|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 19, 2017 22:10:35 GMT
Neither Barton Seagrave nor Chigwell are ever likely to be Labour wards but not at least running a paper candidate is daft. Those Labour voters in Barton may well vote for someone else and that's when the option of not voting Labour takes hold. And that matters in Kettering though less so in Epping Forest.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,800 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 20, 2017 0:47:59 GMT
Where have all the kippers gone? They've been hung out to dry. (As is the custom). |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 20, 2017 14:27:59 GMT
Why are these by elections not being held on Thursday 23rd February? I think Mr Flynn should explain. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Feb 21, 2017 10:58:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 12:39:43 GMT
Neither Barton Seagrave nor Chigwell are ever likely to be Labour wards but not at least running a paper candidate is daft. Those Labour voters in Barton may well vote for someone else and that's when the option of not voting Labour takes hold. And that matters in Kettering though less so in Epping Forest. Jeremy doesnt look like he's closing the 27 point gap in Kettering tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 21, 2017 13:03:14 GMT
Neither Barton Seagrave nor Chigwell are ever likely to be Labour wards but not at least running a paper candidate is daft. Those Labour voters in Barton may well vote for someone else and that's when the option of not voting Labour takes hold. And that matters in Kettering though less so in Epping Forest. Jeremy doesnt look like he's closing the 27 point gap in Kettering tbh. And never will if there's not the option of candidates to vote for. |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Feb 21, 2017 21:54:27 GMT
Jeremy doesnt look like he's closing the 27 point gap in Kettering tbh. And never will if there's not the option of candidates to vote for. He or any other Labour leader very likely never will. Kettering is to all intensive purposes a safe Tory seat. Labour would need to be winning a huge nationwide landslide with a 400+ seats to be even be remotely competitive. Remember even in 1997 Kettering barely went Labour with a majority of only 0.3% or 189 votes. Labour would be completely wasting their time worrying about Kettering though I agree in this by-election they should have at least been able to manage a paper candidate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 22:10:54 GMT
And never will if there's not the option of candidates to vote for. He or any other Labour leader very likely never will. Kettering is to all intensive purposes a safe Tory seat. Labour would need to be winning a huge nationwide landslide with a 400+ seats to be even be remotely competitive. Remember even in 1997 Kettering barely went Labour with a majority of only 0.3% or 189 votes. Labour would be completely wasting their time worrying about Kettering though I agree in this by-election they should have at least been able to manage a paper candidate. Oh my. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 22:54:41 GMT
Kettering was won in 1997 by Labour.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 21, 2017 23:01:30 GMT
And never will if there's not the option of candidates to vote for. He or any other Labour leader very likely never will. Kettering is to all intensive purposes a safe Tory seat. Which way does it vote when the purposes are less intensive? Kettering was won in 1997 by Labour. Nobody claimed that it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 22, 2017 0:09:55 GMT
The point is that if you don't put up candidates then voting patterns start to change as people get less used to voting for you and no candidate almost definitely means a moribund local party.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Feb 22, 2017 0:16:55 GMT
Basingstoke & Deane - Labour gain from Conservative
| Party | 2017 votes | 2017 share | since 2015 | since 2014 | since 2011 | since 2010 | Labour | 824 | 61.6% | +31.1% | +24.5% | +16.8% | +30.8% | Conservative | 472 | 35.3% | -10.5% | -4.1% | -14.6% | -15.3% | Liberal Democrat | 42 | 3.1% | -2.7% | +0.7% | -2.2% | -12.4% | UKIP |
|
| -17.9% | -21.1% |
|
| Community |
|
|
|
|
| -3.1% | Total votes | 1,338 |
| 44% | 72% | 67% | 43% |
Swing Conservative to Labour ~ 20¾% since 2015, 14¼% since 2014, 15¾% since 2011 and 23% since 2010 Council now 32 Conservative, 20 Labour, 6 Liberal Democrat, 2 Independent
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 22, 2017 11:37:11 GMT
BASINGSTOKE and DEANE Winklebury
Labour gain from Conservative
|
|
|
|
Post by jonnymorris on Feb 22, 2017 11:54:45 GMT
Britain Elects @britainelects
Winklebury (Basingstoke & Deane) result:
LAB: 61.6% (+31.1)
CON: 35.3% (-10.5)
LDEM: 3.1% (-2.7)
Lab GAIN from Con.
No UKIP as prev.
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Feb 22, 2017 12:05:33 GMT
And never will if there's not the option of candidates to vote for. He or any other Labour leader very likely never will. Kettering is to all intensive purposes a safe Tory seat. Labour would need to be winning a huge nationwide landslide with a 400+ seats to be even be remotely competitive. Remember even in 1997 Kettering barely went Labour with a majority of only 0.3% or 189 votes. Labour would be completely wasting their time worrying about Kettering though I agree in this by-election they should have at least been able to manage a paper candidate. I believe Labour increased its majority there in 2001. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 22, 2017 12:08:52 GMT
That is a remarkably good result for Labour. I assume it reflects the quality and/or the well-knownness of the candidate. I don't think any in the Red Team would advance the idea that there has been a very recent 21% swing from Conservatives to labour?!!
Congratulations to Labour. That is a magnificent one-off (we all hope) result. Well done.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 22, 2017 12:24:02 GMT
At the very least, it must be an indicator that even at present the Labour label doesn't have to put people off given the right circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 22, 2017 12:26:17 GMT
BASINGSTOKE and DEANE Winklebury
FREEMAN, Angela Elizabeth (Labour Party) 824
HENDON, Christopher Neil (The Conservative Party Candidate) 472
ROGERS, Zoe-Marie (Liberal Democrat) 42
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Feb 22, 2017 12:30:19 GMT
As far as I'm concerned that result only goes to prove that half of Labour's supporters fall into what I call the basket of deplorables - swivel-eyed loons and fruitcakes, not to mention racists and fascists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 22, 2017 12:37:22 GMT
And never will if there's not the option of candidates to vote for. He or any other Labour leader very likely never will. Kettering is to all intensive purposes a safe Tory seat. Labour would need to be winning a huge nationwide landslide with a 400+ seats to be even be remotely competitive. Remember even in 1997 Kettering barely went Labour with a majority of only 0.3% or 189 votes. Labour would be completely wasting their time worrying about Kettering though I agree in this by-election they should have at least been able to manage a paper candidate. Though to be fair the seat that Labour very narrowly won in 1997 and 2001 included around 15,000 voters in rural wards from Daventry district which were removed in 2010 as the constituency became coterminous with the district. The effect of their removal would have been to almost completely wipe out the 3k+ Conservative majority in 2005, so it's fair to say that on current boundaries Labour would have been ahead by a couple of thousand or so in 1997 and 2001. That does not invalidate your fundamental point however |
|
