neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Oct 20, 2023 7:38:15 GMT
Infighting started, or should I say continuing, in the tory party
Jenkyns is a Boris Johnson supporter, I suspect the "far reaching major changes" includes getting rid of Sunak
(PS as of Monday lettes of no confidence can go in against Sunak)
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 20, 2023 7:40:01 GMT
In line with the above rule, as I predicted two Labour wins I am now declaring my genius!  ....and I'm doing the same. ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/user/48/recentInteresting that the Conservatives fared worse in Mid Beds than in Tamworth. With the polls currently averaging Con 28, Lab 45, the Tories are retaining 0.62 of their GE2019 share. The 40.7% share in Tamworth was 0.61 of their 2019 vote, while the Mids Beds share of 31.2% was just 0.52 of their 2019 vote there. The 'on par' result in Tamworth is very much in line with what has happened to the Conservative vote in recent Con/Lab by elections, with them losing votes proportionately in line with what contemporaneous polls were showing. This was also true for the Chester, Stretford and Selby by-elections. The fared somewhat better in West Lancashire, a lot better in Uxbridge, but worse in Wakefield. The effect is different when the LibDems become the main challengers : the Conservative vote share falls by even more than the proportion implied by the polls. This was true in Somerton and Froom, Tiverton, North Shropshire and Chesham and Amersham. Because of this, I think it is at least arguable that they may have contributed to the very poor showing by the Tories in Mid Beds. Ah but did you make some money on it? CON, LAB and LDEM %s all well within expected range and LDEM were saved the embarrassment of being CON enablers but I'll highlight the RoC split as arguably that cost CON both seats: In Tamworth: RUK+BF+UKIP = 9.4% In Mid.Beds: RUK+IND = 8.3% A win's a win of course and LAB were the clear ABCON vote in Tamworth but some of the ABCON vote went to the Further Right parties in both seats. I also note A.Victor avoided the embarrassment of coming last but the only Rejoin.EU candidate (Gina Miller's parties 'raison deter') managed just 93 votes (0.2%) in a 'free' protest vote by-election. With rounding then that's a 100% vote for Stay Out parties  |
|
|
|
Post by James E on Oct 20, 2023 7:40:07 GMT
What we don't know is how many people in Mid Beds voted tactically for Labour even though they would really have preferred to vote Lib Dem. The result probably underestimates the true Lib Dem support. Really? The Mid Bedfordshire constituency has until now been a very good predictor of the LibDems GB vote share - at least so far this century, and probably longer. And this has happened in a constituency where there was no case to be made for tactical voting between Lab and LD, as it has until now been very safe for the Conservatives. LDs' Mid Beds vote v GB shareGE 2019 12.6% v 11.7% (+0.9) GE 2017 6% v 7.4% (-1.4) GE 2015 7.2% v 7.9% (-0.7) GE 2010 24.9% v 23.0% (+1.9) GE2005 23.8% v 22.0% (+1.8) GE 2001 19.7% v 18.3% ( +1.4) So now with the LDs on around 11% in national polls, you are saying that 23% in a by-election "underestimates the true LibDem support". |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Oct 20, 2023 7:43:10 GMT
I think my point was that at this stage nobody can do anything other than guess at the causes for the two different results. I would expect all parties, including the Conservatives, to be analysing these results in some depth to test the hypotheses that have been advanced here along with some others. With limited resources, directing them where they will be most effective will be paramount to maximise seat numbers in a first past the post system. The other element is this, if proper research is undertaken then the resultant conclusions for each party will be similar. That will mean e.g. that attacks will be directed towards the specific challenger by the Conservatives in particular seats. These results, a year out from an election particularly because they were in safe seats, will be likely to inform both the strategic and the tactical approach taken by the parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Oct 20, 2023 7:46:46 GMT
Not as good a Labour result as achieved 1997 - 2010. Not overly impressive despite the swing. We need a thumbs down option. He's probably upset because the hard lefts worse nightmare is happening and moderate Labour looks likely it'll win the GE. Hard left would rather the Tories stayed in power, like Tories they love others suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Oct 20, 2023 7:47:47 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 20, 2023 7:48:03 GMT
Just to cheer up our Lib Dem supporters a bit - evidence they can do huge swings as well, albeit in local government:
LIB DEM GAIN IN ALVELEY AND CLAVERLEY, SHROPSHIRE
🔶 Liberal Democrat - 662, 58.7% (+36.2)
🔵 Conservative - 408, 36.3% (-33.0)
🌹 Labour - 55, 4.9% (+4.9)
So just the 34.6% Con to Lib Dem swing. I called this as safe Conservative! Just under 32% turnout.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 20, 2023 7:48:55 GMT
The LD key message ("only we can defeat Con in their heartlands so Lab voters should switch") collapsed last night. The new message is " a vote for LD risks letting Con back in". In areas they don't already hold expect them to collapse in a GE. Their whole strategy is a busted flush in the face of a red tsunami. Voters aren't stupid, and they now want real change and decent, honest Government. Well good luck to them finding 'honest' with Starmer  Anyway for LDEM then they now only exist as the best placed ABCON party in seats they think LAB can't win. Their potential voters very happy to back LAB in seats where LAB are obvious ABCON (which is most seats in GB). Given LDEM's target seats are posh/leafy/commuter seats then their desire to build 380k houses per year (that Davey wisely tried to stop) might not go down that well in 'ultra local' seat targeting in GE'24. Won't make much difference to LAB seats but with LDEM voters tactically voting LAB in most seats and fighting against the NIMBY vote in seats they might hope to win then.. well... we'll see how that works out for them NB I'd prefer LAB to win a big enough majority to never have to do a deal with LDEM. Although I can see why Starmer might want a deal with them. Useful idiots can come in handy when you need to do some 'unpopular but necessary' stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Oct 20, 2023 7:52:48 GMT
Election Maps UK @electionmapsuk · Follow 🚨 *JUST FOR FUN ALARM* 🚨 How GB would vote if the Mid Bedfordshire By-Election swing was repeated across the country: LAB: 480 (+284) LDM: 104 (+96) CON: 20 (-356) SNP: 23 (-25) PLC: 3 (+1) GRN: 1 (=) Labour Majority: 310 Changes w/ GE2019 Notional. Go home and prepare for Opposition!!! |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 20, 2023 7:52:56 GMT
What we don't know is how many people in Mid Beds voted tactically for Labour even though they would really have preferred to vote Lib Dem. The result probably underestimates the true Lib Dem support. Really? The Mid Bedfordshire constituency has until now been a very good predictor of the LibDems GB vote share - at least so far this century, and probably longer. And this has happened in a constituency where there was no case to be made for tactical voting between Lab and LD, as it has until now been very safe for the Conservatives. LDs' Mid Beds vote v GB shareGE 2019 12.6% v 11.7% (+0.9) GE 2017 6% v 7.4% (-1.4) GE 2015 7.2% v 7.9% (-0.7) GE 2010 24.9% v 23.0% (+1.9) GE2005 23.8% v 22.0% (+1.8) GE 2001 19.7% v 18.3% ( +1.4) So now with the LDs on around 11% in national polls, you are saying that 23% in a by-election "underestimates the true LibDem support". Well the LDEM vote is pretty lumpy, although this morning that is perhaps 'grumpy'
"Only LDEM can win here" - not! |
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Oct 20, 2023 7:55:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Oct 20, 2023 7:56:10 GMT
Secondly Greens underperformed their polling results. They got 1.8% in Mid-Bedfordshire and 1.6% in Tamworth. In 8 of the last 10 polls the Greens have polled 6%. I've thought for a while their support was overstated and last night showed that, come an election, most of their voters will go to the candidate most likely to beat the tories. In any seat where there is significant tactical voting I completely agree that most of the Green-minded vote (by which I mean people who are inclined to vote Green out of conviction, rather than as a semi-random protest) will got to the best-placed ABT candidate - all Green-minded voters I know are strongly anti-Tory. What'll be more interesting is whether there's a detectable difference between Green vote share in these seats and safe seats. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 20, 2023 7:56:55 GMT
These are the Worcestershire results - First is District Council, second County Council and both Green gains from Con on huge swings. The first was expected, the latter not. I'll work out the percentages when I get a moment. It would be fair to say the Tories didn't have a great night anywhere.
Warndon Parish South (city)
Grn 733
Con 340
Lab 171
LD 92
RUk 29
Warndon Parish (county)
Grn 1139
Con 623
LD 579
Lab 237
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Oct 20, 2023 7:57:31 GMT
Amidst all the revisionism and willful forgetting, this statement to the Covid Inquiry needs to be seen and understood by everyone - Edmunds believes 20,000 - 25,000 died needlessly because the government failed to accept recommendations for transmission reduction measures in a timely manner in autumn 2020, and instead let the virus go. The key point here, that everyone seems to forget, is that any suppression measure works best if applied hard and early. Johnson ignored this advice, and it didn't mean we had fewer restrictions overall, or less disruption from the measures themselves. It meant the _exact_ opposite. We had longer and harsher lockdown measures than we would have had, these harsher measures had a more limited effect on transmission, and 25,000 people died that would otherwise have been saved. It's also notable where Edmunds states that earlier action would have held the wave at bay for far longer, giving NHS staff some breathing space and allowing some catch up on the earlier disruptions. What really stuffed the NHS wasn't that we had another lockdown; it was that we didn't have a shorter, more effective mitigation response sooner, so ended up with a far harsher set of restrictions that lasted for far longer and which has a much more limited effect on cases as a result. This, I think, is where the current narrative is going wrong. The entire focus appears to be an attempt to paint transmission control measures - 'protections', as I like to call them - as damaging and to be avoided. The problem is that such protections are actually essential, if your aim is the welfare of the population, but to be successful, they need to applied speedily and rigorously. Apply them in an incompetent manner, as this government did, and you firstly lose much of the benefits while also needing them to be deeper and longer for any given level of benefits, with all the knock on impacts that brings.
“The decision isn’t to lock down or not, the decision is you do it now and get on top of this epidemic and control the epidemic or you let it control you and it will force you into a lockdown at a later date when you’ll have to lock down harder and longer and many people will die as a consequence.”
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2023 7:58:31 GMT
"Voters aren't stupid"
Really how do you explain Brexit or the Spaffer regime?
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 20, 2023 8:01:53 GMT
Just to counter the low turnout defence ploy being trotted out by some Tories to explain away their two by election disasters yesterday, it's worth remembering that their "seismic" and "historic" by election "triumph" in Hartlepool two years ago was "miraculously achieved" with a turnout 2% below the one in Mid Beds yesterday. 42% on that "truly remarkable" day in Hartlepool and 44% in "apathy, non-enthused" Mid Beds.
Curtice makes a telling point too about by election turnouts over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Oct 20, 2023 8:03:10 GMT
Neil, I read that Curtis BBC article earlier and I think there is an inaccuracy, not sure if JC or the editor but the below is clearly wrong.
''Of course, swings against the government are often an exaggerated reflection of the current national mood. Indeed, the swing in both by-elections was rather less than the 14 or 15 point swing currently being registered by the national polls.''
Over 20% swing in both.
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Oct 20, 2023 8:09:17 GMT
In line with the above rule, as I predicted two Labour wins I am now declaring my genius! The effect is different when the LibDems become the main challengers : the Conservative vote share falls by even more than the proportion implied by the polls. This was true in Somerton and Froom, Tiverton, North Shropshire and Chesham and Amersham. Because of this, I think it is at least arguable that they may have contributed to the very poor showing by the Tories in Mid Beds. , as always I think we need to be cautious about reading too much into a by-election result. The LD's clearly are trying to counter the accusation that they split the ABT vote, and that they aided Labour by attracting Tory voters who would never have gone to Labour. The LD were also the only ones of the top three that actually increased its number of voters. However, I do think you're on thin ground if you are trying to say this was a sign of efficient ABT tactical vote - if it was being efficient the LD vote would have collapsed and 6-7k of its voters would have gone to Lab.
What the last three by-elections do seem to illustrate is that the polls are broadly right in the respective positioning of the parties, and that nationally Lab are viewed as the best ABT and ABSNP bet.
The LDs threw everything and invested heavily Mid-Beds, and continued to despite all the evidence pointing to the fact they weren't really in contention. On balance, they probably would have more hampered than helped Labour to win. In terms of longer term LD strategy, It doesn't really signal to Lab voters to vote tactically for the LDs - possibly quite the reverse. But then again I doubt most voters are following it closely as people on this site are. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Oct 20, 2023 8:10:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Oct 20, 2023 8:10:18 GMT
What we don't know is how many people in Mid Beds voted tactically for Labour even though they would really have preferred to vote Lib Dem. The result probably underestimates the true Lib Dem support. So now with the LDs on around 11% in national polls, you are saying that 23% in a by-election "underestimates the true LibDem support". Yes that's what I'm saying. Are you saying that not a single potential Lib Dem voter in Mid Beds voted tactically for Labour instead? What I'm not saying is that Lib Dem support is above 23% nationally which is perhaps how you have misinterpreted my comment. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Oct 20, 2023 8:10:30 GMT
CB, your point about Lab voters in Tamworth being the more motivated to get out and vote (to paraphrase) suggests turnout differential, as always is a factor in By-Elections.
I think we will all accept that many Tory voters in both seats abstained yesterday.
What none of us, or Tory HQ, know is how many of these will hold their noses and turnout come the GE.
It is fair to say, therefore, that turnout is a factor but the Tories will know that while they can use this line to the media bringing all those disillusioned 'supporters' back for the GE is highly improbable.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,604
|
Post by pjw1961 on Oct 20, 2023 8:11:28 GMT
These are the Worcestershire results - First is District Council, second County Council and both Green gains from Con on huge swings. The first was expected, the latter not. I'll work out the percentages when I get a moment. It would be fair to say the Tories didn't have a great night anywhere. Warndon Parish South (city) Grn 733 Con 340 Lab 171 LD 92 RUk 29 Warndon Parish (county) Grn 1139 Con 623 LD 579 Lab 237 Worcester result (compared to 2022 when outgoing councillor elected - Greens won here in 2023) Green 53.7% +36.2 Con 24.9% -28.4 Lab 12.5% -11.1 L Dem 6.7% +1.1 Refuk 2.1 (New) Worcestershire CC result Green 44.2% +28.7 Con 24.7% - 36.9 L Dem 22.5% +16.3 Lab 9.2% -7.0 No SDP as previously |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Oct 20, 2023 8:11:35 GMT
crossbat11 - congratulations on the fruits of your effort tramping the streets of Tamworth! Care to offer a just-for-fun estimate of the number of extra voters you managed to herd to the polls despite the awful weather? On the leaflet deluge, I don't think Lab or anyone else needs to worry too much. I've lived in several marginal constituencies so I like to think I'm something of a connoisseur. LDs are the worst, I think that in a seat they plan to target they like to remind you they're there by stuffing some processed dead tree through the letter box every couple of months. The most impressive leaflet campaigns are the ones where you get lots of different leaflets - one that's heavy on candidate biography, some focusing on various key policies, some on local context etc., and in amongst the text lots of offers to come and give you a window poster or stake poster to display your support. These days of course there's also a social media blizzard. I bet that these days you can sign up for an alert to remind you to go and vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Oct 20, 2023 8:16:03 GMT
Ironies piling up aplenty following the by elections. Greg Hands, the Tory Chairman, has claimed that during the campaign "they (the Tory campaigners, presumably) detected "zero enthusiasm" for Labour and Starmer.
How would they know that when they barely campaigned, certainly in Tamworth? Talking to some of the Labour team yesterday, the Tories apparently conducted a virtually non-existent ground campaign beyond free mailshots. No canvassing nor door-knocking. In other words, no direct conversations with any voters.
It will be interesting to see if this was a similar story in Mid Beds.
It's trite to make lazy comparisons to 1996, because this is a completely different political era to that one of almost to thirty years ago, but I'm being reminded of one thing from back then.
The steady erosion Tory morale and fighting spirit.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 20, 2023 8:17:38 GMT
I read that Curtis BBC article earlier and I think there is an inaccuracy, not sure if JC or the editor but the below is clearly wrong. ''Of course, swings against the government are often an exaggerated reflection of the current national mood. Indeed, the swing in both by-elections was rather less than the 14 or 15 point swing currently being registered by the national polls.'' Over 20% swing in both. That should obviously be 'more'. By-elections swings are almost always bigger than national poll swings (IIRC James E has posted the data on that in the past). Obviously not every by-election swing is an "exaggerated reflection of the current national mood" as some local factors can make a difference (eg ULEZ in U&SR or which smaller parties compete or if/how they tactically vote) but over a large enough sample (eg the decades of history that anyone can look up) then the average by-election swing is more than then swing that was being registered by national polls at the time of the by-election. |
|
|
|
Post by matt126 on Oct 20, 2023 8:18:22 GMT
It us useful comparing the seats last night. It seems in straight Lab/ Con seats Labour are able to squeeze the Lib Dem/ Green vote to very low levels and this is adding an extra % in these seats. The Lib Dem vote fell in Tamworth by 3.5%.
As for the Lib Dems they are polling nationally 12% they seem to be gaining a lot of vote share from the Tories in rural /semi Rural areas. Can see evidence of this in Mid Beds despite coming third. . Also Shropshire council by election results last night indicate this.
On the other hand the Conservatives are seeing in roads into VI from Reform UK of about 4%.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Oct 20, 2023 8:25:23 GMT
CB, your point about Lab voters in Tamworth being the more motivated to get out and vote (to paraphrase) suggests turnout differential, as always in a factor in By-Elections. I think we will all accept that many Tory voters in both seats abstained yesterday.What none of us, or Tory HQ, know is how many of these will hold their noses and turnout come the GE. It is fair to say, therefore, that turnout is a factor but the Tories will know that while they can use this line to the media bringing all those disillusioned 'supporters' back for the GE is highly improbable. Or registered a 'free' protest vote against CON's handling of illegal immigration and backed RUK, BF, UKIP or Ind (see earlier post). As others have mentioned then on the n=2 sample then Green voters seems to be OK to tactically vote LAB as the best placed ABCON but the 'Socially conservative' vote split - which helped LAB win both seats. CCHQ will likely have noticed that and without going over the Rwanda scheme process issues all over again then if the 'Socially conservative' vote splits as badly as it did in the n=2 sample of yesterday then that will gift LAB a lot more seats. I can't see how CON can kick the ECHR decision past GE'24 and if they try to then RUK+BF+UKIP will benefit (but obviously very unlikely to win any seats). Winning a massive majority can occur if LAB unite the 'liberal' ABCON vote in most seats and CON see the 'conservative' vote split by continuing to fail to deliver. (+LAB best placed ABSNP in most of Scotland which is very different analysis to E&W) |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Oct 20, 2023 8:26:23 GMT
Grumbling continues in the tory party
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Oct 20, 2023 8:30:10 GMT
Tories are apparently more likely to vote by post than left- and centre-left voters, even after allowing for age effects, so maybe Tories feel they have less to gain from a strong ground campaign and are saving resources for the GE? But rationing spending on byelection defences seems to imply desertion of donors on a scale we haven't yet seen, given the publicity that heavy defeats attract.
I've always assumed that older voters appreciate a ground campaign, even if they vote by post - shows that the party is prepared to expend some effort to earn votes. In my area Lab seems to have shifted part of its GOTV operation to a GOPVA (Give Out Postal Vote Applications) operation, presumably in response to the photo ID requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by davem on Oct 20, 2023 8:30:56 GMT
Ok trying to pick out the trends/issues and Tory spin from these results.
The Tories are not popular., yes I know that is a no shit Sherlock comment but stating the obvious is a good place to start.
Yes governments get a good kicking in by elections, however these are the 2nd and 6th largest swings since Chamberlin was PM. The 3rd largest swing was only a couple of months ago in Selby. So no these are not normal by-election kickings.
”Labour won but Kier Starmer is not popular”. This is not good news for the Tories, in 1997 Labour won a landslide because Blair was very popular. If Labour can win this big with out that charismatic leader, the Tories are in a deeper hole than they were in 1996.
The normalisation of hate and division, fuelled by a focus on immigration and other wedge issues has made it safe to vote for far right parties. Reform winning enough votes to swing both seats and in Tamworth UKIP and Britain First, both getting more votes than the Lib Dems. If voters don’t think the Tories can win, there could be a small but significant vote for the far right, splitting the Tory vote in the General Election, losing even more seats than current forecasts.
Tactical voting in seats where there is a clear second placed party to the Tories is becoming more effective.
|
|
