Election Year or Fear!

[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...597044763?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.

[swaledale]

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.

Mea Culpa, yes your right, on the electorate figures, I misread, so your point stands.

RA was I think pointing out that if there was such a groundswell of support for Reform, as has been claimed variously across the media, by certain polls and by some on here, it was surprising that more of those that didn't vote hadn't turned out to vote for Reform. But thats my interpretation.

The tiresome as you put it Brexit argument, largely centred on the fact that the buffoon Cameron didn't put a threshhold on the referendun result, typically 60% voting in favour for it to pass and that the narrow margin was insufficient for a plebscite that effected so significant a change.

[ramAnag]

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.

Silly post. Of course the independent observers didn?t identify a particular group however when moaning about family voting RUK identified Muslim and Islamist sectarianism and that is what I was referring to.

I slept a lot better last night than the night before thanks.

[Andy_Faber]

Like him or no, and be it for good or ill, DT has hit the jackpot in Iran, my source from a family member, Iranian via Spain and Germany and ‘wired in’ to the source area claimed (yes Swale and rA, just ‘claimed’) to have known at lunchtime and there’s widespread rejoice in his family area in Germany

[Andy_Faber]

Silly post.

GP ignore the insult, I get that a lot, usually when I’ve made a point. It’s just a tactic - just defecation. or do I mean defection. Or deflection

[ramAnag]

RA was I think pointing out that if there was such a groundswell of support for Reform, as has been claimed variously across the media, by certain polls and by some on here, it was surprising that more of those that didn't vote hadn't turned out to vote for Reform. But thats my interpretation.

The tiresome as you put it Brexit argument, largely centred on the fact that the buffoon Cameron didn't put a threshhold on the referendun result, typically 60% voting in favour for it to pass and that the narrow margin was insufficient for a plebscite that effected so significant a change.

Your interpretation is correct.

I’d add complacency to the reasons for the Brexit referendum defeat Swale. I was trying to avoid comparison because there really isn’t one. There was certainly no such complacency in Gorton and Denton and it was always seen as a massive challenge for Starmer and a litmus test of Farage’s appeal as a potential leader, one he and his abominable candidate singularly failed.

So yes, GP, I am reassured. It was certainly a bad night for Starmer and Labour which no one has denied, but in terms of the political spectrum, it was just as bad, possibly worse, for Farage and he’s the one who’s meant to be ‘on the up’ and with much more to prove.