour got a decent % increase in the Essex CC seat - though I suppose that was to be expected. There was barely any change in their Chelmsford DC showing.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 29, 2012 13:48:03 GMT
It was a kind of unremarkable week where all three parties had solid holds where they were defending and will go away pretty satisfied.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 29, 2012 14:03:10 GMT
I tend to think Labour's Chelmsford performance was something less than inspiring. Our 2011 results in Essex didn't exactly set the world on fire and there's not much sign of forward progress. As St. Andrews is our second-best ward in the city (and the demographics suggest we'd win it elsewhere and be competitive in Patching Hall), you'd hope for a little more of an advance here.
Mind you, I suspect that part of the problem is that Chelmsford hasn't been targeted for so long that the party structures have ossified, so it may just be a lack of activists.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 29, 2012 14:15:19 GMT
I suspect that is a problem in many of our "weak" areas - though of course that is pretty much stating the obvious  |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jun 29, 2012 14:34:57 GMT
Labour got a decent % increase in the Essex CC seat - though I suppose that was to be expected. There was barely any change in their Chelmsford DC showing. The Labour vote was down 3% in the Essex CC seat compared to 2011 in the 2 wards making up the division and down 1.9% in the DC seat . |
|
|
|
Post by leicesterlad on Jun 29, 2012 14:36:10 GMT
Result Blaby District - Ravenhurst and Fosse Maxwell - Lab 1083 Potter - Con 501 Your prediction wasn't *quite* on the button, then....... As I had a vested interest, I allowed myself a little 'artistic licence' in the prediction competition The result, was down to a number of factors, too numerable to bore you all with on here. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 29, 2012 14:38:29 GMT
It depends which way of calculating changes from multi-member divisions you use, Mark. On the other usual method, Labour's share is up 0.2% or something.
You can see a similar variation on the two Leics district results - the swing to Labour is greater in Charnwood the way you do it, but less in Blaby.
Swings and roundabouts......
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jun 29, 2012 15:08:41 GMT
It only makes a difference of a percent or two either way, however, which is not terribly significant in the grand scheme of things. Either way there's been no discernable progress since 2011. Compare that to Braintree, just up the road, where we had good by-election results after a disappointing performance in the all-ups. This would tend to suggest that organisation is at the root of the trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 29, 2012 15:09:30 GMT
Your prediction wasn't *quite* on the button, then....... As I had a vested interest, I allowed myself a little 'artistic licence' in the prediction competition The result, was down to a number of factors, too numerable to bore you all with on here. You were very helpful with the background for the BritainVotes by-election preview though. Thanks again for that. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jun 29, 2012 16:30:05 GMT
It only makes a difference of a percent or two either way, however, which is not terribly significant in the grand scheme of things. Either way there's been no discernable progress since 2011. Compare that to Braintree, just up the road, where we had good by-election results after a disappointing performance in the all-ups. This would tend to suggest that organisation is at the root of the trouble. Plus the circumstances surrounding why the by-election(s) occured. |
|
|
|
Post by leicesterlad on Jun 29, 2012 17:33:14 GMT
It depends which way of calculating changes from multi-member divisions you use, Mark. On the other usual method, Labour's share is up 0.2% or something. You can see a similar variation on the two Leics district results - the swing to Labour is greater in Charnwood the way you do it, but less in Blaby. Swings and roundabouts...... What is the best way to calculate that on multi member wards as I struggled with doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jun 29, 2012 18:17:53 GMT
The 2 methods used are to take the highest vote for each party's candidates or alternatively the average vote of the 3 candidates for each party .
There are arguments for and against both methods .
It becomes more compex and less meaningful when 1 or more candidates only fields 1 or 2 candidates in a 3 seat contest .
Incidently both methods show a small fall in the Labour vote in the Chelmsford ward
Highest vote from 17.5% to 15.6%
Average vote from 16.1% to 15.6%
|
|
|
|
Post by leicesterlad on Jun 29, 2012 20:42:54 GMT
The 2 methods used are to take the highest vote for each party's candidates or alternatively the average vote of the 3 candidates for each party . There are arguments for and against both methods . It becomes more compex and less meaningful when 1 or more candidates only fields 1 or 2 candidates in a 3 seat contest . Incidently both methods show a small fall in the Labour vote in the Chelmsford ward Highest vote from 17.5% to 15.6% Average vote from 16.1% to 15.6% No wonder I have been struggling to work out the percentages for Ravenhurst & Fosse then. So how would I calculate the swing for that then? Ravenhurst & Fosse is a 3 Member ward. 2011 - LAB 1276/1149/1051 CON 830 2012 - LAB 1083 CON 501 |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jun 29, 2012 21:28:43 GMT
The 2 methods used are to take the highest vote for each party's candidates or alternatively the average vote of the 3 candidates for each party . There are arguments for and against both methods . It becomes more compex and less meaningful when 1 or more candidates only fields 1 or 2 candidates in a 3 seat contest . Incidently both methods show a small fall in the Labour vote in the Chelmsford ward Highest vote from 17.5% to 15.6% Average vote from 16.1% to 15.6% No wonder I have been struggling to work out the percentages for Ravenhurst & Fosse then. So how would I calculate the swing for that then? Ravenhurst & Fosse is a 3 Member ward. 2011 - LAB 1276/1149/1051 CON 830 2012 - LAB 1083 CON 501 2011 "top" candidates - Lab 1,276, Con 830 = 2,106 total Lab 60.6%, Con 39.4% 2011 "average" - Lab 1,159, Con 830 = 1,989 total Lab 58.3%, Con 41.7% 2012 - Lab 1,083, Con 501 = 1,584 total Lab 68.4%, Con 31.6% Swing Con to Lab since May 2011 - 7.8% based on "top" vote - 10.1% based on "average" vote |
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Jun 29, 2012 21:30:02 GMT
2011 Lab 1276 (60.6) Con 830 (39.4)
2012 Lab 1083 (68.4) Con 501 (31.6) Swing 7.8%
or
2011 Lab 1158.67 (58.3) Con 830 (41.7) in which case swing to Labour is 10.1%
Quite a good ezample of how the difference can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by leicesterlad on Jun 29, 2012 22:15:05 GMT
No wonder I have been struggling to work out the percentages for Ravenhurst & Fosse then. So how would I calculate the swing for that then? Ravenhurst & Fosse is a 3 Member ward. 2011 - LAB 1276/1149/1051 CON 830 2012 - LAB 1083 CON 501 2011 "top" candidates - Lab 1,276, Con 830 = 2,106 total Lab 60.6%, Con 39.4% 2011 "average" - Lab 1,159, Con 830 = 1,989 total Lab 58.3%, Con 41.7% 2012 - Lab 1,083, Con 501 = 1,584 total Lab 68.4%, Con 31.6% Swing Con to Lab since May 2011 - 7.8% based on "top" vote - 10.1% based on "average" vote Duly exalted for that analysis. Thank you. |
|
