The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

No, she didnt as far as I know.  Both protocol and self-preservation would prevent it.

Obviously the press know of her previous criticisms of Corbyn and are happy to relate them: whether she says these things before or during an election campaign doesn't affect the exposure they get, as you will appreciate.

I'm not at all surprised you didn't know of her right wing links.  Neither did I, and I'm also interested in this stuff.  Though I, and I guess you, don't read the Cumbian local press nor the right wing shite where this will be reported. 

I just think you're overestimating the engagement of the average voter. 

[dAVe80]

Rachel Holiday was the left choice for Labour, in Copeland, but was beaten in the CLP vote by 13 votes. She is from a working class background, and has family links to Sellafield, as well as being the current, 'Cumbrian Woman of the Year'. I'm told by people who campaigned in Copeland, that there was a confusion among some of the electorate, who didn't even realise she wasn't the Labour candidate, and had no idea who Gillian Troughton was. Seems like a wasted opportunity. by the Copeland CLP, but you know how it is at the moment. Anything to keep those horrible leftie Trotts out! 

 

Edited February 25, 2017 by dAVe80

[villaglint]

19 hours ago, Awol said:

Honestly I hadn't seen it, but have been a bit busy recently.

Did he articulate something along the lines of a strategy? 

Ha ha ha, good one 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

12 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

Rachel Holiday was the left choice for Labour, in Copeland, but was beaten in the CLP vote by 13 votes. She is from a working class background, and has family links to Sellafield, as well as being the current, 'Cumbrian Woman of the Year'. I'm told by people who campaigned in Copeland, that there was a confusion among some of the electorate, who didn't even realise she wasn't the Labour candidate, and had no idea who Gillian Troughton was. Seems like a wasted opportunity. by the Copeland CLP, but you know how it is at the moment. Anything to keep those horrible leftie Trotts out! 

 

That's pretty interesting. It's a sorry state of affairs when someone can be labelled a 'left' choice in the Labour party instead of just 'the best' or 'not the best' candidate.

For a Doctor campaigning on her NHS experience Gillian didn't inspire me with much confidence. You'd think she'd offer some solutions rather than just moaning about cuts/Tories.

I just listened to the Lib Dem Copeland candidate, Rebecca Hanson....smart cookie even if she can't help but Tory bash too.

Edited February 25, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

even if she can't help but Tory bash too.

Sorry, what?

[blandy]

20 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Do we deduce that 2015 was more a swing from Lib Dem to UKIP from that data ? 

You can if you like, but I deduce Lib Dem to Green. The lib Dem's lost votes everywhere for doing coalition with the evil tories. A lot of lib Dems switched to green, Labour or stayed at home. As a pro Yurp party, and genuinely socially liberal party I wouldn't think moving to UKIP would be a natural fit.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

You can if you like, but I deduce Lib Dem to Green. The lib Dem's lost votes everywhere for doing coalition with the evil tories. A lot of lib Dems switched to green, Labour or stayed at home. As a pro Yurp party, and genuinely socially liberal party I wouldn't think moving to UKIP would be a natural fit.

I agree it won't have been massive, but there is a non-trivial 'generic protest vote' in British politics which does seem to have drifted from the Lib Dems to UKIP. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree it won't have been massive, but there is a non-trivial 'generic protest vote' in British politics which does seem to have drifted from the Lib Dems to UKIP. 

I reckon it's tiny and trivial myself. I mean statistically some will have done, but the chasm is vast between the two parties. Polar opposites, really.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

4 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Sorry, what?

Tory bashing. Criticising the Tories without any related argument. A just flat out 'we can't let the Tories win'.

As a floating voter it's something that I really hate. 

Edited February 25, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree it won't have been massive, but there is a non-trivial 'generic protest vote' in British politics which does seem to have drifted from the Lib Dems to UKIP. 

Over a 5 year period I doorstepped for a Lib Dem candidate in Hall Green. He was an absolute star but when the Lib Dems flailed his votes went to Labour.
It was a travesty. .
 

[tonyh29]

48 minutes ago, blandy said:

I reckon it's tiny and trivial myself. I mean statistically some will have done, but the chasm is vast between the two parties. Polar opposites, really.

The chart doesn't show enough swing to green in relation to the lib dem drop , that's why I sorta figure Some went to ukip .. of course it could be more complicated in that lib dems moved to labour but some  labour voters moved to ukip and so on 

[HanoiVillan]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

I reckon it's tiny and trivial myself. I mean statistically some will have done, but the chasm is vast between the two parties. Polar opposites, really.

I can't link it on here, but Martin Baxter has an analysis of how people moved between 2010 and 2015 here:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_votermigration.html

If anything, the migration from Lib Dems to UKIP was larger than Labour to UKIP. Not a substantial movement, but not trivial either. 

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that people have much knowledge about politics or the relevant political viewpoints of the parties. 

[HanoiVillan]

52 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Tory bashing. Criticising the Tories without any related argument. A just flat out 'we can't let the Tories win'.

As a floating voter it's something that I really hate. 

I guess I don't understand. You were talking about a Lib Dem candidate, during a competitive election, and seemed to be suggesting that her criticising the party of government was some kind of sin. Of course it's very important to have an argument, but it's primarily important to oppose. At the end of the day the voters will decide whose arguments they rate. 

[a m ole]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

You can if you like, but I deduce Lib Dem to Green. The lib Dem's lost votes everywhere for doing coalition with the evil tories. A lot of lib Dems switched to green, Labour or stayed at home. As a pro Yurp party, and genuinely socially liberal party I wouldn't think moving to UKIP would be a natural fit.

Seems more likely to me to be Lib Dem switched to stay at home, and previous stay at homer's decided to Ukips.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I can't link it on here, but Martin Baxter has an analysis of how people moved between 2010 and 2015 here:

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/Analysis_votermigration.html

If anything, the migration from Lib Dems to UKIP was larger than Labour to UKIP. Not a substantial movement, but not trivial either. 

I think you're making the mistake of assuming that people have much knowledge about politics or the relevant political viewpoints of the parties. 

The methodology is incompatible with the assertions in that analysis. It's fine in terms of creating a theory, or possible model, it's not fine as any kind of statistical evidence. He's also imposed a bunch of unrealistic assumptions to make his analysis "work".  Imposing different assumptions would give different results.

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

The methodology is incompatible with the assertions in that analysis. It's fine in terms of creating a theory, or possible model, it's not fine as any kind of statistical evidence. He's also imposed a bunch of unrealistic assumptions to make his analysis "work".  Imposing different assumptions would give different results.

Okay, let's try a different piece of evidence then:

http://www.socialliberal.net/lib_dem_seats_in_2010_5_where_did_the_votes_go_part_1_of_2

That chart shows the change in each of the seats the Lib Dems lost to the Tories in 2015. Some analysis:

'In 18 of the 27 seats lost to the Tories, the party that gained the most votes while the Lib Dems declined was UKIP. Indeed, in some seats like St Austell and Newquay, St Ives, and Sutton and Cheam, the UKIP gain in votes was several times higher than that of the Conservatives. This fact substantially challenges a number of existing preconceptions about the nature of the UKIP vote, and where it comes from. Certainly, on the face of it this would seem to point to direct Lib Dem-to-UKIP voter transfer, and this undoubtedly did happen on some scale. However, there is also a wider phenomenon of cross-party voter churn and more complex voter patterns having gone on.We were kindly shown an advance copy of some of the data that David Howarth has extrapolated from the British Election Study data, and it presented substantial evidence that such cross-voting was going on in held Lib Dem seats, with Lib Dem losses to the Conservatives in previously-held Lib Dem seats, and Conservative losses to UKIP in such seats. This is not the place to pre-empt Howarth’s own findings, but we recognise their importance and relevance here.  What is clear is that the UKIP vote was drawn from all parties – including the Lib Dems, and included a “Plague on all your houses”, anti-Establishment pitch of the kind that the Lib Dems had previously been adept at making, and which Nick Clegg had noticeably shunned in favour of a “responsible party of government” pitch.

Was the UKIP surge in these seats enough to account for the loss of so many Tory-facing Lib Dem seats? No. But it was a major factor in combination with others. In particular, while the Green ‘bounce’ in most of these 27 seats was smaller than the UKIP ‘bounce’, it is noticeable that the rise in Green and UKIP votes taken together – the votes for the two main ‘protest vote’ parties in England – was larger than the Tory votes gained in 26 of these 27 seats. In other words, the Lib Dem loss of the protest vote, and the protest vote being transferred to both UKIP and the Greens, was almost certainly critical in the loss of 26 Lib Dem seats to the Conservatives.  Only Twickenham had a higher rise in the Tory vote than the UKIP+Green combination.'

Edited February 26, 2017 by HanoiVillan

[blandy]

@HanoiVillanThat entirely supports my view. Lib dem to Tories and Green, Tories (and Labour) to UKIP. And previous non voters going to UKIPs and that the people protesting by voting UKIP were not the same people who previously protested by voting LD.

Thanks for posting

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

@HanoiVillanThat entirely supports my view. Lib dem to Tories and Green, Tories (and Labour) to UKIP. And previous non voters going to UKIPs and that the people protesting by voting UKIP were not the same people who previously protested by voting LD.

Thanks for posting

The analysis specifically discusses UKIP-to-Lib Dem vote transference. Have you not read it or something? I even highlighted the point I'm making in bold. 

[blandy]

Quote

Certainly, on the face of it this would seem to point to direct Lib Dem-to-UKIP voter transfer, and this undoubtedly did happen on some scale. However, there is also a wider phenomenon of cross-party voter churn and more complex voter patterns having gone on.We were kindly shown an advance copy of some of the data that David Howarth has extrapolated from the British Election Study data, and it presented substantial evidence that such cross-voting was going on in held Lib Dem seats, with Lib Dem losses to the Conservatives in previously-held Lib Dem seats, and Conservative losses to UKIP in such seats.

Maybe people can read what they want into it, HV?

The migration of votes mostly isn't binary, it's mostly sort of circular Lib Dem to Green and Tory and stay at home, Non voters to UKIP and Labour and Tories, etc. and so forth. A minimal LiBDem to UKIP migration. 

[HanoiVillan]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

Maybe people can read what they want into it, HV?

The migration of votes mostly isn't binary, it's mostly sort of circular Lib Dem to Green and Tory and stay at home, Non voters to UKIP and Labour and Tories, etc. and so forth. A minimal LiBDem to UKIP migration. 

Yes, you can read into it what you want, because ultimately it is not possible to round up everybody who voted in Lib Dem in 2010 and make them testify under oath as to what they did in 2015. 

However, it is possible to make inferences from the data. One of those inferences is that, as I said in the first place, some non-trivial number of Lib Dem voters in 2010 voted UKIP in 2015. I've looked at quite a lot of analysis of Lib Dem votes in 2015 now, in the last 24 hours, and I haven't found anybody who has analysed the data who thinks that almost no votes went from the Lib Dems to UKIP. Feel free to present some alternative evidence if you have it.