Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122 
|
Post by Eastwood on Feb 22, 2017 22:53:43 GMT
The rationale is probably that they think there will be a low turnout; Labour is at a low ebb; Paul Nuttall has blown it by showing himself up as a latter day Walter Mitty; the LibDems have put in a decent effort which will take votes away from Labour; meaning that there's a slight possibility the Tories could squeak through on a low share of the vote if they get their core vote out. Apparently some Tories have been tweeting the result of the 1992 General Election in Inverness when Russell Johnstone won for the LibDems with 26% in a four-way split. I don't see it happening myself, but I don't think they would have sent the PM up there if it was a total no-hope campaign. Apparently they have also been putting out direct mail letters from Theresa May. Surely Eastwood 2016 would be a better example for tories to use in terms of the leftie/ working class vote being split letting in a conservative Eastwood was not a working class / leftie vote. It was a middle class, public sector centrist vote that previously supported new Labour and has now split into various pieces. There was also a large Jewish vote that didn't translate well to Corbynite Labour. It isn't really a great comparator to anywhere else being a very specific outlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 22, 2017 23:00:52 GMT
Amusing to see Labour ramping us so that we split the anti-lab vote here. Surely you were ramping yourselves by sending the Prime Minister up there! She merely wanted cheap plates for No 10. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,821
|
Post by right on Feb 22, 2017 23:21:06 GMT
Amusing to see Labour ramping us so that we split the anti-lab vote here. Surely you were ramping yourselves by sending the Prime Minister up there! I think it's more about crushing UKIP into the dust than actually winning. |
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Feb 22, 2017 23:54:16 GMT
How many postal votes? If it's stormy tomorrow they could be even more important. My guess is that at Stoke they are mainly Labour - but how many?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 22, 2017 23:56:22 GMT
O/T From the vaults: "In 1966 Prime Minister Harold Wilson's Labour Party had been in government with an unworkable majority of just four MPs for only 17 months. His decision to call an election that year was validated with a majority of 96. Among them were three new Stoke-on-Trent MPs who had never set foot in Parliament before.Jack Ashley (Stoke South), Bob Cant (Stoke Central) and John Forrester (Stoke North) were chosen to replace Ellis Smith, Barnett Stross, and Harriet Slater in what some observers called an expulsion of old Labour. Smith was a revolutionary 69 year-old. Confrontational Stross was three years his junior. And with Harriet Slater a youthful 63, it seemed age had nothing to do with their retirement. Of the new boys, primary schoolteacher John Forrester was the youngest at 42. Former trade unionist and broadcaster Jack Ashley was 44, while university lecturer Bob Cant was 51. As far as career moves go, being a Stoke-on-Trent MP counted as a job for life." www.stokesentinel.co.uk/labour-s-political-chicanery-1966-remains-mystery/story-15678292-detail/story.html |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Feb 23, 2017 2:50:19 GMT
O/T From the vaults: "In 1966 Prime Minister Harold Wilson's Labour Party had been in government with an unworkable majority of just four MPs for only 17 months. His decision to call an election that year was validated with a majority of 96. Among them were three new Stoke-on-Trent MPs who had never set foot in Parliament before.Jack Ashley (Stoke South), Bob Cant (Stoke Central) and John Forrester (Stoke North) were chosen to replace Ellis Smith, Barnett Stross, and Harriet Slater in what some observers called an expulsion of old Labour. Smith was a revolutionary 69 year-old. Confrontational Stross was three years his junior. And with Harriet Slater a youthful 63, it seemed age had nothing to do with their retirement. Of the new boys, primary schoolteacher John Forrester was the youngest at 42. Former trade unionist and broadcaster Jack Ashley was 44, while university lecturer Bob Cant was 51. As far as career moves go, being a Stoke-on-Trent MP counted as a job for life." www.stokesentinel.co.uk/labour-s-political-chicanery-1966-remains-mystery/story-15678292-detail/story.htmlBarnett Stross retired on health grounds (it used to be said by those who knew him that he knew he was terminally ill), and lived for little over a year after his retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 23, 2017 11:26:07 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 23, 2017 11:26:57 GMT
Blatant expectations management there, at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 11:47:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 23, 2017 12:26:40 GMT
The weather up here is appalling, and apparently the railways are blocked around Crewe and Congleton- so I imagine it's terrible in Stoke too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 12:27:29 GMT
No trains going out of Euston, so bad news for any London day trippers...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:01:45 GMT
I am sick of politicians of all parties, including my own, who literally blame the weather for bad election results. If your voters are so unmotivated that they are put off by a bit of wind then that really says something about you as a candidate and the kind of campaign you ran. If Labour lose Stoke it will be because of terrible candidate/ EU/ Corbyn. If Labour lose Copeland it will be because not everyone is pregnant. I am not going to change my vote on either thread but I expected the Labour campaign in both seats to take of, it sadly didn't, I have felt progressively more pessimistic the longer the campaign has gone on... š Like it or not Benj, weather affects turnout, usually to the detriment of the Labour vote over the Conservatives. As it happens, much of the UKIP campaign is aimed at the same demographic so they may be hampered in a similar manner? In a closely-contested election like Copeland, that may (only may) be a decisive factor. It is not whinging to raise the issue, not least among those of us who are interested in the motivation of those who turn out to vote as well as those who don't. All that said, at this stage of a parliamentary cycle, with a government that has lost its Prime Minister and Chancellor, as well as making unpopular decisions, Labour should be gaining Tory seats, not worrying about the weather in Labour ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 23, 2017 13:04:50 GMT
Like it or not Benj, weather affects turnout, usually to the detriment of the Labour vote over the Conservatives. Evidence for this widely-believed claim is lacking. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:12:36 GMT
Like it or not Benj, weather affects turnout, usually to the detriment of the Labour vote over the Conservatives. Evidence for this widely-believed claim is lacking. My own opinion is based on the painful experience of getting the vote out in bad weather "You don't need our vote, you'll win anyway". I found it added to the difficulty on council estates more than elsewhere but, as you say, more evidence would be needed and researched rather than just anecdotes. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 23, 2017 13:16:32 GMT
The weather up here is appalling, and apparently the railways are blocked around Crewe and Congleton- so I imagine it's terrible in Stoke too. Here in Crewe (c15 miles from Stoke) it's been blowing hard all morning, just starting to ease now. Also pouring with rain till about 1230. Perfect weather for telling.  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 23, 2017 13:17:28 GMT
I will just point out that whilst it is windy here with rainy periods, the weather in Copeland is nowhere near as bad as Stoke - where it appears genuinely horrific  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 23, 2017 13:19:25 GMT
Evidence for this widely-believed claim is lacking. My own opinion is based on the painful experience of getting the vote out in bad weather "You don't need our vote, you'll win anyway". I found it added to the difficulty on council estates more than elsewhere but, as you say, more evidence would be needed and researched rather than just anecdotes. No empirical evidence but weather must have some effect on turnout. The benefit/disbenefit for parties will surely vary? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:23:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 13:24:07 GMT
My own opinion is based on the painful experience of getting the vote out in bad weather "You don't need our vote, you'll win anyway". I found it added to the difficulty on council estates more than elsewhere but, as you say, more evidence would be needed and researched rather than just anecdotes. No empirical evidence but weather must have some effect on turnout. The benefit/disbenefit for parties will surely vary? Who has the hardiest voters? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,988
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 23, 2017 13:30:24 GMT
I think part of the explanation is that the Tories were formerly more likely to have cars which could transport voters in the event of bad weather.
You would think there isn't much difference in car ownership between the parties these days, though.....
|
|
