N Shropshire By Election

DidsburySmog92 said:
There was a lot of tactical voting from Labour and Greens voters but that was not instructions coming from the parties. Labour campaigned in this election and refused to admit that the situation on the ground was changing. Labour need to understand that in a lot of Tory seats the electorate would consider LD but never vote Labour - there are some Labour 2nd places that will never be a win for them. The Labour Party’s arrogance is a barrier to this being replicated in other seats. Tatton, Eddisbury, Harrogate to name a few.
Click to expand...
the greens increased their vote share. maybe they didn’t get the memo.

how many 2nd places seats would Labour purposely concede in order to win an election? it just doesn’t stack up (for me at least)
 
newyddion said:
the greens increased their vote share. maybe they didn’t get the memo.

how many 2nd places seats would Labour purposely concede in order to win an election? it just doesn’t stack up (for me at least)
Click to expand...
Honestly neither did the Labour Party. Thankfully their voters did get it. I have a list of Labour seats where this scenario is the same. There are a fair few - especially in Bucks, Cheshire. But I fear that the problem is that they just wont accept that their vote ceiling is not large enough in those seats.
 
BoroMart said:
I think that works both ways though, LD and Labour both have to accept they can't both beat the tories, they have to effectively not campaign in certain seats to allow the other to win.

I don't think it's really about arrogance either, it's about the party being viewed through certain optics if they effectively give up a seat without any fight.
Click to expand...
There is no LDem 2nd place where Labour are best placed to win. The unofficial agreement was Sidcup to Labour. North Shrop to LD. Lab messed up Sidcup big time. But I agree there needs to be an open discussion, it will never happen though.
 
DidsburySmog92 said:
There is no LDem 2nd place where Labour are best placed to win. The unofficial agreement was Sidcup to Labour. North Shrop to LD. Lab messed up Sidcup big time. But I agree there needs to be an open discussion, it will never happen though.
Click to expand...
no, but there are seats where if they effectively stand down, by not campaigning, then the Labour seat will pick up votes and usurp the sitting tory. They don't need to be second place, the issue is they are splitting the vote
 
BoroMart said:
no, but there are seats where if they effectively stand down, by not campaigning, then the Labour seat will pick up votes and usurp the sitting tory. They don't need to be second place, the issue is they are splitting the vote
Click to expand...
Yeah in the established marginals. But my point is that there are some seats where the placing of the previous elections is not an indicator of who can beat the tories. Both parties would benefit from polling a "which party would you not vote for" question in those seats.
 
The thing with tactical voting is that not everyone will get the message. Already I'm seeing a lot of people on Twitter giving it the 'yeah but Labour came third :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:'.

It's also hard to get this message across as you will also get folk suggesting that there 'clearly isn't a deserving opposition'.

Not sure how you approach this tbh, just my thoughts! Fingers crossed this isn't just a one off by-election.
 
DidsburySmog92 said:
Honestly neither did the Labour Party. Thankfully their voters did get it. I have a list of Labour seats where this scenario is the same. There are a fair few - especially in Bucks, Cheshire. But I fear that the problem is that they just wont accept that their vote ceiling is not large enough in those seats.
Click to expand...
you have a list? get the list out for the lads!
 
No way in a million years can I see Truss taking over. Depressing though it sounds we are stuck with the tramp for at least another year. They will definitely not get rid at this time. Dark days ahead.
 
newyddion said:
the greens increased their vote share. maybe they didn’t get the memo.

how many 2nd places seats would Labour purposely concede in order to win an election? it just doesn’t stack up (for me at least)
Click to expand...
In FPTP there are no prizes for coming second. Labour would concede as many as needed where the situation is that they can't win but LD can beat the Tories, in order to reduce the seats of the leading party. It's then for them to target the seats where they can win. They just need to recognise which are which.
 
newyddion said:
you have a list? get the list out for the lads!
Click to expand...
1639737058605.png

These "safe" tory or comfortable majority seats where the 2nd place challenger is open to interpretation. Without specific seat polling it will be hard to determine which challenger has the vote ceiling required to actually win.

Disclaimer: I work in politics for my sins. Polling has not been done in any of these. There is no conversation to suggest that there will be any. There is a second requirement that local party infrastructure should also be taken into consideration. These do not include traditional marginal seats. It is more likely that these seats may only be vulnerable in by-election situations (differential turnout).
 
DidsburySmog92 said:
These "safe" tory or comfortable majority seats where the 2nd place challenger is open to interpretation. Without specific seat polling it will be hard to determine which challenger has the vote ceiling required to actually win.

Disclaimer: I work in politics for my sins. Polling has not been done in any of these. There is no conversation to suggest that there will be any. There is a second requirement that local party infrastructure should also be taken into consideration. These do not include traditional marginal seats. It is more likely that these seats may only be vulnerable in by-election situations (differential turnout).
Click to expand...
Labour turning into the Lib Dems seems to be the approach from Labour atm
 
No surprise to see the spin as a bad night fir labour. Labour couldn't win there, its a tory voting area, though they are so fed up they could bring themselves to vote libdem.
In other news labour win North Ormesby 👍
 
newyddion said:
better for Labour? who are Labour? they should be streets ahead.. View attachment 29600
Click to expand...
Its pretty simple -- People switch their vote to get the "HATED" candidate out - People dont switch from Conservative to Labour or vice versa, they go to the candidate with the best chance of ousting the incumbent, with whom they have a little affinity.

I have voted tactically in the past, but i would never EVER vote Conservative. I would imagine Conservatives are the same - they will vote tactically, but they wont vote Labour.
 
jam69 said:
No surprise to see the spin as a bad night fir labour. Labour couldn't win there, its a tory voting area, though they are so fed up they could bring themselves to vote libdem.
In other news labour win North Ormesby 👍
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about this constituency is that whereas the Tories always win, Labour usually come second and the Lib Dems third but, the LDs have been displaced a couple of times by UKIP so although there is a healthy support for Labour that's as far as it is ever going to go and as has been pointed out on this thread there is a cap for Labour. The locals would rather lend their vote to the Lib Dems or even UKIP before voting Labour. That's the way they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top