2021 Local elections

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

More reports of a Burnham landslide. What can we conclude from this huge victory for a candidate who has personality, policies and a recent record of standing up to government?

I don't disagree with this, but also Manchester is the sort of metropolitan area that Labour has been doing well in recently isn't it. It's not really similar to somewhere like Hartlepool.

 

[MickiQ]

John McDonnell explaining that Labour can’t go into an election without policies and he is right of course. Sadly it had a truckload of them at the GE and that didn’t work either, other than the Tories nicked some of them, hollowing them out.

People don’t usually read lots of policy, but they need to know what the party stands for something which tells people how it will govern. Starmer certainly hasn’t done that.

The main thing that Starmer seems to stand for is that he isn't someone else, but the "Vote For Me Because I Am Not Corbyn Nor Am I Johnson" ticket doesn't appear to motivate the punters.

 

[ska invita]

John McDonnell explaining that Labour can’t go into an election without policies and he is right of course. Sadly it had a truckload of them at the GE and that didn’t work either,

It did work - the public liked the policies and that platform took Labour into a 4% lead in poll of polls for a period in 2017, but with the establishment and crucially Labour Party HQ itself repeatedly undermining Corbyn that negativity finally brought the whole thing down.

 

[two sheds]

It did work - the public liked the policies and that platform took Labour into a 4% lead in poll of polls for a period in 2017, but with the establishment and crucially Labour Party HQ itself repeatedly undermining Corbyn that negativity finally brought the whole thing down.

I remember the 2019 election as being different though - a lot more policies were announced. I'd thought that in 2017 Labour concentrated on the core policies. Agree with the undermining though, was a major factor.

 

[Cid]

Yep too many. Seemed like near the election every day there was a new policy rather than just concentrating on the important, core ones. Did seem like an election manifesto cobbled together by huge committee.

The broadband thing. Though Corbyn was properly on the rocks at that point anyway, rightly so in many ways.

 

[two sheds]

The broadband thing. Though Corbyn was properly on the rocks at that point anyway, rightly so in many ways.

What in particular?

 

[Mr Moose]

It did work - the public liked the policies and that platform took Labour into a 4% lead in poll of polls for a period in 2017, but with the establishment and crucially Labour Party HQ itself repeatedly undermining Corbyn that negativity finally brought the whole thing down.

Sure some of the policy was good, McDonnell was inspiring at conference, but by 2019 too many didn’t like what they understood Labour stood for, lots of reasons for that, but undermining not the sole one by a long way. And Starmer hasn’t offered anything new on this front.

There’s a problem for Labour too that much of what the electorate currently finds invigorating in this ‘up yours delors’, Union Jack pants Britain Labour cannot channel. Getting those who don’t like that, want something fairer, more honest, together is like herding cats.

 

[Cid]

What in particular?

Lot of posters on here would argue failure to have any consistent brexit stance. Personally think the anti-semitism stuff was also hugely significant, and there was a consistent failure to get on top of that. And failure in a way that showed poor understanding of a core truth nestled in among all the moral panic and cynical exploitation.

 

[JTG]

I don't disagree with this, but also Manchester is the sort of metropolitan area that Labour has been doing well in recently isn't it. It's not really similar to somewhere like Hartlepool.

It includes Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Leigh etc - all of which were lost or nearly lost in 2019. Greater Manchester isn't just Canal Street and the Lowry!

 

[ska invita]

Sure some of the policy was good, McDonnell was inspiring at conference, but by 2019 too many didn’t like what they understood Labour stood for, lots of reasons for that, but undermining not the sole one by a long way.

I disagree, undermining was the key issue by some distance, Corbyn was a dead man walking by mid 2018 IMO, wounded and losing blood fast



The second referendum/Brexit issue in second place of problems

 

[JTG]

It includes Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Leigh etc - all of which were lost or nearly lost in 2019. Greater Manchester isn't just Canal Street and the Lowry!

Furthermore, I think we're going to see what happens when Labour piss off a Corbynite city over the weekend when Bristol's results come in - even if Rees wins it won't be nearly as convincing as 2016. Can't just hang a result on "oh it's only a major city" imo

 

[ska invita]

Can't just hang a result on "oh it's only a major city" imo

Might yet dismiss as it as being Portland-On-Woke tho

 

[killer b]

Burnham won in the first round last time too, 63% - I reckon he'll have a reduced majority TBH

 

[Guineveretoo]

Sorry for not replying before, I went to bed at 12.
It is not the names of the people who have voted which is given to parties' election agents, but their poll numbers as shown on their polling cards and electoral list.
The election agents have copy of electoral list so they can identify who have voted.

It cannot have been illegal since 2017 or all of the Polling Station Returning Officers in my borough have been breaking the law and should have been arrested!

The polling stations do NOT provide the parties with the polling numbers of who has voted. That would most certainly be illegal. It has always been illegal and it still is.

That is what is gathered by those tellers outside of the polling stations.

You clearly misunderstood what was going on, and the source of the information the agents had.

 

[ddraig]

^^ that

And i've never ever provided hourly figures to anyone, including the election office

 

[brogdale]

I disagree, undermining was the key issue by some distance, Corbyn was a dead man walking by mid 2018 IMO, wounded and losing blood fast


View attachment 267133
The second referendum issue in second place of problems

Policy specific polling from 2019 tended to support what you say:

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It includes Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Leigh etc - all of which were lost or nearly lost in 2019. Greater Manchester isn't just Canal Street and the Lowry!

Sure - and also a number of quite well to do, generally remain-leaning areas outside of Manchester itself too. You'd want a more detailed breakdown of how the vote was spread out to be able to tell but I'd expect Burnham's vote to be stronger in Manchester, Trafford, Stockport etc than in those areas.

 

[two sheds]

Lot of posters on here would argue failure to have any consistent brexit stance. Personally think the anti-semitism stuff was also hugely significant, and there was a consistent failure to get on top of that. And failure in a way that showed poor understanding of a core truth nestled in among all the moral panic and cynical exploitation.

Wasn't his stance fairly consistent though? He was against Brexit at first but then consistently voted for it, explicitly because of the referendum result. He was perhaps too democratic in not coming down on the vocally Remain MPs, and MPs who were stabbing him in the back (and front), but to me that's an approach rather than a weakness. I'd blame the labour MPs and party apparatus briefing against him more than Corbyn himself.

Yes the anti-semitism accusations were significant, but he was being held to a different standard than anyone else. He made some iffy statements in the heat of the moment but apologized for them, and apologized genuinely as far as I can see. His stance on Israel would have meant he'd be accused of anti-semitism without anything else.

The unremitting hostility of all the major media I think was much more significant. We really needed a control experiment in which they'd criticized Johnson equally for his anti-semitism and islamophobia and racism and misogyny and general lies in the same way they criticized Corbyn.

 

[brogdale]

^^ that

And i've never ever provided hourly figures to anyone, including the election office

tbf, though that may not have happened in your experience, accredited agents of the constituency parties are at liberty to visit polling stations throughout the hours of voting to get real-time updates on the numbers of registered voters that have voted.

 

[Guineveretoo]

^^ that

And i've never ever provided hourly figures to anyone, including the election office

The law requires that presiding officers provide numbers to party agents when requested. In Croydon in the last few years, we have been asked by the Returning Officer to post up the numbers on the doors hourly (we keep an hourly record anyway) so that the agents don't have to come in to the polling station. I think it is more widespread than just in Croydon, but it is not a legal requirement. It is, however, very convenient and much less hassle than having to stop whatever you are doing in order to find the numbers whilst the agent is hovering over you trying to sneak a peak at the marked register and corresponding number list.

 

[ddraig]

ok

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think we can be sure that tony.c had been misinformed, tbh.

I imagine he heard the party volunteers saying "okay, here are the polling numbers from the xxx polling station" and thought that meant it had been received from the staff, rather than from the tellers sitting outside the polling station.

 

[andysays]

Sorry for not replying before, I went to bed at 12.
It is not the names of the people who have voted which is given to parties' election agents, but their poll numbers as shown on their polling cards and electoral list.
The election agents have copy of electoral list so they can identify who have voted.

It cannot have been illegal since 2017 or all of the Polling Station Returning Officers in my borough have been breaking the law and should have been arrested!

Even this sounds unlikely to me, because if the numbers appear on a list matched up with names then by releasing the numbers you are effectively releasing the names.

It's frankly non of the business of party election officers or anyone else other than those administering the vote on the day to know who has voted or not.

Ideally I think the info should be destroyed once the election is over rather than long term records kept.

 

[Cid]

Wasn't his stance fairly consistent though? He was against Brexit at first but then consistently voted for it, explicitly because of the referendum result. He was perhaps too democratic in not coming down on the vocally Remain MPs, and MPs who were stabbing him in the back (and front), but to me that's an approach rather than a weakness. I'd blame the labour MPs and party apparatus briefing against him more than Corbyn himself.

Less about the substance of their actual position, more about their failure to articulate and have a consistent party line. Which would have been difficult of course, but if you’re not dealing with another huge issue that leaves you open to attack, you at least have a chance of working out some way to own that division.

Yes the anti-semitism accusations were significant, but he was being held to a different standard than anyone else. He made some iffy statements in the heat of the moment but apologized for them, and apologized genuinely as far as I can see. His stance on Israel would have meant he'd be accused of anti-semitism without anything else.

Yep. But there was substance in there. And that’s what he failed to get on top of. Apologies were not enough. No idea whether a better response would have helped come the GE, but at least it wouldn’t have felt like a betrayal to support him.

unremitting hostility of all the major media I think was much more significant. We really needed a control experiment in which they'd criticized Johnson equally for his anti-semitism and islamophobia and racism and misogyny and general lies in the same way they criticized Corbyn.

Sure, but not really my point. It was going to very hard for him… but there are media brawls you can come back from. I don’t feel I can defend Corbyn. That’s the real failure there.

 

[Pickman's model]

Even this sounds unlikely to me, because if the numbers appear on a list matched up with names then by releasing the numbers you are effectively releasing the names.

It's frankly non of the business of party election officers or anyone else other than those administering the vote on the day to know who has voted or not.

Ideally I think the info should be destroyed once the election is over rather than long term records kept.

yeh i was thinking as i left the station i don't want my spunking cock coming back to haunt me

 

[tony.c]

I imagine he heard the party volunteers saying "okay, here are the polling numbers from the xxx polling station" and thought that meant it had been received from the staff, rather than from the tellers sitting outside the polling station.

We didn't have tellers outside polling stations. But it might have been that we were just phoning or knocking on doors of all identified supporters until they told us that they had voted.

 

[andysays]

yeh i was thinking as i left the station i don't want my spunking cock coming back to haunt me

I would imagine that the Electoral Commission are examining your ballot paper and the list of names/ballot numbers right now and you'll be getting a knock at the door shortly...

 

[Guineveretoo]

We didn't have tellers outside polling stations. But it might have been that we were just phoning or knocking on doors of all identified supporters until they told us that they had voted.

I promise you that your party did NOT get the information from the polling stations.

I am not the only one to have said that, and you can google it as well if you need to.

But it is time to accept that you are wrong on this, and to move on

If your party had enough volunteers to knock on the doors of all the voters who supported them, they would surely have had enough to act as tellers

 

[Pickman's model]

I would imagine that the Electoral Commission are examining your ballot paper and the list of names/ballot numbers right now and you'll be getting a knock at the door shortly...

how right you were! a parcel arrived five minutes after your post

 

[Guineveretoo]

Even this sounds unlikely to me, because if the numbers appear on a list matched up with names then by releasing the numbers you are effectively releasing the names.

It's frankly non of the business of party election officers or anyone else other than those administering the vote on the day to know who has voted or not.

Ideally I think the info should be destroyed once the election is over rather than long term records kept.

The numbers do, indeed, identify the voter to anyone who has the electoral register, which is why these numbers are never provided to ANYONE by the polling station staff or the Returning Officer, regardless of what people on here think or say

It is the job of the party volunteers to find out how their supporters have voted. The simplest way to do that is to ask for polling numbers as people leave the polling station.

It is destroyed eventually - I can't remember how long it is sealed away for - but has to be kept for a while in case there are allegations of election fraud, which has happened rarely.