|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 14, 2017 20:32:59 GMT
I think people are a bit immune to the general drop of bad news about the NHS, but when their local hospital or A&E are faced with closure it is a different matter, and we have seen independents elected in General Elections in those circumstances. If one party can harness such an issue in a by-election it can make a big difference. The problem for Labour is that so many local problems can be traced to the disastrous PFI projects pursued so enthusiastically by New Labour... Yes, I agree that in an individual constituency a specific issue relating to the NHS can be important. I think it will be important in the May County elections relating to Sustainability and Transformation Plans - or bloody well should be. |
|
Rural Radical
Labour
Now living in a Labour held ward at Borough level for the first time in many years
Posts: 1,627 
|
Copeland
Feb 14, 2017 21:02:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Rural Radical on Feb 14, 2017 21:02:28 GMT
Indeed so. I (and others) discussed that at length at the time. The cost of living crisis was a real winner for Labour and it's surprising they abandoned it. Labour potentially has huge strengths in areas surrounding infrastructure spending and industrial strategy- in conversation on the previous forum I went into some detail about that with Rural Radical. I'm surprised they've not gone down that route. I do remember that neilm |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 14, 2017 22:05:04 GMT
For what it is worth, I have tried a proportional swing analysis of Copeland based on the latest YouGov poll (and before Graham or his alter ego complains, yes, this is the worst case scenario for Labour!)
The most shocking thing for me about that poll is that only 49% of 205 Labour voters would vote for them in a General election tomorrow, with 4% going Tory, 10% going LD, 4% UKIP, 6% to SNP/Green/other, and 28% don't know or would not vote. Meanwhile Labour pick up 4% of Tory votes, 8% of Lib Dem votes, and 4% of UKIP votes. The net effect is fairly neutral transfers from Lab to Tory, a quite big net transfer from Lab to Lib Dem, especially in Copeland where 8% of 2.9% is diddly squat!
Meanwhile the Tories retain 71% of their 2015 vote and also pick up 20% of UKIP votes and 10% of Lib Dem votes etc
Then I just assume that the don't knows for each party will not vote in a low turn out by-election... And invent some numbers for the Greens because the data is not there for them, and assume the Indys get zero.
Result is (roll of drums...)
Tory 41%
Labour 31%
UKIP 17%
Lib Dem 7%
Green (guessed) 4%
OK, caveats: Most results in 2015 were somewhere in between proportional swing and uniform swing. Uniform swing on that poll would give a Tory victory by 38% to 37%, and on the average of polls Labour would hang on
caveat 2: no tactical voting, and no local issues - but squeezing UKIP would give the Tories more votes. Labour could suppress the Lib Dem vote but my feeling is that the Lib Dems would have got at least 6% in Copeland if they had mounted a 3 leaflet campaign as they are (at least) doing this time. I actually think the Lib Dems will get a bit more than 7% next week, and it will be at the expense of Labour, mainly..
Anyway, I am sticking with my prediction from weeks ago of a Tory victory by 2.5 to 5%,but if it is more I will point to my astute analysis (and if Labour win I will maintain a dignified non-hat-eating silence!)
See the other thread for the equivalent nail biting result for Stoke Central!
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,911
|
Post by Tony Otim on Feb 14, 2017 23:07:15 GMT
For what it is worth, I have tried a proportional swing analysis of Copeland based on the latest YouGov poll (and before Graham or his alter ego complains, yes, this is the worst case scenario for Labour!) The most shocking thing for me about that poll is that only 49% of 205 Labour voters would vote for them in a General election tomorrow, with 4% going Tory, 10% going LD, 4% UKIP, 6% to SNP/Green/other, and 28% don't know or would not vote. Meanwhile Labour pick up 4% of Tory votes, 8% of Lib Dem votes, and 4% of UKIP votes. The net effect is fairly neutral transfers from Lab to Tory, a quite big net transfer from Lab to Lib Dem, especially in Copeland where 8% of 2.9% is diddly squat! Meanwhile the Tories retain 71% of their 2015 vote and also pick up 20% of UKIP votes and 10% of Lib Dem votes etc Then I just assume that the don't knows for each party will not vote in a low turn out by-election... And invent some numbers for the Greens because the data is not there for them, and assume the Indys get zero. Result is (roll of drums...) Tory 41% Labour 31% UKIP 17% Lib Dem 7% Green (guessed) 4% OK, caveats: Most results in 2015 were somewhere in between proportional swing and uniform swing. Uniform swing on that poll would give a Tory victory by 38% to 37%, and on the average of polls Labour would hang on caveat 2: no tactical voting, and no local issues - but squeezing UKIP would give the Tories more votes. Labour could suppress the Lib Dem vote but my feeling is that the Lib Dems would have got at least 6% in Copeland if they had mounted a 3 leaflet campaign as they are (at least) doing this time. I actually think the Lib Dems will get a bit more than 7% next week, and it will be at the expense of Labour, mainly.. Anyway, I am sticking with my prediction from weeks ago of a Tory victory by 2.5 to 5%,but if it is more I will point to my astute analysis (and if Labour win I will maintain a dignified non-hat-eating silence!) See the other thread for the equivalent nail biting result for Stoke Central! I'd be pleasantly surprised if we increased our vote share on 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 15, 2017 0:10:20 GMT
For what it is worth, I have tried a proportional swing analysis of Copeland based on the latest YouGov poll (and before Graham or his alter ego complains, yes, this is the worst case scenario for Labour!) The most shocking thing for me about that poll is that only 49% of 205 Labour voters would vote for them in a General election tomorrow, with 4% going Tory, 10% going LD, 4% UKIP, 6% to SNP/Green/other, and 28% don't know or would not vote. Meanwhile Labour pick up 4% of Tory votes, 8% of Lib Dem votes, and 4% of UKIP votes. The net effect is fairly neutral transfers from Lab to Tory, a quite big net transfer from Lab to Lib Dem, especially in Copeland where 8% of 2.9% is diddly squat! Meanwhile the Tories retain 71% of their 2015 vote and also pick up 20% of UKIP votes and 10% of Lib Dem votes etc Then I just assume that the don't knows for each party will not vote in a low turn out by-election... And invent some numbers for the Greens because the data is not there for them, and assume the Indys get zero. Result is (roll of drums...) Tory 41% Labour 31% UKIP 17% Lib Dem 7% Green (guessed) 4% OK, caveats: Most results in 2015 were somewhere in between proportional swing and uniform swing. Uniform swing on that poll would give a Tory victory by 38% to 37%, and on the average of polls Labour would hang on caveat 2: no tactical voting, and no local issues - but squeezing UKIP would give the Tories more votes. Labour could suppress the Lib Dem vote but my feeling is that the Lib Dems would have got at least 6% in Copeland if they had mounted a 3 leaflet campaign as they are (at least) doing this time. I actually think the Lib Dems will get a bit more than 7% next week, and it will be at the expense of Labour, mainly.. Anyway, I am sticking with my prediction from weeks ago of a Tory victory by 2.5 to 5%,but if it is more I will point to my astute analysis (and if Labour win I will maintain a dignified non-hat-eating silence!) See the other thread for the equivalent nail biting result for Stoke Central! I'd be pleasantly surprised if we increased our vote share on 2015. I am afraid the YouGov data did not allow Green vote changes to be estimated so I guessed randomly.. I would be surprised if the Green share goes up although there is a distinctive Green position compared to all the othesr in a nuclear-dependent constituency that could get some traction, and the Greens have done well in local elections in places |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,844
|
Copeland
Feb 15, 2017 7:36:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by right on Feb 15, 2017 7:36:29 GMT
I'd be pleasantly surprised if we increased our vote share on 2015. I am afraid the YouGov data did not allow Green vote changes to be estimated so I guessed randomly.. I would be surprised if the Green share goes up although there is a distinctive Green position compared to all the othesr in a nuclear-dependent constituency that could get some traction, and the Greens have done well in local elections in places The Green differentiation on a big local issue shouldn't be a recipe for irrelevance, but everyone is treating it like that. Is nuclear power THAT popular in Copeland? |
|
|
|
Copeland
Feb 15, 2017 7:59:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 15, 2017 7:59:36 GMT
I'm increasingly of the suspicion that Labour will hold both Copeland and Stoke, if not convincingly. In Copeland at least, ignoring the Crick debacle, I can't help but think that the candidate is a relatively safe pair of hands and has fought a solid if uninspiring campaign.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,911
|
Post by Tony Otim on Feb 15, 2017 9:10:34 GMT
I am afraid the YouGov data did not allow Green vote changes to be estimated so I guessed randomly.. I would be surprised if the Green share goes up although there is a distinctive Green position compared to all the othesr in a nuclear-dependent constituency that could get some traction, and the Greens have done well in local elections in places The Green differentiation on a big local issue shouldn't be a recipe for irrelevance, but everyone is treating it like that. Is nuclear power THAT popular in Copeland? Even given that, in the context of a tight by-election, I can't imagine it would be the deciding factor for many. I'd expect the tactical squeeze to be a bigger issue. |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Feb 15, 2017 9:57:41 GMT
I am afraid the YouGov data did not allow Green vote changes to be estimated so I guessed randomly.. I would be surprised if the Green share goes up although there is a distinctive Green position compared to all the othesr in a nuclear-dependent constituency that could get some traction, and the Greens have done well in local elections in places The Green differentiation on a big local issue shouldn't be a recipe for irrelevance, but everyone is treating it like that. Is nuclear power THAT popular in Copeland? Yes. This is an area that overwhelmingly wanted a deep storage nuclear waste facility to be built, but the County Council objected so it didnt. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,844
|
Post by right on Feb 15, 2017 10:34:03 GMT
I'm increasingly of the suspicion that Labour will hold both Copeland and Stoke, if not convincingly. In Copeland at least, ignoring the Crick debacle, I can't help but think that the candidate is a relatively safe pair of hands and has fought a solid if uninspiring campaign. I've thought this for some time, although I originally thought Stoke could go to UKIP. If so it looks like not delaying for the local elections was a smart move by Labour. Not sure what the Tories are doing with the expectations game in Copeland, although I thought the Lib Dems were mad to go all in Richmond Park. However the Tory political capital balance is high so perhaps they can risk some of it. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,000
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 15, 2017 11:05:31 GMT
A big shift to the Tories in the Betting today with some Bookies now making them 4/1 on! Is there an obvious reason for that? Private polls possibly? Has any explanation emerged for this? None that I am aware of certainly, which raises the possibility of our old friend the ramp..... |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 15, 2017 11:17:49 GMT
I guess it's Teresa May's visit today - it's said she wouldn't be visiting if the Tories didn't think they were going to win (a logic which seems flawed to me).
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 15, 2017 11:55:48 GMT
Why would a glamour model's visit be of any political interest?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 15, 2017 11:57:29 GMT
Now that you point it out, I have a thought that a visit to Copeland by Teresa May would be more effective than one by Theresa May.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 15, 2017 12:09:27 GMT
A big shift to the Tories in the Betting today with some Bookies now making them 4/1 on! Is there an obvious reason for that? Private polls possibly? Has any explanation emerged for this? None that I am aware of certainly, which raises the possibility of our old friend the ramp..... It reflects the state of the book and nothing else at all. They are trying to close off bets by diminishing the value, not because 'they know something' but because the book is just a bit Conservative heavy. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,844
|
Post by right on Feb 15, 2017 13:55:58 GMT
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,043
|
Post by Sibboleth on Feb 15, 2017 15:08:05 GMT
Arguing that it is silly for Labour to campaign on the NHS because doing so does not work is no different from arguing that the Tories should never campaign on e.g. immigration because it failed in 2001 and 2005.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 15, 2017 15:40:38 GMT
Midwives know best. The truth has a left wing bias because guess what there is a National crisis in the NHS! There have been increases of expenditure under both major parties. The Conservatives promised more than Labour at the last GE and delivered all of it and more. There have been forms of crisis in the NHS ever since it was formed. There were serious problems under Burnham and during much of the last Labour Government. This I not and never has been a party political matter. It is not even 50% a funding matter. It is a hard choices matter. A better management and more sensible management matter. It is an educate the public to be less stupid matter (smoking, drugs, alcohol, accidents, obesity). It will not be solved by voting Labour. How could it? It is an offence against truth and decency to campaign in this manner and only a totally politically bankrupt party would do so. Labour again lead the field in duplicity and mendacity whilst aiding and curing nothing and with barely half of an idea between them, but far too stupid to even be ashamed of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 15, 2017 16:30:38 GMT
The PM has done that face again  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 16:45:35 GMT
The PM has done that face again  Set your camera to "burst" when someone is speaking and just choose the ugliest/craziest image. Tell us when you are next doing a public meeting and I'll come along and demonstrate. |
|
Set your camera to "burst" when someone is speaking and just choose the ugliest/craziest image. Tell us when you are next doing a public meeting and I'll come along and demonstrate.