Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

See Farage has confirmed Reform have reported the family voting issue to the Police.

As swaledale says nothing was reported during the voting hours, seems a bit strange.

Labour appear to be jumping in the bandwagon too.

Family voting, appreciate the illegality of it but recall tales from my parents who , when they were old enough to vote were under strict instructions who to vote for from their parentd, guess the only difference is they didn't have a chaperone to ensure they did.

Farage even linked the vandalism of Churchills statue to the green victory today.

He’s just copying his mentor (Trump) from six years ago. ‘We lost so someone’s cheated!’

Totally agree with your comment about ‘family voting’. That’s exactly how it used to be and probably still is in many cases. Appreciate Swale’s more informed insight into the precise meaning of the term, but if that’s the case it’s certainly a rule I’ve seen broken many a time and actually advocated by the officials on one occasion.

[Andy_Faber]

My only comment on the by-election, and y’all’s desperate hopes relating to it isn’t actually mine, it’s from someone a few thousand pointless comments into a Facebook spat on the subject.’you’re all just a bunch of sh1t mystic Megs’

[swaledale]

I have, as is my wont, looked at a few numbers comparing the by-election to the 2024 general election (before then the constituency boundaries changed but then it was an even stronger labour stronghold)

The by-election turnout and the 2024 GE turnout were almost identical (+/- 250). The general election showed a Lab majority over reform of 13400 and 13800 over Green; the bye election showed a Green majority over Lab of 5600.

the general election result was somewhat bent out of shape by there being a split vote following George Galloway defection from Labour and running a Workers Party candidate who picked up 3800 votes presumably from Lab, whose majority likely would have been 17000 or so without the split.

So, and this is where we need to assume a bit, I imagine the 2200 decline in Tory vote went to Reform and the fall in LibDem vote went Green, as did the Workers Party vote (althought this is debatable, may have gone Lab)

So this leaves a reduction in Labour vote of 9200 - approx 500 to the fringe parties, 3300 to Reform and 5400 to Green. Both swings are protest votes against Lab altough quite likely the swing to Green was more tactical to ensure the collapsing Labour vote didnt lead to a Reform win?

So was it a disaster for Reform? They appear to have taken 3300 votes off a Labour vote which triggered a chunk of tactical voting to Green in anticipation of a Labour defeat. But had a little over half of those 5400 that may have been tactically voting Green to block Reform remained loyal to Labour, guess what?? Labour would have won by a slim majority.

Can I have a job as a Starmer spin doctor please

Nah your too charismatic!

[swaledale]

He’s just copying his mentor (Trump) from six years ago. ‘We lost so someone’s cheated!’

Totally agree with your comment about ‘family voting’. That’s exactly how it used to be and probably still is in many cases. Appreciate Swale’s more informed insight into the precise meaning of the term, but if that’s the case it’s certainly a rule I’ve seen broken many a time and actually advocated by the officials on one occasion.

Its been illegal since 2023, mm doubt officials were advocating family voting, though acting as a chaperoning, where visually impaired or otherwise disabled voter may be assisted can happen. But tbh, most "family" voting is decided prior to entering the polling station and applies equally to staunch Tory voters where pressure and influence is applied to family members as to other voters, Ive actually had to remove family members from a polling station for it and that was well before the actual legislation.

[swaledale]

My only comment on the by-election, and y’all’s desperate hopes relating to it isn’t actually mine, it’s from someone a few thousand pointless comments into a Facebook spat on the subject.’you’re all just a bunch of sh1t mystic Megs’

Which mkaes no sense at all!

[Geoff Parkstone]

A few thoughts:

The family voting issues were noted by an independent body who observed it in 12% of votes cast in a sample size of around 550. Statistically significant but no idea which party if any may have benefitted.

These were overt examples of the practice; as said above it's probably been going on in homes for decades. The families just need to be a bit more subtle.

Labour Chair has also expressed concerns about it. Polanski has said he would back further investigation. I have seen that Reform Chair has said it probably wouldn't have influenced the result, so not sure why Farage is getting his knickers in a twist.

End of the day it's illegal and contravenes the core democratic principle of secret ballots. I'm surprised rA that you treat it so lightly - I'd always thought of you as a strong supporter of the democratic process and adherence with electoral integrity. Clearly I misread you.

[ramAnag]

A few thoughts:

The family voting issues were noted by an independent body who observed it in 12% of votes cast in a sample size of around 550. Statistically significant but no idea which party if any may have benefitted.

These were overt examples of the practice; as said above it's probably been going on in homes for decades. The families just need to be a bit more subtle.

Labour Chair has also expressed concerns about it. Polanski has said he would back further investigation. I have seen that Reform Chair has said it probably wouldn't have influenced the result, so not sure why Farage is getting his knickers in a twist.

End of the day it's illegal and contravenes the core democratic principle of secret ballots. I'm surprised rA that you treat it so lightly - I'd always thought of you as a strong supporter of the democratic process and adherence with electoral integrity. Clearly I misread you.

I treat it lightly because, as others have already pointed out, it happens - possibly more subtly - and has gone on forever in politics of all persuasions.

If there is evidence that someone was being forcibly coerced into voting a certain way then that is a different matter, but I find the prospect of a significant number of Muslims being coerced into voting for a white working class woman who represents a party led by a gay Jewish man slightly risible.

Beyond that, I know you love your figures and will delight in pointing out any mistake I may have made, but the facts seem to be…this constituency has an electorate off 77,501. Over half of them didn’t /couldn’t be bothered to vote even at a time of such high profile politicisation and of that 77,501, only 10,578 voted for RUK/Farage and 154 voted for the Advance UK crackpots.

That suggests to me that, even in such divisive times, about 13.8% of the electorate in this area of Manchester are of a Right to Far Right persuasion and that is something I find very reassuring.

P.S. While the Tories are kicking off about how Starmer must go, hope they haven’t forgotten they actually lost their deposit.

[SithHappens]

Its a strange one though, Manchester city council said staff are trained to recognise such matters and what to do if any concerns.

They said no such issues were identified or reported and asked why the observers didn't raise any concerns they had.

The observers said its not their job to raise concerns during the voting and don't usually issue a report until later down the line but decided to drop this just after 10pm

They have also since said they did alert the council during the day. So which is it? They can't say anything or they can?

Goodwin is still using the sectarian language this morning.

If it happened as much as is claimed it should have been evident to staff so if its proven then action of course needs to be taken.

I still cannot see that there was swathes of Muslim women desperate to vote for Matt Goodwin but instructed to vote Green instead.

Labour and the Tories have got involved and raised concerns but seem to have stopped short of throwing around accusations of cheating..Whos cheated exactly? Who are they accusing? The Green party?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I treat it lightly because, as others have already pointed out, it happens - possibly more subtly - and has gone on forever in politics of all persuasions.

If there is evidence that someone was being forcibly coerced into voting a certain way then that is a different matter, but I find the prospect of a significant number of Muslims being coerced into voting for a white working class woman who represents a party led by a gay Jewish man slightly risible.

Beyond that, I know you love your figures and will delight in pointing out any mistake I may have made, but the facts seem to be…this constituency has an electorate off 77,501. Over half of them didn’t /couldn’t be bothered to vote even at a time of such high profile politicisation and of that 77,501, only 10,578 voted for RUK/Farage and 154 voted for the Advance UK crackpots.

That suggests to me that, even in such divisive times, about 13.8% of the electorate in this area of Manchester are of a Right to Far Right persuasion and that is something I find very reassuring.

P.S. While the Tories are kicking off about how Starmer must go, hope they haven’t forgotten they actually lost their deposit.

The independent observers did not identify any section of the electorate or ethnicity of voters adopting this coercive behaviour. Nor any party what might have benefitted.

Yet you assume the coercive practice was carried on by voters in the Muslim community. I had not expected such inherent racism from you.

The rest of your post is simple deflection and assigning characteristics to non voters in just the same way as you did with the Brexit poll. The votes of those who bothered to vote are what matters - and note the turnout was almost the same at both by election and general election.

Labour got less than half of the votes of the full electorate at the last election - does that mean they have no mandate to govern?

If you take comfort from abusing statistics to dismiss the threat of the far right, that's up to you, I hope you sleep well at night.

[swaledale]

For a guy who claims to be all about ending wars and vows the US won't get involved in conflicts, the Orange Baby seems to be threatening or actually starting many conflicts outside the US! Rather strange approach to withdrawing from US interference!

Apart of course from applying the pressure on Putin to end the war on Ukraine, or indeed taking steps to support the country being invaded.

Does anyone get the feeling that he seems hell bent on starting WW3?

[Geoff Parkstone]

He may well have just done that

[swaledale]

The independent observers did not identify any section of the electorate or ethnicity of voters adopting this coercive behaviour. Nor any party what might have benefitted.

Yet you assume the coercive practice was carried on by voters in the Muslim community. I had not expected such inherent racism from you.

The rest of your post is simple deflection and assigning characteristics to non voters in just the same way as you did with the Brexit poll. The votes of those who bothered to vote are what matters - and note the turnout was almost the same at both by election and general election.

Labour got less than half of the votes of the full electorate at the last election - does that mean they have no mandate to govern?

If you take comfort from abusing statistics to dismiss the threat of the far right, that's up to you, I hope you sleep well at night.

Except, RA didn't assume anything about coercive practice with Muslims, that was Farage, the Reform candidate Goodwin and to an extent Badenoch which he commented.

Nor did he any assign charcteristics to non voters, he merely pointed out that under 50% of the electorate turned out to vote.

What RA did point out, was that of the circa 77,000 who voted, the majority voted for left leaning parties and not Reform. Which whilst one needs to be wary of taking too much evidence from a byelection, does indicate that this theme that the "silent" majority are in favour of Reform's rhetoric and BS is perhaps not true.

So how you came to the conclusion that RA was abusing statistics is odd, perhaps you didn't read his post proeprly before responding?

[SithHappens]

Its Reform, and the media, who have been suggesting it's Muslim voters who are the issue.

Wonder what racist Sarah is suggesting here?

https://x.com/SarahForRuncorn/status/2027738365597044763?s=20

1 day after the result of a by election where reform have not stopped blaming Muslims for losing she posts this.

[SithHappens]

Farage Today

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/2027693784310710744

Farage before

https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/607600226774482945

[Geoff Parkstone]

What RA did point out, was that of the circa 77,000 who voted, the majority voted for left leaning parties and not Reform. Which whilst one needs to be wary of taking too much evidence from a byelection, does indicate that this theme that the "silent" majority are in favour of Reform's rhetoric and BS is perhaps not true.

So how you came to the conclusion that RA was abusing statistics is odd, perhaps you didn't read his post proeprly before responding?

Au contraire, on the matter of reading what rA wrote I fear you havent. He referred to of the 77,00 that COULD have voted, ie the constituency voting public, not those who actually did. Actually about 36,800 voted. He took comfort in in his conclusion that just 13.8% of the people who could have voted, voted for right leaning candidates.

In order to derive the 13.8% that he he took comfort in, he of course assumed that none of the non voters (over 50% of the total constituency, as the turnout was 45.2%) would have voted Tory or Reform. That is what I mean by abuse of statistics. Thats something of a stretch - and just like his view on the Brexit vote, you cannot assume that the non voters would vote the way you want them to vote in drawing conclusions. More realistic to assume that the non voters' leanings would mirror the balance of those that did vote, but that too os potentially flawed.

Absolutely the left leaning parties received more votes than the right leaning by some way, but my issue isn't that - in this constituency with its demographic and election history, it would be a minor miracle to see any other outcome - but my issue was with his 13.8% and the nonsensical conclusion he drew about total percentage support for right leaning parties.

At the last general election there was an approximate 60% turnout, of which Labour gained 33.7% votes cast. Thus Labour gained 20.1% of the available votes, alongside a landslide FPP victory. Applying his abuse of statistics rA would conclude Labour had no mandate to govern, yet clearly they do have one.....


Anyway this is a rerun of the tiresome Brexit argument that the majority of the people didnt want Brexit. That was fallacious in that context and his conclusion here is just as fallacious. ironically I suspect that today a majority would be against Brexit had the debate been held 10 years on.