Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Just 4,000 of Rochester’s 70k+ electors took part in in the

2»

Comments

  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    taffys said:

    I think that just about the worst thing the conservatives could do after defeat in R&S would be to try to oust Cameron.

    Agreed
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 7 mins7 minutes ago

    Putting CON Rochester primary turnout in context
    Totnes 2009: 16,497
    Gosport 2009: 12,659
    Rochester 2014: 5,588



    Rochester = boring duo-choice, going into an un-enthused GE period. In that context the numbers don't look too bad (compared to the situation in 2009).

  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    isam said:

    @KentRising

    The Guardian's John Harris wrote a piece today about mass immigrations effect on the working class

    I agree with almost all of it, probably because it is what I have been saying on here for two or three years, and his conclusion is why I don't vote Labour anymore


    "This year I visited Wisbech – where a third of the 30,000 population is now estimated to be from overseas – and what was happening there spoke loud truths about why free movement has become so politicised. For all that recently arrived families have started to settle, and their children are acquiring new, hybrid identities, there are still glaring problems. Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance.

    This creates endless tension. There have also been inevitable problems surrounding how far schools and doctors’ surgeries have been stretched. Is anyone surprised? Moreover, even if such places represent socioeconomic extremes, similar problems surface whenever large-scale migration fuses with the more precarious parts of the economy. In modern Britain, this obviously happens often, and the under-reported consequences of austerity have hardly helped.

    What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour. They might also think about the dread spectacle of people from upscale London postcodes passing judgment on people who experience large-scale migration as something real?"

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit


    Yep, the negative effects of immigration - of course - disproportionately impact the less well-off in society, the very constituency Labour is meant to stand up for.

    But Labour is the most pro-EU and pro-immigration party (of the big two), and seemingly disinterested in respecting - let alone representing - its constituency.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2014

    Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 7 mins7 minutes ago

    Putting CON Rochester primary turnout in context
    Totnes 2009: 16,497
    Gosport 2009: 12,659
    Rochester 2014: 5,588



    Rochester = boring duo-choice, going into an un-enthused GE period. In that context the numbers don't look too bad (compared to the situation in 2009).

    4,000 may still be the actual number of valid votes. It's possible a lot of ballots were spoilt.

    Those totals for Gosport and Totnes are for valid votes I think.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Yep, the negative effects of immigration - of course - disproportionately impact the less well-off in society, the very constituency Labour is meant to stand up for.

    But Labour is the most pro-EU and pro-immigration party (of the big two), and seemingly disinterested in respecting - let alone representing - its constituency.

    The story of UKIP is more about taking votes from Labour at the moment (putting aside the excitement of R&S).

    Over the last month, UKIP has risen at the expense of Labour...

    Chart: YouGov last month

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 7 mins7 minutes ago

    Putting CON Rochester primary turnout in context
    Totnes 2009: 16,497
    Gosport 2009: 12,659
    Rochester 2014: 5,588



    Rochester = boring duo-choice, going into an un-enthused GE period. In that context the numbers don't look too bad (compared to the situation in 2009).

    Wow! You must be dizzy after that spinning

    This is a by election that is said to be the defining point in the lead up to the next GE by all sides.. where the Tories are making an effort of previously unknown proportions

    Where David Cameron the PM has already visited and intends to visit on four more occasions

    OGH has said the Tory machine are throwing absolutely everything at it

    That is the context.. it is horrendous

  • AndyJS said:

    Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 7 mins7 minutes ago

    Putting CON Rochester primary turnout in context
    Totnes 2009: 16,497
    Gosport 2009: 12,659
    Rochester 2014: 5,588



    Rochester = boring duo-choice, going into an un-enthused GE period. In that context the numbers don't look too bad (compared to the situation in 2009).

    4,000 may still be the actual number of valid votes. It's possible a lot of ballots were spoilt.

    Those totals for Gosport and Totnes are for valid votes I think.
    Very good point. The BBC report states

    "The Conservative Party said the total number of returned ballots was 5,688.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-29748439


    The total number of returned ballots obviously includes spoiled ones, and as they were sent to all voters, I suspect that there were a not insignificant number of supporters of other parties who wrote something like "b****y tories" on the ballot paper (and posted it only so that the Tories would have to pay the postage charge).

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    It's possible the original 4,000 figure was correct for valid votes and that there were as many as c.1,500 spoilt ballots.

    This is supposed to be an open primary so I hope the Tories release the actual figures for each candidate. In other words I hope they don't try to pass off spoilt papers as valid votes by not releasing the full numbers.

    After all, by conducting an open primary like this, the Tories were giving every Tory-hating voter a free opportunity to send back an obscene message, etc, so a lot of spoilt papers is very plausible.
  • weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy As he is more popular than all the alternatives except Boris yes, until Boris returns to Parliament next year that will be the case. If Cameron wins he stays, if he loses Boris almost certainly replaces him

    I'm doubtful about Johnson. The Tories never choose the favourite..
    Johnson is charismatic but IMHO he does not have the persona to be Prime Minister. The people would never vote in a party that appears to have an (with all due respect) 'amiable buffoon' at the head.

    The people of London voted for him to be Mayor.

    In 2008 and in 2012.

    He has acted competently.

    Yep, quite an achievement when you consider how Labour-inclined London is now. He's still talked about with affection six years since being first elected - the 'Boris Bus', for instance, has been very popular and a great success (though one leaked on me the other day...).
    Very true. He has been a very good, non-partisan Tory mayor in a Labour city. London has been very lucky with its mayors. Ken in his hey day was also extremely good, transforming the face of the capital. We may never see their like again.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917

    Yep, the negative effects of immigration - of course - disproportionately impact the less well-off in society, the very constituency Labour is meant to stand up for.

    But Labour is the most pro-EU and pro-immigration party (of the big two), and seemingly disinterested in respecting - let alone representing - its constituency.

    The story of UKIP is more about taking votes from Labour at the moment (putting aside the excitement of R&S).

    Over the last month, UKIP has risen at the expense of Labour...

    Chart: YouGov last month

    Yes, down in places like Kent etc, it's an alliance of traditionally Labour working class voters and eurosceptic, pro-Grammar etc middle class Tory voters. I think such a mix will make previously some of the ultra-safe Tory seats in the south more marginal in GE 2015.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Why won't the Tories reveal how many of those 5,688 votes were spoilt papers?

    By just giving the percentages it looks like they're trying to hide something.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    @KentRising

    The Guardian's John Harris wrote a piece today about mass immigrations effect on the working class

    I agree with almost all of it, probably because it is what I have been saying on here for two or three years, and his conclusion is why I don't vote Labour anymore


    "This year I visited Wisbech – where a third of the 30,000 population is now estimated to be from overseas – and what was happening there spoke loud truths about why free movement has become so politicised. For all that recently arrived families have started to settle, and their children are acquiring new, hybrid identities, there are still glaring problems. Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance.

    This creates endless tension. There have also been inevitable problems surrounding how far schools and doctors’ surgeries have been stretched. Is anyone surprised? Moreover, even if such places represent socioeconomic extremes, similar problems surface whenever large-scale migration fuses with the more precarious parts of the economy. In modern Britain, this obviously happens often, and the under-reported consequences of austerity have hardly helped.

    What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour. They might also think about the dread spectacle of people from upscale London postcodes passing judgment on people who experience large-scale migration as something real?"

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit


    Yep, the negative effects of immigration - of course - disproportionately impact the less well-off in society, the very constituency Labour is meant to stand up for.

    But Labour is the most pro-EU and pro-immigration party (of the big two), and seemingly disinterested in respecting - let alone representing - its constituency.
    If you are a low paid British worker who votes Labour it must feel like belonging to a trade union that advertises your job behind your back to anyone who will do it for less.

  • BlueberryBlueberry Posts: 408
    This ought to get some traction:

    EU tells Britain to pay extra €2.1bn ...by 1 December to compensate for its economy performing better than other EU countries since 1995. Timing's awful for Cameron.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81f4a330-5aa2-11e4-8625-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3H0E0qpw9
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Knife Edge stuff in Tory Primary

    The reported % would mean 2869 vs 2818
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2014
    chestnut said:

    I understand the accusation of voter apathy being directed at the Tories, and I have no doubt there is some truth in it.

    However, Sarah Wollaston had a primary turnout of c80% of her actual election vote while Caroline Dineage was closer to 50%. Both were the forerunner to a probable change of government in a full on General Election.

    Is 5600 equivalent to 80% or 50%? Or maybe neither because it's just a by-election?

    This is another free hit at the government because Ed will still be in opposition the day after the vote.

    The big story here would be Ed winning, not the Tories losing or UKIP winning. That would tell us a new government was coming.

    Instead, I think the result is likely to reinforce the message that we're heading for another hung parliament, and probably a more precarious one than the current one.

    Assuming the Tories get about 10,000 votes it's about 50% assuming some spoilt papers.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    Blueberry said:

    This ought to get some traction:

    EU tells Britain to pay extra €2.1bn ...by 1 December to compensate for its economy performing better than other EU countries since 1995. Timing's awful for Cameron.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81f4a330-5aa2-11e4-8625-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3H0E0qpw9


    Well Cameron knows what he needs to do, if he wants to win in R&S.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Knife Edge stuff in Tory Primary

    The reported % would mean 2869 vs 2818

    That would mean no spoilt papers which is difficult to believe.
  • GaiusGaius Posts: 227
    isam said:

    @KentRising

    The Guardian's John Harris wrote a piece today about mass immigrations effect on the working class

    I agree with almost all of it, probably because it is what I have been saying on here for two or three years, and his conclusion is why I don't vote Labour anymore


    "This year I visited Wisbech – where a third of the 30,000 population is now estimated to be from overseas – and what was happening there spoke loud truths about why free movement has become so politicised. For all that recently arrived families have started to settle, and their children are acquiring new, hybrid identities, there are still glaring problems. Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance.

    This creates endless tension. There have also been inevitable problems surrounding how far schools and doctors’ surgeries have been stretched. Is anyone surprised? Moreover, even if such places represent socioeconomic extremes, similar problems surface whenever large-scale migration fuses with the more precarious parts of the economy. In modern Britain, this obviously happens often, and the under-reported consequences of austerity have hardly helped.

    What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour. They might also think about the dread spectacle of people from upscale London postcodes passing judgment on people who experience large-scale migration as something real?"

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit

    Wisbech is rather interesting, at the county council elections in 2013 UKIP took both seats and at the recent district council by election UKIP came second with 35% (+ 35%) and the tories won with 44% (-15).

    The labour vote has evaporated along with the libdems and all three of the liblabcon have trouble finding people to stand.

    All district council seats are up next year at the GE and it will be a straight fight between kippers/cons.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited October 2014
    local by-election thread is up
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    isam said:

    isam said:

    @KentRising

    The Guardian's John Harris wrote a piece today about mass immigrations effect on the working class

    I agree with almost all of it, probably because it is what I have been saying on here for two or three years, and his conclusion is why I don't vote Labour anymore


    "This year I visited Wisbech – where a third of the 30,000 population is now estimated to be from overseas – and what was happening there spoke loud truths about why free movement has become so politicised. For all that recently arrived families have started to settle, and their children are acquiring new, hybrid identities, there are still glaring problems. Young men from eastern Europe often live four or five to a room, and work impossibly long hours; with echoes of Europe’s macroeconomic asymmetries, the local labour market is divided between insufficient jobs that be can be done by people with families and mortgages, and a surfeit of opportunities for those who will work whenever they are required for a relative pittance.

    This creates endless tension. There have also been inevitable problems surrounding how far schools and doctors’ surgeries have been stretched. Is anyone surprised? Moreover, even if such places represent socioeconomic extremes, similar problems surface whenever large-scale migration fuses with the more precarious parts of the economy. In modern Britain, this obviously happens often, and the under-reported consequences of austerity have hardly helped.

    What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour.l?"

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/22/wisbech-immigration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit


    Yep, the negative effects of immigration - of course - disproportionately impact the less well-off in society, the very constituency Labour is meant to stand up for.

    But Labour is the most pro-EU and pro-immigration party (of the big two), and seemingly disinterested in respecting - let alone representing - its constituency.
    If you are a low paid British worker who votes Labour it must feel like belonging to a trade union that advertises your job behind your back to anyone who will do it for less.

    Wheras voting UKIP must make you feel like belonging to a club where the heirachy, MPs and majority of PPC are ex Tories who voted against workers rights every time. eg minimum wage when introduced and WTD legislation.

    A very right wing club indeed
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited October 2014

    Wheras voting UKIP must make you feel like belonging to a club where the heirachy, MPs and majority of PPC are ex Tories who voted against workers rights every time. eg minimum wage when introduced and WTD legislation.

    A very right wing club indeed
    All the more reason for Labour to stand up and represent its traditional vote. But even if it wanted to, it's lost the ability to know how to.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    Totally agree with you there GIN.

    Twitter
    Zac Goldsmith @ZacGoldsmith · 4h 4 hours ago
    @benatom1 @LouiseMensch @KellyTolhurst That's at least 5.9% more mandate than most candidates have.
    GIN1138 said:

    At least they consulted to electorate.

This discussion has been closed.