Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As well as poor Corbyn leader ratings Labour has been strug
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As well as poor Corbyn leader ratings Labour has been struggling in local by-elections
The following, produced by Luke Akehurst for Labour List, shows “the change in Labour vote share in all the council by-elections where there has been a Labour candidate (and there was a Labour candidate in the previous contest so a comparison can be made) since the leadership election in September)”
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think the flaws in this sort of analysis were mentioned earlier. Still, it's interesting within its limits.
Trump – 36% (32)
Cruz – 21% (6)
Rubio – 13% (14)
Carson – 7% (23)
Christie – 6% (2)
Bush – 6% (8)
Fiorina – 5% (6)
Kasich – 3% (3)
Huckabee – * (4)
Paul – * (0)
Other – * (*)
Undecided – 1% (2)
General Election Matchups
Clinton – 45%
Rubio – 45%
Clinton – 47%
Cruz – 45%
Clinton – 48%
Trump – 46%
Clinton- 46%
Bush – 41%
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_b85d13974aeb4901bd68916b963cea3c.pdf
Trump – 28% (27)
Cruz – 24% (16)
Rubio – 12% (17)
Carson – 10% (16)
Christie – 6% (2)
Bush – 4% (5)
Fiorina – 2% (3)
Paul – 2% (2)
Kasich – 1% (2)
Huckabee – 1% (1)
Santorum – 1% (0)
Pataki – 0% (0)
Gilmore – 0% (0)
Undecided – 8% (8)
General Election Matchups
Clinton – 44%
Cruz – 44%
Clinton – 44%
Rubio – 43%
Clinton – 47%
Trump – 40%
Sanders 43%
Cruz 44%
Sanders 42%
Rubio 45%
Sanders 51%
Trump 38%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311
Trump – 29% (33)
Cruz – 18% (3)
Rubio – 17% (7)
Bush – 10% (13)
Carson – 6% (10)
All Others – 8% (14)
Undecided – 12% (20)
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/Florida_Dec2015.pdf
New Hampshire
Trump – 24%
Cruz – 16%
Rubio – 14%
Christie – 13%
Bush – 9%
All Others – 13%
Undecided – 11%
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/NewHampshire_Dec2015.pdf
South Carolina
Trump – 27%
Cruz – 27%
Rubio – 12%
Carson – 11%
Bush – 7%
All Others – 5%
Undecided – 11%
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/default/files/SouthCarolina_Dec2015.pdf
On the flipside, their performance in London is not as good as it looks on paper: all those changes in share of vote are compared to 2014, when Labour's lead in the polls had almost completely evaporated. Improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2014 is (obviously) not as difficult as improving by 3% on Labour performances from 2012.
Wales is probably their strongest area, since most of those are changes from elections in 2012, which was Labour's peak in the last parliament.
(if only!)
I'm just saying it's factually incorrect to claim these results show further deterioration in Labour's position since the general election, because a lot of the results in the header are changes in vote compared to elections held in 2012/2013/2014 (when Labour was, naturally, doing much better against a midterm government than they did in 2015).
Their position is bad, and a long way from being able to win in 2020, but it's also not quite as bad as some of the PBTories' fantasies about Tory majorities of over 100 and Labour voteshares of less than 20% in 2020, either.
As an aside, the Midlands figures are not going to be helped by the leadership's history of IRA sympathy.
I don't see Labour under Corbyn doing any worse than under Foot, but I can't see the party gaining marginal seats, either.
UKIP have a fair amount riding on a decent result here in May too, given the top up electoral system favours them winning seats. A poor showing up the Valleys and along the N Wales coast would not bode well for them.
I'm still of the opinion that SDP2 is the answer, but only if they can get a critical mass of MPs and other elected representatives to make the switch. They'll need 100 of the former, preferably 120 which would make them the largest opposition grouping in the Commons. By the time the moderate MPs realise that the deselections are real it will be too late, they need to do it now. The problem is inertia, they didn't get rid of Brown or Miliband when it was clear they were failures, I can't see them getting together to form SDP2, when for the majority of them Labour is their life and all they've ever known...
Labour has no God-given right to exist. If it doesn't win and can't or won't reinvent itself, it will die.
The next few years will show us which of these is likely to happen.
Possibly too early to say but, in retrospect, Blair was able - post the collapse of Communism in 1989-1990 - to successfully paper over the fact that the raison d'etre and the intellectual mothership of socialist parties had collapsed and left, what? Blair's very success masked the emptiness behind Labour.
Now that success has been followed by defeat, Labour is having to ask itself the hard questions it avoided really asking - or, perhaps, really answering - in the heady days post-1989 when History seemed to have come to a Full Stop and Labour had a charismatic salesman at its head and seemed to be the shiny new future in an Age when Bad Things had disappeared (how naïve we were!).
Corbyn is Labour simply going back to what it was pre-1989 when socialism still existed in the world, when even through rose-tinted glasses, the Soviet Union could still be seen as representing some sort of idealistic alternative to the capitalist west. The fact that his future seems to be pre-1959 is neither here nor there. At least socialism had a role then and was attractive to some. Hey, maybe it could be attractive again - is the Corbyn mantra. After all, it's never stopped being attractive to him and look at all the people who voted for him. So, why not?
Until that has been tested and is either successful (gulp!) or is tested to destruction, I don't see any change or any push from anyone in Labour to reinvent itself. To answer the child's question: "Mummy, why Labour?"
For our part, it is clear that phone polls steadfastly continue to collect too many Labour voters in the raw sample, and the challenge for phone polling is to find a way to overcome the systematic reasons for doing so. The methodological tweaks that we have introduced since the election in part help mitigate this phenomenon by proxy, but have not overcome the core challenge. In our view, attempting to fully solve sampling bias via post-survey adjustment methods is a step too far and lures the unsuspecting pollster into (further) blase confidence.
We will have more to say on our methods in the coming months.
http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/guardian-poll-december-2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12063605/Labours-bleak-midwinter-is-just-beginning.-Things-can-only-get-worse.html
(It's the illiteracy that galls me. Even if they can't find a sub who studied Latin these days, perhaps "inter-bellum" might have been a clue something was wrong with this one...)
Which is why Mike is right to emphasise real results from real places. We should learn a lot more in May about Wales, Scotland and London. If these are disastrous then there could be time for a leadership election over the summer. The danger is them being poor rather than a disaster.
My play on Electoral calculus has Labour only going below 100 seats when the %is in the low teens. They are therefore likely to be the Official opposition for a while yet.
I don't think this will happen until the mid 2020s at the earliest. They still have a long way to fall.
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11473192
Unfortunately, it doesn't include either terrorism or child abuse categories.
Labour 546 (47.8 per cent, -28.7 from 2013), Conservatives 282 (24.7 per cent, +1.1), Lib Dems 240 (21 per cent, +21) Green Party 75 (6.6 per cent, +6.6)
Seriously anomilies like this give the data little or no validity No Green No LD formerly in 2013
RISEDALE
Labour 428 [53%; -24.1%]
UKIP 193 [23.9%; +1%]
Conservative 187 [23.1%; +23.1%]
Majority: 235
Labour Hold
Data pretty pointless with so many anomilies.
How is Lab doing in Parliamentary By Elections BTW?
Labour has no God-given right to exist. If it doesn't win and can't or won't reinvent itself, it will die.
The next few years will show us which of these is likely to happen.
Possibly too early to say but, in retrospect, Blair was able - post the collapse of Communism in 1989-1990 - to successfully paper over the fact that the raison d'etre and the intellectual mothership of socialist parties had collapsed and left, what? Blair's very success masked the emptiness behind Labour.
Now that success has been followed by defeat, Labour is having to ask itself the hard questions it avoided really asking - or, perhaps, really answering - in the heady days post-1989 when History seemed to have come to a Full Stop and Labour had a charismatic salesman at its head and seemed to be the shiny new future in an Age when Bad Things had disappeared (how naïve we were!).
Corbyn is Labour simply going back to what it was pre-1989 when socialism still existed in the world, when even through rose-tinted glasses, the Soviet Union could still be seen as representing some sort of idealistic alternative to the capitalist west. The fact that his future seems to be pre-1959 is neither here nor there. At least socialism had a role then and was attractive to some. Hey, maybe it could be attractive again - is the Corbyn mantra. After all, it's never stopped being attractive to him and look at all the people who voted for him. So, why not?
Until that has been tested and is either successful (gulp!) or is tested to destruction, I don't see any change or any push from anyone in Labour to reinvent itself. To answer the child's question: "Mummy, why Labour?"
Forgive the crudity but "that's what happens when you get fucked"
Many other jokes are expected to attend the funeral, with the "Knock knock" twins and "Waiter, waiter" giving readings.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
(I'd love to see how many views are needed for a story to feature, just to see how easy it would be to game. Also how much they interfere with the process to remove stories).
Smiles.
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
Well, I do forgive you! But I think the "getting fucked" bit happens because there is nothing there rather than the other way around.
The internet is a large part of the problem, I think, as it allows these pseudo-scholars - the likes of Fitzgerald, Murdock, Doherty and Carrier - to put forward complete nonsense wrapped up in apparently impressive language that bamboozle amateurs (like your friend the surgeon, or Dawkins, or Coyne). However, if you actually take the trouble to examine their claims in depth the falsification of their source material becomes truly frightening.
A rather longer and more detailed smack down, admittedly by another amateur, is available here;
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1
I know of only three qualified scholars who think the CMT is even faintly plausible - Robert M. Price, who is known for always trying to shock people, Raphael Lataster, who is a graduate student and makes Dawkins look like a member of Daesh, and Thomas Brodie, who had been unfrocked by the Catholic Church just before his 'conversion'.
Mrs BJ comes from Coal Aston BTW or as this wonderful piece of analysis calls it Coal Ashton which is incorrect.
The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty compelling, and I don't think anyone should doubt he existed.
I probably shouldn't have shared my friend's response. Damned militant atheists.
So there is a sort of London religion.
(Of course, if your daughter were a bit more knowing, you could tell her that there is a London religion and it is known as "House Prices" and it is worshipped at special dinners all over parts of London, with special wine and magazines known as the Holy Property Supplement, and it makes some people very happy and others worship it by erecting boards to its God (known as "ForSale" and "Sold") outside their houses.)
http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.html
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12064244/Why-I-will-be-voting-to-stay-in-Europe.html
http://tinyurl.com/z8ypsxl
Interestingly, good ole thornberry was saying the jobs miracle was a myth because many were 0 hour contracts. It seems to be labour will be rehashing exactly the same arguments that lost them the last election. And it's not even true.
Ouch.
I've gone with. "Julia, no one knows if God exists and that's something you have to choose for yourself. If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK. Now, if you go to bed now you can read Harry Potter for 20 minutes before I call lights out."
"OK dad!"
OK: for you and Cyclefree
The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth is pretty compelling, and I don't think anyone should doubt he existed.
I probably shouldn't have shared my friend's response. Damned militant atheists.
No, you should have done. Because I find all those who falsify history for political or religious ends a menace, and I know there are some people on here who have been gulled by these fraudsters. If any such are around, please read the link.
As long as such people as say Richard Carrier are around and peddling their lies (I have made an in-depth study of his work and that word is fully justified) they have to be challenged. Otherwise we run the risk of ending up in an Orwellian nightmare of a falsified past.
It should be noted incidentally that it is not the strange conclusion that causes the problems - it is the deliberate falsification of evidence to support it, e.g. Dorothy Murdock unforgettably claiming the Romans of that time spoke English and building a whole untenable thesis on that unbelievable lie.
(My daughter is younger, so this week we are celebrating the birthday of someone who did something very important to help everyone)
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
Take Wales. The standout result is Kidwelly -10.6 %.
But, Kidwelly should be taken out because the Labour candidate (a former mayor) had resigned from the Council, faced criminal charges, made a grovelling admission of inappropriate behaviour ("I accept that I was intoxicated and that my conduct may have been inappropriate as a result . . . I wish to apologise for any offence caused").
He was subsequently acquitted of indecent assault and (because this is Welsh Labour) re-adopted as a Labour candidate, and (because this is Wales) re-elected as Councillor, albeit with a whopping swing against him.
Take Kidwelly out, and Labour are +2.18 in Wales.
As the poet said: "All that remains of us is love."