Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 5 2011, 09:55 PM

What do you think then? Personally, I believe the two words that may sum up the election will be "Total Wipeout".

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2011, 10:01 PM

I think it is likely to be more of the same. The more vociferous of us on this forum are in the minority.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 5 2011, 10:15 PM

I thought if we had a big turnout, Labour would have a chance. But from what the exit polls and tellers are saying, it's going to be a good day for the blues. I'm chuffed, Labour have increased it's vote and we are just waiting to see if it's enough to win a seat or two. I hope I'm wrong, I'd hate to see the Tories get more seats.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 5 2011, 10:22 PM

Why? If that is what the election produces (or not) surely you would not ever hate the result?

Are you referring to the NTC or WBC elections? Or both?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2011, 10:22 PM

The Locals have come at a good time; before the cuts bite. Anyway, this is a very Tory town.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2011, 10:24 PM

We all 'hate' being 'wrong' don't we?

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 5 2011, 10:25 PM

I just don't like the thought of an increased majority, it's not in the interest of the district for any one party to be so strong. This area has never supported more than two parties, and a Tory party member told me that I had been the best thing to happen for the Tories since Rendel voted to ban fox hunting!!!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2011, 10:28 PM

Why do you think the Tories are against AV?

Posted by: dannyboy May 5 2011, 10:34 PM

But it is what the locals want. It must be - we have just had an election.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 5 2011, 10:36 PM

It will be interesting to see if the non tory vote beats the tory vote. I agree, we cant dispute the result. But as I have said in this thread, the district has never been able to support more than two parties, every time Labour and Lib Dems have competed they have typically hurt each other rather than the tories.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2011, 10:39 PM

I'm sure it won't. Have you seen how new the cars are in Newbury that are being driven by teenagers.

Posted by: dannyboy May 5 2011, 10:41 PM

LOL,

that is your fault then!!! Until you came along there was no Labour vote!

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 5 2011, 10:46 PM

We had to start somewhere. If it is 52 Tories, fair play to them. But I guarentee you one thing, I'll still be trying to hold the council to account. At least now when I ask questions or do anything, people can't dismiss me as electioneering!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2011, 06:33 AM

Everyone should do more to hold their Councillors to account. No need to be a party activist. Indeed, sometimes better not to be so they cannot merely dismiss the enquiry as psrty-led whinging

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 6 2011, 07:29 AM

Going on the percentages overnight, it seems my early prediction may well be a strong possibility. Still have almost 200 councils to declare their results too, most in the south have not declared as yet.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2011, 07:35 AM

What, 'Total wipeout'? Of whom?

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 6 2011, 08:15 AM

I think there is a very good chance of seeing 52 Tories, which I think would be unhealthy but unfortunately Labour and the Lib Dems have split the vote elsewhere and given the Tories an open goal. For Labour to take seats, we needed a big turnout, and although Speen is slightly up on 2007, I don't think it's enough to let me win. I would be surprised if the non Tory vote is any bigger than the 400 it was in 2007 in that ward.

Looking at the figures from the UK, it would appear that the Tory vote is flat with Labour up by a decent margin and those votes are coming from the Lib Dems.

Posted by: blackdog May 6 2011, 08:28 AM

Because FPTP means they will have many more MPs.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2011, 09:59 AM

Agreed.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2011, 11:25 AM

Is that always so for the party in overall ascendency?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2011, 11:50 AM

Exactly; you wouldn't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 6 2011, 11:56 AM

So, pre 2010, the Conservatives would have been in favour? And the labour Party against, generally (as it is a 'free vote')?

Posted by: Bofem May 6 2011, 01:15 PM

FWIW, mjy prediction.....44 Conservatives, 6 Lib Dem, 2 Lab/ind.

Posted by: dannyboy May 6 2011, 01:55 PM

The BBC have it as a two horse race....

Posted by: blackdog May 6 2011, 06:26 PM

No - AV is BAD for the Tories as, in general, most of those who vote for other parties will be anti-Tory.

AV would probably be great for the Lib Dems and not bad for Labour.

As candidates are eliminated the Tories could expect to end up with preference votes from UKIP, BNP and any other fringe right wing parties. The other top two candidate (Lib Dem or Labour) could expect to end up with most of the votes from Lib Dem, Labour, Green, and any other fringe left wing parties. It's this tendency for Lib Dem and Labour voters to prefer each other as a second choice rather than the Tories that makes the difference.

So where the Tories win a seat under FPTP with around 40% of the vote they would probably lose it under AV, whereas a Lib Dem or Labour MP with that sort of a share of the vote would probably hang on.

The Tories will never vote for AV because they benefit under FPTP in that Labour and Lib Dem split the left/left of centre vote. For instance RG's efforts locally have been great for the Tories as Labour will only take votes from the Lib Dems - making it easier for the Tories to win.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 6 2011, 06:35 PM

I found it strange how the voting went today. Some were voting me and a tory, some voted me and a liberal and some just put a cross next to my name. It was just the odd one either, very strange!!!

Posted by: blackdog May 7 2011, 12:12 AM

Excellent - people actually voting for candidates rather than parties. In Speen two candidates, you (RG) and Marcus Franks (Con) have spoken out against the pavilion - not a bad reason for voting Con and Lab on the same ballot paper.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 08:33 AM

And there was a little pile of those ballot papers, but there was also a little pile of me and Paul Bryant, Me and Martha Vickers and me and Sue Farrant. I think if I had another candidate standing with me, we may well have come second, but that just shows how much we need to be on the ball in future. I've personally learned a lot from this campaign, I'm sure our branch of the Labour Party has too. We are moving in the right direction, and should we get a by election in a year or two, I seriously think we will have a shout.

Posted by: blackdog May 7 2011, 04:48 PM

I'd expect a lot of you and Martha or Sue - who would seem the obvious second choice options for a Labor voter voting tactically.

You and Paul seem like chalk and cheese - but Paul is a well trusted candidate with whom many will be comfortable, while you are the figurehead of change in the cosy two party arrangement locally. I can easily see how someone without any party allegiance could vote for the two of you.

I can't see where you get the idea that a second Labour candidate would have enabled you to more than double your vote?

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 04:52 PM

It's hard to say, but if there were two Labour, those who voted for me may have also voted Labour. Martha was only 100 ahead, and Sue was less than 200 ahead I believe. One thing is certain, it's not easy to predict who will vote for who!!! The ballot papers I saw were barmy, lot's of split votes etc.

Posted by: blackdog May 7 2011, 05:01 PM

Ah! I see we have a different definition of second. In my book Marcus came second - almost 900 votes ahead of you. But I can see that you might have edged ahead of the LibDems and into 3rd and 4th places.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 09:21 PM

My mistake, I was going on party.