|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Dec 30, 2016 22:30:31 GMT
Tories don't take this approach. And, by train, it's 5 hours by train from Euston to Whitehaven via a long wait on a cold Carlisle platform and 5 hours back again, and use of the trusty battlebuses is now out given the hot investigations into their use. The horsey home counties set might go out to Notts or Norfolk or Gloucs in a General Election (particularly if there's a nearby hunt) - but not to Cumbria for a by-election. I do remember this was why the Tories were able to flood Crewe & Nantwich with activists. Lots of grazing and stabling for their horses. And the local farriers were absolutely coining it. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 30, 2016 22:38:44 GMT
Tories don't take this approach. And, by train, it's 5 hours by train from Euston to Whitehaven via a long wait on a cold Carlisle platform and 5 hours back again, and use of the trusty battlebuses is now out given the hot investigations into their use. The horsey home counties set might go out to Notts or Norfolk or Gloucs in a General Election (particularly if there's a nearby hunt) - but not to Cumbria for a by-election. I do remember this was why the Tories were able to flood Crewe & Nantwich with activists. Lots of grazing and stabling for their horses. And the local farriers were absolutely coining it. Yes. He doesn't realize does he? The Country Life set lend houses, cars, fields, poster sites and give cash..............they don't bloody canvass. They raise funds and hold events and persuade neighbours, etc. Those that do might well fancy Copeland and visiting and staying with Aunt Alice in Lakeland, but will be driven up by some nice young man in the second best Range Rover. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Dec 30, 2016 22:39:35 GMT
I like your polls approach but we need to establish a better convention on the percentage splits. If we take the examples you use on this thread there is ambiguity. 0-2.4% followed by 2.5-4.9% is more misleading than stating 0-2.5% and 2.5-5% On the latter there is the confusion of the 'same figure' break point, but that is of no consequence when one considers whether one is of the 'up to' or the 'over and above' persuasion. On your model a whole decile of a percent point is lost altogether! If I think the result will be 2.45% which graticule do I tick? I need to go to a third place of decimal at say 2.451% and opt up to the next group of 2.5-4.9%. Use of symbols for more than and less than would be a solution. I didn't take you for pedantic carlton! I can edit the poll if that's what people want, though unfortunately all votes cast will be lost. I would have thought that in the example given everything at/below 2.44999...% would fall into the first category and everything at/above 2.45% would fit within the second. If you think that the result will be 2.45000...% then that's a dilemma you would face anyway if you believe that the result will be exactly 2.5000...%, faced with the choice of >2.5% or <2.5%. You're always going to get little gripes from other members over forum polls. I've had my fair share and in the early days I took this rather too personally. Don't let it put you off and thank you for a very promising start indeed to your new role.  |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 30, 2016 22:46:29 GMT
When does the campaign spending period start? Presumably as Reed hasn't actually resigned yet, the Conservatives are free to spend what they like as currently there is no by-election.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 30, 2016 22:49:02 GMT
You're always going to get little gripes from other members over forum polls. I've had my fair share and in the early days I took this rather too personally. Don't let it put you off and thank you for a very promising start indeed to your new role. Thank you I actually thought Carlton was being rather helpful to be honest  I echo that completely too. I am one of your most attentive fans and agree most of your posts. I would be distressed to think my comment had been taken as nit-picking griping which was so much not my intention. I had not seen how my post could be read in that light. I am so sorry. The setting out of tabular format has been an interest for decades and I have always rejected the method you employed because it left a 'real' ambiguity in place of an illusory ambiguity that the opter merely had to square up in his own head, rather than actual missing options. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 30, 2016 22:51:08 GMT
When does the campaign spending period start? Presumably as Reed hasn't actually resigned yet, the Conservatives are free to spend what they like as currently there is no by-election. That is a question I have never considered but it is very interesting and pinpoints the necessity for not flagging up intentions too early. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Dec 30, 2016 22:51:20 GMT
I'm going to hold off from making a prediction for now, given that it could be another four weeks yet until Mr. Reed even vacates this seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 30, 2016 23:21:40 GMT
2015 local election consolidated total for the Copeland constituency:
Conservative - 15,161 (38.01%) Labour - 14,887 (37.32%) Independent - 5,218 (13.08%) Green - 2,794 (7.00%) Liberal Democrat - 1,069 (2.68%) UKIP - 757 (1.90%) Total valid votes: 39,886 The Conservatives contested every ward covered by the Copeland constituency whilst Labour did not contest Arlecdon, Bootle, Crummock, Dalton, Derwent Valley, Ennerdale and Millom Without. The Conservatives were uncontested in Bootle. That is a telling piece of intelligence and moves me towards seeing this as closer than 2015GE. I never thought to see the statement 'Conservatives unopposed in Bootle'! |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,691 
|
Post by Jack on Dec 30, 2016 23:42:36 GMT
Not sure why anyone would think there would be a swing to the Tories at all. Well, correct me if I'm wrong but I think Copeland voted 62% Leave, so they've got that going for them. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 30, 2016 23:54:48 GMT
And the steady effect of the incomers to Lakeland, St Bees area and Sellafield area being rightish leaning. And the underscore in those figures above because of uncontested Bootle (less Labour votes in uncontested wards by them).
The UKIP effect is my real difficulty. Our collapse or failure to stand would be a major benefit to the Conservatives and might alone assure a gain of the seat. Steady state should be neutral if a little to benefit of Conservative as some return to Conservative but a few more veer of to us from Labour. Anything from a modest gain to a surge for us I see being very much a Labour detriment.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Dec 31, 2016 1:07:21 GMT
And the steady effect of the incomers to Lakeland, St Bees area and Sellafield area being rightish leaning. And the underscore in those figures above because of uncontested Bootle (less Labour votes in uncontested wards by them). The UKIP effect is my real difficulty. Our collapse or failure to stand would be a major benefit to the Conservatives and might alone assure a gain of the seat. Steady state should be neutral if a little to benefit of Conservative as some return to Conservative but a few more veer of to us from Labour. Anything from a modest gain to a surge for us I see being very much a Labour detriment. Well, failure to stand would a disaster for UKIP. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 10:36:38 GMT
And the steady effect of the incomers to Lakeland, St Bees area and Sellafield area being rightish leaning. And the underscore in those figures above because of uncontested Bootle (less Labour votes in uncontested wards by them). The UKIP effect is my real difficulty. Our collapse or failure to stand would be a major benefit to the Conservatives and might alone assure a gain of the seat. Steady state should be neutral if a little to benefit of Conservative as some return to Conservative but a few more veer of to us from Labour. Anything from a modest gain to a surge for us I see being very much a Labour detriment. Well, failure to stand would a disaster for UKIP. They are not going to win this election so what is the party strategy? 1) Stand an appropriate sound local candidate and attack all areas to build support and to maximize vote? 2) Stand as high a profile and charismatic candidate as possible and use this as a show case for the new policy strategy and to launch the new approach? 3) To opt out and urge all supporters to combine in the fight to defeat Labour on this one special occasion? The second option would be my choice, but only if there is such a candidate to be found willing and only if Nuttall and his team have actually got the outline of a new strategy and a new approach to air at this time? They should have it in outline at least but I don't know that they have? IMO it should embrace the following elements a) Our version of the absolute basic red line hard Brexit position. b) Our outline for a new Border Force and our embryonic work permit, permission to reside and maximum numbers of gross immigration permitted. c) An outline of a comprehensive EVEL policy and demand for an English Parliament. d) Our proposals for a re-structured, partially indirectly elected, much smaller HOL. e) Our distinctive new National Service and Defence and greatly expanded Security Services policy. f) Our firm attitude to Scotland involving scrapping the Barnet arrangements and removing support from England and moving bases and defence contracts. g) A sound energy and power policy based on more conventional power stations and cheaper rates for domestic and much cheaper for commerce/industry. h) A radical re-structure of Foreign Aid to just a few carefully managed projects (clean water/anti malaria/AIDS control) with no ministry and slashed budget. I) A total re-think of Green Policy in connection with Trump Administration to find common cause to reduce damage to commerce/industry costs. If too early to go on 2) I would opt to support the Conservatives in a Progress Alliance to defeat Labour. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Dec 31, 2016 10:45:17 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 31, 2016 11:06:54 GMT
That is a telling piece of intelligence and moves me towards seeing this as closer than 2015GE. I never thought to see the statement 'Conservatives unopposed in Bootle'! adding that to the heavy leave vote in this constituency (approximately 60%) plus a decent polling lead for the Conservatives over Labour and I would say that the swing here will be from Labour to Conservative... As I said previously, not necessarily. And even apart from Labour leaving a fair few seats uncontested, quite a large part of that Independent vote was for former Labour councillors who had fallen out with the local party establishment (some actually managed to get re-elected) so there is reason to believe the raw figures overstate the underlying Tory position. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Dec 31, 2016 11:10:45 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. ^This. UKIP have to stand, and they have to stand and fight the election regardless of what outcome their intervention might bring. Have never been keen on this 'standing down to enable another party' attitude that has seemed to gain some legitimacy or traction. UKIP are a separate party with separate policies and their own political agenda. Being seen to be propping up another political party is a really bad idea. Same of course goes for the silly 'progressive alliance' nonsense as well, which is why labour were right to stand in richmond even if there vote was small. Yes it might benefit my own party (and even then that is a dubious assertion to make) if UKIP don't stand, however I would not want to be the candidate who 'only won because UKIP didn't stand'. |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Dec 31, 2016 11:10:59 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. I agree. I don't know the constituency at all, but from an outsider's perspective, UKIP not standing would be a very strange decision for a seat that seems to have exactly the profile UKIP seem to be aiming for now. |
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on Dec 31, 2016 11:21:19 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. ^This. UKIP have to stand, and they have to stand and fight the election regardless of what outcome their intervention might bring. Have never been keen on this 'standing down to enable another party' attitude that has seemed to gain some legitimacy or traction. UKIP are a separate party with separate policies and their own political agenda. Being seen to be propping up another political party is a really bad idea. Same of course goes for the silly 'progressive alliance' nonsense as well, which is why labour were right to stand in richmond even if there vote was small. Yes it might benefit my own party (and even then that is a dubious assertion to make) if UKIP don't stand, however I would not want to be the candidate who 'only won because UKIP didn't stand'. I think there are times when standing down is the right thing for a party to do. People join parties because their world-view (for want of a better term) chimes with their party's. It is their world-view that they want to promote and there are times when this is best done by backing another party. However I do not think this is the case for any of the parties here. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 31, 2016 11:26:21 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. But Nuttall has not set his stall out, he has merely indulged in an unspecific airy generalist rhetoric of intent. this is a two horse race of left defending from the right. If there is no new distinctive policy stand to lay out through a high quality candidate, what exactly is the constructive point? UKIP is not yet a conventional political party but more a catalyst to cause things to happen. In this case where there is no prospect of victory or of a massive surge, the correct approach must be to accommodate our re-launch or to facilitate a Labour loss. The alternative would be vanity or tired mimesis of the other parties. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Dec 31, 2016 11:38:08 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. But Nuttall has not set his stall out, he has merely indulged in an unspecific airy generalist rhetoric of intent. this is a two horse race of left defending from the right. If there is no new distinctive policy stand to lay out through a high quality candidate, what exactly is the constructive point? UKIP is not yet a conventional political party but more a catalyst to cause things to happen. In this case where there is no prospect of victory or of a massive surge, the correct approach must be to accommodate our re-launch or to facilitate a Labour loss. The alternative would be vanity or tired mimesis of the other parties. Well, if you do that, you'll be seen as crypto-Tories, and, if so, good luck in the North. White working class North can vote for non-Labour at times. Not for Tories. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2016 11:41:36 GMT
Nuttall has set his stall out to make UKIP the primary opposition to Labour in white working class northern constituencies that voted leave. To not stand in a by election in just such a constituency would therefore be a very strange move which would suggest that UKIP is a complete irrelevance. Nobody expects miracles at this point in Nuttall's leadership, especially after such a bruising period for UKIP, but - 1. they have to stand, and 2. they have to turn in a respectable performance. There is room for debate about what that might mean in practice, but a significant loss of vote share would be very bad news. UKIP can take comfort from its relative resilience in the opinion polls. There continues to be a market for UKIP-type politics, and many of the voters who have stuck with them thus far remain deeply suspicious of the alternatives, to a degree which has surprised and impressed me. Theresa May's combination of low-key political correctness and moderate nationalism aims to alienate neither former Liberal Democrat voters captured by the Cameron blitzkrieg in 2015, nor the ex-Kippers who have drifted over since the referendum. This Agag-like "walking delicately" doesn't impress the more robust UKIP supporters, who suspect (rightly) that there is more continuity between the Cameron-Osborne and May regimes than is often acknowledged. Many may yet end up voting Conservative as the "lesser evil", but are not at that point yet. However, UKIP will need to demonstrate continued viability in actual elections if it is to keep hold of them. |
|
