Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1
    Members Flex Your Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Seagull firmly in Eagle territory
    Posts
    1,531

    A different look at the 2014 local election results


    0 Not allowed!
    Just before we start sifting through the Euro election results tonight, I thought this article made some pertinent observations.

    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...4-aav.html?m=1

    Ugly design, but good reading.
    For all your Brutalism faves - https://www.instagram.com/murray_tiptop/?hl=en

    • North Stand Chat

      advertising
      Join Date: Jul 2003
      Posts: Lots

        


    • #2
      Members GreersElbow's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2012
      Location
      A Northern Outpost
      Posts
      4,935


      0 Not allowed!
      Labour did badly, let's not sugar coat their result. They gained a lot because of the split in the right-wing vote, if I remember likely their share of the national vote never dramatically increased. Given the money they've spent to bring this campaign media guru, they've really not done as well as people think they have done. In fact, I would consider it a bit of a disaster for them. 1 year before the GE and they're not increasing their national share of the vote? I think Labour should be worried. Sunderland for example, Labour won control, but they saw a decrease in the number voting for them, UKIP saw a 24% increase in the vote.

      The comments about the Greens are spot on, the real earthquake came from those voting Green who saw the largest increase in the share of the national vote.

      EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vot...ection-results Here's the share of the national vote. Lab: 31% Cons 29%
      Quote Originally Posted by BensGrandad View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      As I said I dont know just assumed
    • #3
      #cpfctinpotclub seagullsovergrimsby's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Location
      Crap Town
      Posts
      43,868


      0 Not allowed!
      UKIP now have 8 councillors on NELC (Grimsby , Cleethorpes actually and surrounding villages). One reason they didn't make inroads all across London is they didn't contest every single ward of each respective council and openly admitted volunteers and canvassers were too thinly spread on the ground. LibDems of a leftish persuasion now have an alternate party they can switch their votes to - the Greens.
      Response to a post by SeasideEagle on BBS - "Are you another account belonging to cpfc2010? You seem to be spouting the same bullshit."
    • #4
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Uffern
      Posts
      25,099


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by GreersElbow View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Labour did badly, let's not sugar coat their result ...Given the money they've spent to bring this campaign media guru, they've really not done as well as people think they have done.
      I'm no Labour voter but that's not really accurate. Axelrod only came over this week and had no influence in this campaign. He's been signed up for the general election.

      And it's some political spin to say that Labour did badly. The party gained more than 300 seats, maybe they could (or should) have done better but it's not really true to say they did badly
    • #5
      Devil's Advocate (p/t)
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Brighton
      Posts
      26,333


      0 Not allowed!
      Interesting. I know on Friday morning I was confused by some of the coverage (someone on here copied someone's tweet that Labour had a terrible night in one council where they retained control, but now had a serious opposition - how can retaining control be terrible?)
      Please report offensive or libellous posts - read more
    • #6
      Members GreersElbow's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2012
      Location
      A Northern Outpost
      Posts
      4,935


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Gwylan View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      And it's some political spin to say that Labour did badly. The party gained more than 300 seats, maybe they could (or should) have done better but it's not really true to say they did badly
      Maybe so, but will he have a great impact given that Labour really haven't done too well.


      Political spin? You're completely ignoring the fact that they only gained 31% of the national share, that's no increase in the vote. They've won many seats in wards where the right-wing vote was due to be split between Conservatives and UKIP. The predictions on this election have been entirely wrong, seats maybe. Councils? Only 6 more. So let's be realistic and objective here. The fact is, Labour did badly. Seats may seem fancy, but if they don't have control then there's not a lot they can do.

      Quote Originally Posted by Acker79 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Interesting. I know on Friday morning I was confused by some of the coverage (someone on here copied someone's tweet that Labour had a terrible night in one council where they retained control, but now had a serious opposition - how can retaining control be terrible?)
      Because the council becomes marginal, their share of the vote greatly decreased. A terrible result for the main opposition, it really doesn't bode well for Labour.
      Quote Originally Posted by BensGrandad View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      As I said I dont know just assumed
    • #7
      Devil's Advocate (p/t)
      Join Date
      Nov 2008
      Location
      Brighton
      Posts
      26,333


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by GreersElbow View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      Because the council becomes marginal, their share of the vote greatly decreased. A terrible result for the main opposition, it really doesn't bode well for Labour.
      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'.

      You see, much like when people say the word 'legend' is thrown around too much, so are other superlatives. And in this case, superlatives are being misused to describe Labour's (and UKIP's) results in the election.
      Please report offensive or libellous posts - read more
    • #8
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Uffern
      Posts
      25,099


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by GreersElbow View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The fact is, Labour did badly. Seats may seem fancy, but if they don't have control then there's not a lot they can do.


      Because the council becomes marginal, their share of the vote greatly decreased. A terrible result for the main opposition, it really doesn't bode well for Labour.
      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
    • #9
      Members Brighton4Cambridge3's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Location
      Horsham
      Posts
      4,597


      0 Not allowed!
      I disagree with pretty much most of that article, but I'll sum my brief argument into this.

      The first Labour movement - and Keir Hardie's ILP which then became the Labour party, took 40 years from 1890 to get 35% of the popular vote. The whole way through this time they were ridiculed by the establishment and other parties, in many ways similar to UKIP but clearly on different issues. UKIP are and will continue to be a force, thanks to FPTP it will be a slow and gradual process.
      Every Premier League game 2017/18

    • #10
      Members
      Join Date
      Jul 2003
      Location
      Uffern
      Posts
      25,099


      0 Not allowed!
      Quote Originally Posted by Brighton4Cambridge3 View Post
      This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
      The first Labour movement - and Keir Hardie's ILP which then became the Labour party, took 40 years from 1890 to get 35% of the popular vote. The whole way through this time they were ridiculed by the establishment and other parties, in many ways similar to UKIP but clearly on different issues. UKIP are and will continue to be a force, thanks to FPTP it will be a slow and gradual process.

      You're understating the performance of the Labour Party here. The Labour Party won 45 seats in the 1910 GE - that's just 17 years after the formation of the Independent Labour Party (and at a time when there was no universal suffrage).
      At the last GE, UKIP - 18 years after its formation - won precisely zero seats. I'd be shocked if it broke into double figures at the next election either.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •