Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
A different look at the 2014 local election results
- Thread starter Flex Your Head
- Start date
Flex Your Head
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #22
But their share of the vote actually declined dramatically from the local council elections last year - from 22% down to 17%.
PS It isn't the population's voting pattern that UKIP are 'ridiculed' for.
Last edited:
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
Thought you was going to look? Report back with your findings, cheers.
Albumen
Don't wait for me!
Sorry, I wasn't aware you already knew the results before everyone else. My error.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
That, in the grand scheme of things, they don't really matter.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
An opinion poll last December had UKIP on 22% in Grimsby (6% in 2010) , 18 points behind Labour. Thursday's result put UKIP on 36% which is a tremendous swing.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
Because they are a 24 hour news channel?
Everytime one of the non-traditional parties has a good election it is assumed a seismic shift will happen at the next General Election and it never seems to happen. The big two tend to adjust, e.g. the Labour party moved towards the centre after the SDP had some success and both started talking about immigration when the BNP one some council seats and about the environment when the Greens had success.
smartferndale
Active member
- Mar 21, 2013
- 113
UKIP local election tactics
Essex, Basildon etc.
UKIP had a smart campaign. They contested certain Council seats where there was no strong established person. This meant resources were focussed on winnable seats and the best candidates were put up in these. Result UKIP won seats but the % figures are down overall as supporters could not vote where there was no candidate.
P.S. I am a Lib Dem Councillor
UKIP had the right tactics locally. My area was Lib Dem v Cons. Crushing win for the good guys because very strong, well known candidate who lives in the ward. Is this the future for Lib Dem party. Few wins by excellent hard working local people.
Essex, Basildon etc.
UKIP had a smart campaign. They contested certain Council seats where there was no strong established person. This meant resources were focussed on winnable seats and the best candidates were put up in these. Result UKIP won seats but the % figures are down overall as supporters could not vote where there was no candidate.
P.S. I am a Lib Dem Councillor
UKIP had the right tactics locally. My area was Lib Dem v Cons. Crushing win for the good guys because very strong, well known candidate who lives in the ward. Is this the future for Lib Dem party. Few wins by excellent hard working local people.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
GreersElbow
New member
I really don't understand what point you're trying to raise here. What has Ashcroft's projections got to do with Labour's performance? Labour could make a majority government with 31% of the national vote provided each constituency they reach the largest amount of votes cast under the FPTP system. It's amazing you're accusing me of spin when you're now bringing in comments from Ashcroft, then declaring victory. I'm failing to see the relevance of Ashcroft's comments. Labour would win a majority because of the right wing vote being split. Here's some additional points to make:
1) only a turnout of 35% as opposed to GE's 60-70%. Much more difficult to gauge when there's more voters voting.
2) only 31% of the 35% voted Labour, that's not something to be applauding when they're the main opposition.
Ashcroft could say Britain will be the leading manufacturer of dildos, that doesn't necessarily mean it's evidence of an argument.
Gaining a serious opposition is terrible if you're the councillor, because your seat because marginal and then a target seat. Many senior Labour figures are considering this result to be poor, are they wrong too? I think they're the best ones to gauge their results. If you're campaigning to win or retain a council then post election analysis would be to look at the wards which are marginal seats to gauge the possibility of losing it next election. If it becomes marginal it then becomes a target seat for opposition, it doesn't make the situation any better it just makes it a lot worse for yourself. Their share of the vote was much lower than they anticipated, they only grew by 2%. That's not a good result and I will argue, terrible given that they're the main opposition.
Labour was projected to do well, UKIP's better. But well nonetheless, they received only 31% of the national share of the vote and only gained 6 councils. If that's a good result, then I'm kerfuffled. Especially when we put the fact they're the main opposition into perspective.
It's not a binary thing. It's not good or bad. It's not that if one version of "negative" applies they all do. If something is "poor" it doesn't mean it is also "terrible" "awful" "a disaster" "colossal failure". There is a gradient.
They have described it as "poor". That I can understand. "Terrible" is not the same thing. And just because I don't accept that it is "terrrible" doesn't mean I'm trying to suggest it is good (or great, fantastic, marvellous or any other word on the "positive" gradient).
They retained their seat and control of the council, that's a plus, but now have serious opposition, that's a negative. Their job will be harder, but it is still their job. That is disappointing. It is not "terrible".
The hype machine needs dialling down on all sides.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
Few wins suits me. I've had £50 on under 37.5 seats for Lib Dems. Now priced at 33.5 your choice
Still looks value
Need a new leader and to drop the 'democrat' thingy as well, what does it add?
RexCathedra
Aurea Mediocritas
Left over from the pre-merger Social Democrats, surely?
Superphil
Dismember
I gave up at "independent Yorkshire blogger".