|
|
Copeland
Jan 31, 2017 8:33:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jan 31, 2017 8:33:00 GMT
I think the modern idea that canvassing is only about voter identification and not about persuasion is missing a lot of the potential of personal interaction... A one to one contact can be worth a dozen target letters but it does have to be the right person doing it, and there has to be a simple and powerful message that can be conveyed quickly. If a Party can get that message into enough heads in a community, it will spread of its own accord, and the leaflets, letters and Facebook adverts will reinforce it.. Time spent arguing with people who will never change their mind is a bit pointless all I do seem to waste quite a bit of time doing it on internet forums! This works better at local elections, and in small communities at that (not in our 18,000 voter wards in Birmingham). For larger units you can't talk to enough people and they don't communicate with each other enough.
Time spent arguing with people who will never agree with you is not in my view pointless (otherwise I'd never be posting on this site would I?). There is nothing better for clarifying your own thoughts, and identifying weaknesses or contradictions in your automatic reactions.
Still worth it in Birmingham, it just takes more effort than most politicians are willing to put in! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 9:37:02 GMT
Labour may lose both if they're not careful - I believe they will do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 9:50:52 GMT
Labour may lose both if they're not careful - I believe they will do. I do wonder if there could be an Ashfield / Grimsby 1977 scenario, where we lose the seat that appears safer, but hold the one with a smaller majority. I mean there is a scenario where that happens. Stoke Central is a much more volatile seat when you look at how the majority has fallen from 50% in 1997 to 17% in 2015. Copland appears to be much more stolid in that sense and (aside from the general pro-Tory swing in Cumbria in 2001) has been quite stable. I think either both will go or neither will myself, because I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke and the Tories everything at Copeland. I have put £35 on UKIP taking Stoke C (with a return of £127) and £15 on the Tories taking Copeland., |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 31, 2017 11:00:30 GMT
I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke The question, and its a genuine one to which this by election should give the answer rather than a dig, is what do UKIP have to throw - in terms of local activists, people willing to travel, leaflets etc. The LDs "threw not just the sink but the whole kitchen" at Richmond Park. How many appliances are there in the UKIP kitchen? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 31, 2017 11:03:04 GMT
Oh! How very LD of you. You take elections so seriously. You are professionals who practice in what used to be a decent amateur sport for gentlemen and red players! Ah Carlton, the WG Grace of the Forum! Yes. I am portly, very bearded and arrogant. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 31, 2017 11:15:04 GMT
I do wonder if there could be an Ashfield / Grimsby 1977 scenario, where we lose the seat that appears safer, but hold the one with a smaller majority. I mean there is a scenario where that happens. Stoke Central is a much more volatile seat when you look at how the majority has fallen from 50% in 1997 to 17% in 2015. Copland appears to be much more stolid in that sense and (aside from the general pro-Tory swing in Cumbria in 2001) has been quite stable. I think either both will go or neither will myself, because I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke and the Tories everything at Copeland. I have put £35 on UKIP taking Stoke C (with a return of £127) and £15 on the Tories taking Copeland., I disagree. Stoke for me is the exact opposite to a volatile political town. It has always been a dependable steady state like say Newark or Bassetlaw. No mover with trend or fashion. It is non volatile but in very gradual long term shift like its county from orthodox red towards orthodox blue. That is why it may well be saved. In particular, the trend I identify will help the Conservatives but that will be impeded by UKIP. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 31, 2017 11:25:48 GMT
Ah Carlton, the WG Grace of the Forum! Yes. I am portly, very bearded and arrogant. You have a beard? I never imagined that |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 31, 2017 11:30:26 GMT
Yes. I am portly, very bearded and arrogant. You have a beard? I never imagined that Yes. Now whitish but a full one. I wear what is known as a Kilmarnock Bonnet here or a Butcher Boy with you whenever outside. That is less Grace one feels? I have the flat caps beloved of the racing fraternity, deerstalker and superior straws made in Ravenna. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 31, 2017 11:44:06 GMT
All I can say to the above speculation is that local Labour people in Stoke C appear increasingly optimistic about their chances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 31, 2017 11:44:28 GMT
The image I always had of you in my mind's eye was of Pete Murray
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 31, 2017 11:45:05 GMT
I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke The question, and its a genuine one to which this by election should give the answer rather than a dig, is what do UKIP have to throw - in terms of local activists, people willing to travel, leaflets etc. The LDs "threw not just the sink but the whole kitchen" at Richmond Park. How many appliances are there in the UKIP kitchen? I don't know Adam, other than a lot less than the LDs. I do know of a couple north of me who travel on the campaign frequently all over Britain. So if they pull out all the stops there should be enough to run a decent campaign in Stoke. But I don't know. I do know of quite a few who have gone back to Conservative Mother Church. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 31, 2017 11:46:10 GMT
I think there is a picture somewhere on this site of AC with carlton, the latter sporting precisely the facial adornment that he speaks of.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Copeland
Jan 31, 2017 15:29:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by neilm on Jan 31, 2017 15:29:20 GMT
I do wonder if there could be an Ashfield / Grimsby 1977 scenario, where we lose the seat that appears safer, but hold the one with a smaller majority. I mean there is a scenario where that happens. Stoke Central is a much more volatile seat when you look at how the majority has fallen from 50% in 1997 to 17% in 2015. Copland appears to be much more stolid in that sense and (aside from the general pro-Tory swing in Cumbria in 2001) has been quite stable. I think either both will go or neither will myself, because I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke and the Tories everything at Copeland. I have put £35 on UKIP taking Stoke C (with a return of £127) and £15 on the Tories taking Copeland., What price did you get for a UKIP gain? That's about 3.6 (slightly over 5/2 for you fractional users)- I'm not sure they've been that at any stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Jan 31, 2017 15:34:43 GMT
I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke The question, and its a genuine one to which this by election should give the answer rather than a dig, is what do UKIP have to throw - in terms of local activists, people willing to travel, leaflets etc. The LDs "threw not just the sink but the whole kitchen" at Richmond Park. How many appliances are there in the UKIP kitchen? Probably just a Goblin Teasmade. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 31, 2017 16:29:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 31, 2017 16:31:30 GMT
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Copeland
Jan 31, 2017 17:06:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by neilm on Jan 31, 2017 17:06:38 GMT
Ivinson sounds a lot like some rural Conservative members I know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 17:26:02 GMT
Same number of candidates as Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 7:47:30 GMT
I mean there is a scenario where that happens. Stoke Central is a much more volatile seat when you look at how the majority has fallen from 50% in 1997 to 17% in 2015. Copland appears to be much more stolid in that sense and (aside from the general pro-Tory swing in Cumbria in 2001) has been quite stable. I think either both will go or neither will myself, because I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke and the Tories everything at Copeland. I have put £35 on UKIP taking Stoke C (with a return of £127) and £15 on the Tories taking Copeland., What price did you get for a UKIP gain? That's about 3.6 (slightly over 5/2 for you fractional users)- I'm not sure they've been that at any stage. That was Paddy Power. I can't remember when exactly I placed the bet though, before Nuttall was selected (I assumed he would be). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2017 7:49:57 GMT
I mean there is a scenario where that happens. Stoke Central is a much more volatile seat when you look at how the majority has fallen from 50% in 1997 to 17% in 2015. Copland appears to be much more stolid in that sense and (aside from the general pro-Tory swing in Cumbria in 2001) has been quite stable. I think either both will go or neither will myself, because I think UKIP will throw everything at Stoke and the Tories everything at Copeland. I have put £35 on UKIP taking Stoke C (with a return of £127) and £15 on the Tories taking Copeland., I disagree. Stoke for me is the exact opposite to a volatile political town. It has always been a dependable steady state like say Newark or Bassetlaw. No mover with trend or fashion. It is non volatile but in very gradual long term shift like its county from orthodox red towards orthodox blue. That is why it may well be saved. In particular, the trend I identify will help the Conservatives but that will be impeded by UKIP. I would fundamentally disagree with you there. Look at the 2015 local elections in Stoke-on-Trent. Labour lost control. If you look at the majorities in Copeland, they go from 29% in 1997 to 6% in 2015, whereas Stoke Central has gone from 49% to 17%, a much larger swing. The other Stoke seats (North and South) have also swung quite heavily against Labour in 2010 and 2015. Copeland appears to be a low swing seat. |
|
