Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

A different look at the 2014 local election results





Flex Your Head

Well-known member
My point is that UKIP are ridiculed much in the same way, it may take UKIP longer but people shouldn't criticise them for slow progress, as it is progress nonetheless.

But their share of the vote actually declined dramatically from the local council elections last year - from 22% down to 17%.

PS It isn't the population's voting pattern that UKIP are 'ridiculed' for.
 
Last edited:












seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
But their share of the vote actually declined dramatically from the local council elections last year - from 22% down to 17%.

PS It isn't the population's voting pattern that UKIP are 'ridiculed' for.

An opinion poll last December had UKIP on 22% in Grimsby (6% in 2010) , 18 points behind Labour. Thursday's result put UKIP on 36% which is a tremendous swing.
 






e77

Well-known member
May 23, 2004
7,267
Worthing
If they didn't matter then why have them and why are Sky News giving this European election top billing?

Because they are a 24 hour news channel?

Everytime one of the non-traditional parties has a good election it is assumed a seismic shift will happen at the next General Election and it never seems to happen. The big two tend to adjust, e.g. the Labour party moved towards the centre after the SDP had some success and both started talking about immigration when the BNP one some council seats and about the environment when the Greens had success.
 


smartferndale

Active member
Mar 21, 2013
110
UKIP local election tactics

Essex, Basildon etc.

UKIP had a smart campaign. They contested certain Council seats where there was no strong established person. This meant resources were focussed on winnable seats and the best candidates were put up in these. Result UKIP won seats but the % figures are down overall as supporters could not vote where there was no candidate.
P.S. I am a Lib Dem Councillor

UKIP had the right tactics locally. My area was Lib Dem v Cons. Crushing win for the good guys because very strong, well known candidate who lives in the ward. Is this the future for Lib Dem party. Few wins by excellent hard working local people.
 






GreersElbow

New member
Jan 5, 2012
4,870
A Northern Outpost
And yet, Michael Ashcroft's projections, after examining the results, suggested that Labour was on course to win a 40-seat majority. That's Ashcroft as in the Tory peer - in case you want to cry 'spin'. It really wasn't an evening of triumph for Labour but it was a long, long way from "terrible" , no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise
I really don't understand what point you're trying to raise here. What has Ashcroft's projections got to do with Labour's performance? Labour could make a majority government with 31% of the national vote provided each constituency they reach the largest amount of votes cast under the FPTP system. It's amazing you're accusing me of spin when you're now bringing in comments from Ashcroft, then declaring victory. I'm failing to see the relevance of Ashcroft's comments. Labour would win a majority because of the right wing vote being split. Here's some additional points to make:
1) only a turnout of 35% as opposed to GE's 60-70%. Much more difficult to gauge when there's more voters voting.
2) only 31% of the 35% voted Labour, that's not something to be applauding when they're the main opposition.

Ashcroft could say Britain will be the leading manufacturer of dildos, that doesn't necessarily mean it's evidence of an argument.
No. Terrible is losing your seat when you had no opposition. Keeping your seat but gaining a serious opposition is not "terrible", it isn't ideal, but it is certainly not terrible (especially when the aim of your campaigning is to win/retain a seat and control of a council). I would struggle to accept it could even be described as 'bad'.

Gaining a serious opposition is terrible if you're the councillor, because your seat because marginal and then a target seat. Many senior Labour figures are considering this result to be poor, are they wrong too? I think they're the best ones to gauge their results. If you're campaigning to win or retain a council then post election analysis would be to look at the wards which are marginal seats to gauge the possibility of losing it next election. If it becomes marginal it then becomes a target seat for opposition, it doesn't make the situation any better it just makes it a lot worse for yourself. Their share of the vote was much lower than they anticipated, they only grew by 2%. That's not a good result and I will argue, terrible given that they're the main opposition.
Labour was projected to do well, UKIP's better. But well nonetheless, they received only 31% of the national share of the vote and only gained 6 councils. If that's a good result, then I'm kerfuffled. Especially when we put the fact they're the main opposition into perspective.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,766
Brighton
Gaining a serious opposition is terrible if you're the councillor, because your seat because marginal and then a target seat. Many senior Labour figures are considering this result to be poor, are they wrong too? I think they're the best ones to gauge their results. If you're campaigning to win or retain a council then post election analysis would be to look at the wards which are marginal seats to gauge the possibility of losing it next election. If it becomes marginal it then becomes a target seat for opposition, it doesn't make the situation any better it just makes it a lot worse for yourself. Their share of the vote was much lower than they anticipated, they only grew by 2%. That's not a good result and I will argue, terrible given that they're the main opposition.

It's not a binary thing. It's not good or bad. It's not that if one version of "negative" applies they all do. If something is "poor" it doesn't mean it is also "terrible" "awful" "a disaster" "colossal failure". There is a gradient.

They have described it as "poor". That I can understand. "Terrible" is not the same thing. And just because I don't accept that it is "terrrible" doesn't mean I'm trying to suggest it is good (or great, fantastic, marvellous or any other word on the "positive" gradient).

They retained their seat and control of the council, that's a plus, but now have serious opposition, that's a negative. Their job will be harder, but it is still their job. That is disappointing. It is not "terrible".

The hype machine needs dialling down on all sides.
 


Vegas Seagull

New member
Jul 10, 2009
7,782
Essex, Basildon etc.

UKIP had a smart campaign. They contested certain Council seats where there was no strong established person. This meant resources were focussed on winnable seats and the best candidates were put up in these. Result UKIP won seats but the % figures are down overall as supporters could not vote where there was no candidate.
P.S. I am a Lib Dem Councillor

UKIP had the right tactics locally. My area was Lib Dem v Cons. Crushing win for the good guys because very strong, well known candidate who lives in the ward. Is this the future for Lib Dem party. Few wins by excellent hard working local people.

Few wins suits me. I've had £50 on under 37.5 seats for Lib Dems. Now priced at 33.5 your choice

Still looks value

Need a new leader and to drop the 'democrat' thingy as well, what does it add?
 






Superphil

Dismember
Jul 7, 2003
25,401
In a pile of football shirts
I gave up at "independent Yorkshire blogger".
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here