IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Election predictions
Andy Capp
post May 6 2011, 11:50 AM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2011, 12:25 PM) *
Is that always so for the party in overall ascendency?

Exactly; you wouldn't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post May 6 2011, 11:56 AM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 6 2011, 12:50 PM) *
Exactly; you wouldn't expect turkeys to vote for Christmas.


So, pre 2010, the Conservatives would have been in favour? And the labour Party against, generally (as it is a 'free vote')?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post May 6 2011, 01:15 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



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







--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post May 6 2011, 01:55 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Bofem @ May 6 2011, 02:15 PM) *
FWIW, mjy prediction.....44 Conservatives, 6 Lib Dem, 2 Lab/ind.

The BBC have it as a two horse race....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 6 2011, 06:26 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 6 2011, 12:25 PM) *
Is that always so for the party in overall ascendency?

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.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post May 6 2011, 06:35 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (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.


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!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 7 2011, 12:12 AM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 6 2011, 07:35 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!!!

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post May 7 2011, 08:33 AM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 7 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 09:33 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.

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post May 7 2011, 04:52 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (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?


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 7 2011, 05:01 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 05:52 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.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post May 7 2011, 09:21 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (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.


My mistake, I was going on party.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 06:42 AM