YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,914
|
Post by YL on Feb 3, 2017 8:07:43 GMT
The contrast beween the results in Brinsworth and Catcliffe, and Dinnington, tells a lot about the "LibDem surge", I think. There is also the potential impact of Labour fielding an Asian candidate in Brinsworth & Catcliffe: a 90% White ward which elected a BNP councillor in 2008 and a UKIPper as one of their three last year. I see that this same Asian Labour candidate was the one who was beaten by UKIP for the third vacancy last year. She did defeat the BNP in this ward in 2012, but by that time the party was dying – and at 29.5% this was their best Rotherham vote that year. I think the high turnout (for a local by-election on a not particularly nice February day) points towards a genuine positive vote for the Lib Dem candidate. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,914
|
Post by YL on Feb 3, 2017 8:10:56 GMT
Totally unpredicted. Until tonight, I saw no predictions that it would even be close - then M Smithson at Political Betting posted it would be "too close to call". I didn't look at the predictions on here, but I definitely got a feeling from the way the Lib Dems were ramping it that they thought they were going to win, so I'm not that surprised (except by the scale of it). Also, the circumstances of the by-election pointed towards Labour having problems. I don't know what Smithson's source was, but neither Rotherham by-election was actually remotely close... |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,979
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 3, 2017 10:45:15 GMT
My only real response to the Rotherham results taken together is - LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 3, 2017 12:06:12 GMT
Brinsworth: LD - 2000 - 66.0% (+50.4%) Lab - 519 - 17.1% (-26.2%) UKIP - 389 - 12.8% (-16.4%) Con - 91 - 3.0% (-8.8%) Grn - 30 - 1.0% (+1.0%) Not a bad swing, I suppose. Mustn't grumble. Slack water ...  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 3, 2017 12:09:52 GMT
The contrast beween the results in Brinsworth and Catcliffe, and Dinnington, tells a lot about the "LibDem surge", I think. Straw Clutched.  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 3, 2017 12:18:35 GMT
The contrast beween the results in Brinsworth and Catcliffe, and Dinnington, tells a lot about the "LibDem surge", I think. Straw Clutched. Annoying Lib Dem sore winner behaves annoyingly. What is being shown is not that there is a general rise in support for the Liberal Democrats, but that where the Liberal Democrats are able to summon up very large numbers of activists to campaign in a single small election, they are now able to win seats. That is only news because they were unable to do so during the Coalition years and immediately after. Where the activists don't bother, the Liberal Democrat vote remains tiny. To project council byelection successes as a nationwide upsurge in support is as daft when Corbyn does it as when your party does. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 3, 2017 12:21:47 GMT
Annoying Lib Dem sore winner behaves annoyingly. What is being shown is not that there is a general rise in support for the Liberal Democrats, but that where the Liberal Democrats are able to summon up very large numbers of activists to campaign in a single small election, they are now able to win seats. That is only news because they were unable to do so during the Coalition years and immediately after. Where the activists don't bother, the Liberal Democrat vote remains tiny. To project council byelection successes as a nationwide upsurge in support is as daft when Corbyn does it as when your party does. Man with sense of humour by-pass confirms he has sense of humour bypass.  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 3, 2017 12:23:06 GMT
Annoying Lib Dem sore winner behaves annoyingly. What is being shown is not that there is a general rise in support for the Liberal Democrats, but that where the Liberal Democrats are able to summon up very large numbers of activists to campaign in a single small election, they are now able to win seats. That is only news because they were unable to do so during the Coalition years and immediately after. Where the activists don't bother, the Liberal Democrat vote remains tiny. To project council byelection successes as a nationwide upsurge in support is as daft when Corbyn does it as when your party does. Man with sense of humour by-pass confirms he has sense of humour bypass. Oh fuck off Gwyn Griffiths. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 12:25:00 GMT
Man with sense of humour by-pass confirms he has sense of humour bypass. Oh fuck off Gwyn Griffiths.  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,979
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 3, 2017 12:28:23 GMT
Now now, play nice everybody It is fair comment to point out that both in this Rotherham gain and the one in Sunderland a few weeks ago, the circumstances of the vacancies concerned gave the LibDems a head start which they duly exploited. The point about resources referred to upthread is also a reasonable one. Though I have to say, a gain from UKIP on a sizeable swing - and the LibDems coming last on 4% - is a not insignificant "straw" to clutch |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 3, 2017 13:04:29 GMT
Man with sense of humour by-pass confirms he has sense of humour bypass. Oh fuck off Gwyn Griffiths. Elegantly put. |
|
|
|
Post by bigfatron on Feb 3, 2017 13:05:51 GMT
It sort of suggests that where the LDems campaign strongly against Labour they can do well, and where labour campaign strongly against UKIP they too can do well.
I suspect in both cases that where they don't put the effort in both LDems and Labour will continue to struggle, but that is hardly surprising?
IMHO the only group with a real downside on the night are UKIP...
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 3, 2017 13:19:50 GMT
Those results are very poor for UKIP in what I would suggest to be particularly fertile ground for us. Therefore I deduce the party is
1) Thin on the ground locally even in a very good demographic.
2) Probably chronically short of funds locally.
3) Possibly ill-supported by the wider party.
4) Whole party probably short of cash.
5) No evidence so far that the Nuttall leadership is having an effect.
6) Possible issues over quality and profile of our candidates.
If we can't do better than this one wonders if it would not be better to keep campaigning general and national, with most input to media and especially to TV, and with a much greater use of high quality IT direct contact.
Brinsworth is a very odd place. The LDs paid them some attention. They like attention and are as volatile and easy to please as anywhere in Britain. This is not an indication of the LDs on a surge or that their policies have just gained wide acceptance...........Anymore than when it was when the BNP swept all before them. The LDs today are the BNP-substitute of choice of the moment. Could be Labour next month or us. It really could.
It would be churlish not to congratulate the LDs and indeed Labour on last night, but seriously don't get your hopes up too much on this in those two places. Those results mean very little, except to us. For us they were bad. No mistake.
In Dinnington I think the result will have reflected differential input rather than a detailed analysis by the electors of the 'issues' at hand! In short Labour put in more effort with more people and more cash, and got the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 3, 2017 13:57:37 GMT
Those results are very poor for UKIP in what I would suggest to be particularly fertile ground for us. Therefore I deduce the party is 1) Thin on the ground locally even in a very good demographic. 2) Probably chronically short of funds locally. 3) Possibly ill-supported by the wider party. 4) Whole party probably short of cash. 5) No evidence so far that the Nuttall leadership is having an effect. 6) Possible issues over quality and profile of our candidates. 4 and 5 on that list are probably true. 6 is also probably true - I don't know anything about the UKIP candidates in last night's by-elections, but a lot of their council candidates are either complete political novices, or rejects from the Tory or Labour parties. Round here, I can think of one ex-Labour activist who flounced off in a huff after failing to get selected for a council seat (for very good reasons; we really dodged a bullet with that one). That individual is in contact with UKIP and I expect them to appear as a UKIP candidate next year. 1 and 2 should not apply in Rotherham - UKIP are the main opposition party on the council, with 13 Councillors, and actually won the popular vote in the 2014 local elections. 3 also should not matter in Rotherham, given their local strength, but may be an issue elsewhere. I like your contributions and very much respect your views for being less tribal than most (all parties). I know the area and background there very well but I have no current political contacts at all. I know the political make-up of the authority and just how close UKIP were to taking many more seats. What I don't know is if that bore any relation at all to party activity? Do you? Results like those for the LDs would have been on the back of a considerable spend and a lot of people on the pavements. Was that true of UKIP? I just don't know. I had rather assumed that it was quite a small group of rather new and very inexperienced enthusiasts, but carried along on a surge of revulsion for Labour by a significant minority in the area. If that was the case there is not that pool of experienced campaigners you may think there to be? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,979
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 3, 2017 14:02:46 GMT
I certainly recall reports that UKIP put a lot of resources into Rotherham last year (all-out elections, of course) and were if anything disappointed not to do a bit better.
Now, that doesn't necessarily carry straight over into these byelections since a lot of said "resources" will have been from outside - and of course they are otherwise preoccupied right now. But this has still been a "flagship" borough for them since at least 2014, and for that reason alone the results were below par.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 3, 2017 14:07:11 GMT
One important thing about Rotherham to note is that the council and local Labour politicians have learned an important lesson; they are deliberately giving high publicity when anyone is tried for child abuse. It's important as reassurance to the local community but it's also a way of ensuring UKIP don't corner this issue for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 3, 2017 14:55:47 GMT
I remember back in pre-coalition times there used to be polls where 50% of people would say "I would vote Lib Dem but I don't because they can't win". I guess it was what gave rise to the much derided "Winning here" posters...
Perhaps we are getting back to a position like then where if the Lib Dems put in much more effort than the others they can win virtually anywhere, whether Labour or Tory leaning. (As a geochemist I would talk about a high activation energy here).
I do suspect that if the same effort had been put into Dinnington the Lib Dems would have won there too, and I would put money on them in any local by-election with 20 miles of Sheffield at the moment!
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 3, 2017 14:55:56 GMT
Looking at the results from the two Rotherham wards last night, I wonder if UKIP could do surprisingly badly in Stoke, and the LibDems could do surprisingly well? I can see no reason at all to relate the two places, nor the two different classes of election. To an extent a win by the LDs or UKIP at Stoke reflects exactly the same attitude of the public. They are for the most part entirely unappreciative of the finer points of theory or policy, and merely wish to slap the face of Labour and show a distance from the government. The LDs always think it is an appreciation of their finer qualities, their hard work and their superior policies. It is fruitless to attempt disabusement. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 3, 2017 15:00:34 GMT
Looking at the results from the two Rotherham wards last night, I wonder if UKIP could do surprisingly badly in Stoke, and the LibDems could do surprisingly well? In Stoke the main issue is these (probably fake) polls that show UKIP doing very well. I do get the impression though that Labour are not very popular in Stoke (hence losing control to a bunch of Independents, and a turnout of 49% in the GE), and if Nuttall manages a few more gaffes, and the Lib Dem campaign leaders get the activist support they want, who knows what might happen?? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 3, 2017 15:55:41 GMT
The contrast beween the results in Brinsworth and Catcliffe, and Dinnington, tells a lot about the "LibDem surge", I think. There is also the potential impact of Labour fielding an Asian candidate in Brinsworth & Catcliffe: a 90% White ward which elected a BNP councillor in 2008 and a UKIPper as one of their three last year. I see that this same Asian Labour candidate was the one who was beaten by UKIP for the third vacancy last year. She did defeat the BNP in this ward in 2012, but by that time the party was dying – and at 29.5% this was their best Rotherham vote that year. If that were particularly decisive, I would have expected a poor result in Dinnington too, where the candidate has a surname that I presume is Eastern European in origin. Granted, not everybody who is hostile to Asians is hostile to Eastern Europeans, but there's a substantial cross-over. I think the simple explanation works: we got swamped. |
|
