Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,691 
|
Post by Jack on Jan 4, 2017 16:42:50 GMT
Thanks, Carlton. My apologies, I should have made it clearer that I was referring specifically to Party Membership not Party support and I was particularly referring to the numbers who (re)joined on-line through the national Party website. At least in those constituencies where I have asked about it, there were literally scores of new members in each constituency within just a week or two of David Cameron's resignation, starting sharply on the day of the resignation itself, whereas normally there'd be a trickle of new memberships who are centrally signed-up amounting to just one or two per constituency per month. Most Conservative Party membership continues to be locally signed up in the constituencies themselves, and we've also seen a noticeable return of lapsed members from that source since David Cameron's resignation, with these returning members often explicity citing antipathy towards David Cameron as their reason for having resigned or for having allowed their membership to lapse. This really sharp increase in new membership, especially on-line through the Party's national website but also within local associations, was not anticipated centrally nor was it by any of those activists with whom I've spoken. I've yet to find any Constituency Association, however, which has managed effectively to bring a significant number of the new centrally signed-up members into active participation within the Party locally. That would include me, in real life at least. Just sent off the application today. I can't work out how to actually align with the Conservatives on this forum. Paging AdminSTB. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Copeland
Jan 4, 2017 17:00:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by neilm on Jan 4, 2017 17:00:55 GMT
Cameron was the reason I left, although I prefer Osborne's sense of purpose to May and Hammond's Heathite nonsense. I considered rejoining after the stuff on selective schools but I won't be because I'm disillusioned with politics in general.
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,691
|
Post by Jack on Jan 4, 2017 17:06:30 GMT
I've never actually been a paid-up member of any party.
Never really seen the point in joining.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 4, 2017 17:18:45 GMT
Thanks, Carlton. My apologies, I should have made it clearer that I was referring specifically to Party Membership not Party support and I was particularly referring to the numbers who (re)joined on-line through the national Party website. At least in those constituencies where I have asked about it, there were literally scores of new members in each constituency within just a week or two of David Cameron's resignation, starting sharply on the day of the resignation itself, whereas normally there'd be a trickle of new memberships who are centrally signed-up amounting to just one or two per constituency per month. Most Conservative Party membership continues to be locally signed up in the constituencies themselves, and we've also seen a noticeable return of lapsed members from that source since David Cameron's resignation, with these returning members often explicity citing antipathy towards David Cameron as their reason for having resigned or for having allowed their membership to lapse. This really sharp increase in new membership, especially on-line through the Party's national website but also within local associations, was not anticipated centrally nor was it by any of those activists with whom I've spoken. I've yet to find any Constituency Association, however, which has managed effectively to bring a significant number of the new centrally signed-up members into active participation within the Party locally. That would include me, in real life at least. Just sent off the application today. I can't work out how to actually align with the Conservatives on this forum. You ask me.  |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 4, 2017 17:54:13 GMT
I fear all this talk of a Conservative gain is setting expectations too high, and runs the risk - unfairly or not - of the result looking like a disaster if Labour hold on. To some extent this could just be opponents bigging up our chances rather than overconfidence on our part. The aim should be to keep down the swing to Labour - don't they need, what, an 8% swing to be the largest party in 2020? - anything better than that would then be a pleasant surprise.
Darlington in 1983 has been mentioned. Labour losing that might have had a detrimental effect on Conservative chances nationally, as it would have led to more pressure for Michael Foot to stand down. It's also worth remembering Birmingham Northfield in 1982, which was actually lost to Labour but on such a small swing that it was actually good news for the Conservatives in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 4, 2017 18:53:35 GMT
Yes Labour have managed to get a councillor elected in Keswick but only as part of the tri party agreement formed in 1999 where Con/Lab/LD fielded only 1 candidate each In CC elections which are true all party contests they come a poor 3rd . This does not appear to be true. There were two Labour candidates in 2015, for a start. In any case, even allowing for continual under-contestation in the ward, when there has actually been an election the vote shares of the three parties do suggest there is a proportion of Labour support. Not an overwhelming proportion in relation to the rest of the seat, but enough to justify a reasonably decent effort being directed there in the by-election. Whereas I can't see too many Lib Dem activists being willing to travel a couple of counties in the hope of slightly increasing their chances of winning one more county councillor in a county where they're pretty much guaranteed to come third. I can think of very few situations in which I'd be willing to stand aside for Labour - I suppose Batley & Spen was the exception - so I really don't see why they should for us. Some Labour supporters, especially those already unhappy with the leader, may feel that Labour ought to stand aside for us on occasion, but unfortunately for Labour I don't think it would look good for us implicitly to endorse Corbyn. (The Greens might be a different matter but outside of Brighton I'm not sure that the issue arises in Parliamentary seats.) We are also in the game right now of grabbing every bit of publicity that we can - 10% in Copeland wouldn't be a bad result for us at all in that context, much as in Sleaford & N Hykeham. So while I don't see why EAL seems to consider Farron to be personally untrustworthy, I think he's quite right that we can't really reciprocate. My impression of Farron is that he combines sickening piety with a willingness to take any opportunity that presents itself to him. Then again, that's the impression I get of most Lib Dems, so I wouldn't say it's particular to him. But certainly the idea that we might get any benefit from a reciprocal deal is completely wide of the mark. The Lib Dems might encourage talk that we should consider standing down, but they'd never offer a formal deal and even if they did they'd welch on it in a second if they thought it was to our advantage. They're not a sister party, they're a rival, so expecting them to harm themselves and aid us would never work out well. |
|
|
|
Copeland
Jan 4, 2017 19:31:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2017 19:31:15 GMT
Yes Labour have managed to get a councillor elected in Keswick but only as part of the tri party agreement formed in 1999 where Con/Lab/LD fielded only 1 candidate each In CC elections which are true all party contests they come a poor 3rd . This does not appear to be true. There were two Labour candidates in 2015, for a start. In any case, even allowing for continual under-contestation in the ward, when there has actually been an election the vote shares of the three parties do suggest there is a proportion of Labour support. Not an overwhelming proportion in relation to the rest of the seat, but enough to justify a reasonably decent effort being directed there in the by-election. Whereas I can't see too many Lib Dem activists being willing to travel a couple of counties in the hope of slightly increasing their chances of winning one more county councillor in a county where they're pretty much guaranteed to come third. I can think of very few situations in which I'd be willing to stand aside for Labour - I suppose Batley & Spen was the exception - so I really don't see why they should for us. Some Labour supporters, especially those already unhappy with the leader, may feel that Labour ought to stand aside for us on occasion, but unfortunately for Labour I don't think it would look good for us implicitly to endorse Corbyn. (The Greens might be a different matter but outside of Brighton I'm not sure that the issue arises in Parliamentary seats.) We are also in the game right now of grabbing every bit of publicity that we can - 10% in Copeland wouldn't be a bad result for us at all in that context, much as in Sleaford & N Hykeham. So while I don't see why EAL seems to consider Farron to be personally untrustworthy, I think he's quite right that we can't really reciprocate. My impression of Farron is that he combines sickening piety with a willingness to take any opportunity that presents itself to him. Then again, that's the impression I get of most Lib Dems, so I wouldn't say it's particular to him. But certainly the idea that we might get any benefit from a reciprocal deal is completely wide of the mark. The Lib Dems might encourage talk that we should consider standing down, but they'd never offer a formal deal and even if they did they'd welch on it in a second if they thought it was to our advantage. They're not a sister party, they're a rival, so expecting them to harm themselves and aid us would never work out well. I suspect the Lib Dems will be hoping to make quite a few gains on Cumbria County Council in May. But you obviously know best, since it seems there are no Lib Dem activists within two counties! |
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 4, 2017 19:42:18 GMT
1999 1 candidate each party nominated plus an Ind and a UKIP Labour 3rd
2003 1 candidate each party nominated plus an Ind Labour 3rd
2007 1 candidate each party nominated all elected unopposed
2011 1 candidate each party nominated except Lib Dem Ind was the retiring LD councillor all elected unopposed
2011 by election LD gain from Independent ( Martin Pugmire elected )
2015 as you say Labour broke the agreement ( as they always do )
Whilst it is likely that the Lib Dems will be 3rd in Cumbria CC there is an outside chance of them finishing 2nd place in number of seats so all efforts in Allerdale would be useful
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 4, 2017 19:46:18 GMT
I'm very surprised that someone calling themselves a 'Liberal Democrat' should be so adamant about the obligation of political parties to rig an election and deny electors any real choice.
I say "I'm very surprised", I'm really not.
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Jan 4, 2017 19:57:02 GMT
I did not say I approved or even condoned the Keswick arrangement . I personally am against such arrangements .
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2017 20:54:43 GMT
I have just been reading the rules regarding the timetable applicable to a Parliamentary by election. A minimum of 21 working days must elapse between the issue of a writ and polling day. Assuming that the MP does not resign until January 31st , that seems to imply that the earliest date for the election will be March 2nd.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 4, 2017 21:03:45 GMT
The by-election could be left until the May locals but that would give a longer campaign time (and potentially become an issue with quicker polls elsewhen).
Also it is still possible to disrupt the Commons by seeking to move the writ for a vacancy? Philip Davies might want a change of waffle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 22:19:54 GMT
I did think that the Labour Party would prefer to have the election in May. A risk (it would mean a longer campaign as trp says).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 7:06:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Fashioned Leftie on Jan 5, 2017 7:32:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Copeland
Jan 5, 2017 8:45:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jan 5, 2017 8:45:58 GMT
I did think that the Labour Party would prefer to have the election in May. A risk (it would mean a longer campaign as trp says). Local election day is likely to be very bad for Labour (given their poll position in 2013), so holding the by-election then would de-risk it somewhat..A good result would distract from the locals and a bad one buried in them.. Labour probably have more local campaigning strength on the ground AND in the northern Mets where there are no elections, while the Tories and Lib Dems will be busy with County elections. So delaying until May probably suits Labour. I am not sure if they can prevent the writ being moved however? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 5, 2017 9:00:35 GMT
Local election day is likely to be very bad for Labour (given their poll position in 2013), so holding the by-election then would de-risk it somewhat..A good result would distract from the locals and a bad one buried in them.. Labour probably have more local campaigning strength on the ground AND in the northern Mets where there are no elections, while the Tories and Lib Dems will be busy with County elections. So delaying until May probably suits Labour. I am not sure if they can prevent the writ being moved however? Right now Labour is in absolute control of the timing as it's entirely up to Jamie Reed when to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. He simply has to arrange to send his letter on the day before the writ needs to be moved. Once he does, the inter-party understanding from the 1973 Speaker's Conference takes over which says that it is for the party holding the seat to move the writ. All of the decent parties have abided by this agreement (that is to say everyone except the Lib Dems who broke it in 2011). |
|
|
|
Post by lennon on Jan 5, 2017 9:51:59 GMT
Local election day is likely to be very bad for Labour (given their poll position in 2013), so holding the by-election then would de-risk it somewhat..A good result would distract from the locals and a bad one buried in them.. Labour probably have more local campaigning strength on the ground AND in the northern Mets where there are no elections, while the Tories and Lib Dems will be busy with County elections. So delaying until May probably suits Labour. I am not sure if they can prevent the writ being moved however? Right now Labour is in absolute control of the timing as it's entirely up to Jamie Reed when to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. He simply has to arrange to send his letter on the day before the writ needs to be moved. Once he does, the inter-party understanding from the 1973 Speaker's Conference takes over which says that it is for the party holding the seat to move the writ. All of the decent parties have abided by this agreement (that is to say everyone except the Lib Dems who broke it in 2011). Who moves the writ when Sinn Féin resign from Parliament (eg Gerry Adams in 2011) - presumably they can't as they aren't sworn in? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 5, 2017 9:56:28 GMT
Right now Labour is in absolute control of the timing as it's entirely up to Jamie Reed when to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. He simply has to arrange to send his letter on the day before the writ needs to be moved. Once he does, the inter-party understanding from the 1973 Speaker's Conference takes over which says that it is for the party holding the seat to move the writ. All of the decent parties have abided by this agreement (that is to say everyone except the Lib Dems who broke it in 2011). Who moves the writ when Sinn Féin resign from Parliament (eg Gerry Adams in 2011) - presumably they can't as they aren't sworn in? The government chief whip has done it, but (I believe) at a time suggested by the Sinn Féin Parliamentary office. Though when Independent Republican Frank Maguire died, the writ was moved by Jim Molyneaux, leader of the Ulster Unionists. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Jan 5, 2017 11:39:32 GMT
Right now Labour is in absolute control of the timing as it's entirely up to Jamie Reed when to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. He simply has to arrange to send his letter on the day before the writ needs to be moved. One would assume that he will wait until just before he is due to take up his new post, so there is no interruption in employment and income. "So, Mr. Reed, how much notice do you need to give in your current position?" "Well, I can leave any time I like" |
|
