respect (non galloway) come 3rd in leyton
- Thread starter nwnm
- Start date
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
psephology involves the statistical study of elections and trends in voting, and is usually used to attempt to predict/forecast future outcomes. These are not 'facts' at all - but wild guesses. You are a sectarian little shit. That makes you a sectarian psephologist
Whenever you've lost the argument you just ignore it and descend into insults.
Answer the point - what is your basis for predicting that extrapolating Carole Vincent's vote in Leyton will produce more than 5% for an SWP-led slate headed by Linsey German in 10 weeks time?
I've given you an extrapolation based on reasonable mathematics and interpretation. You tell me what is false or sectarian about it, if you can? The fact is that it is your method that is entirely composed of wild guesses, not mine.
and whenever the figures don't suit you you go out and find some more....
as glenquagmire (somewhat jokingly) pointed out in an earlier post,
"If the demographics of Leyton Ward were replicated across London then you might have a chance then.
In fact, extrapolating from the Leyton result, I predict the GLA seats to be made up of 56% Lib Dems, 28% Labour, 7% Respect SWP with the Conservatives and Greens failing to get over the 5% threshold."
That was the post that you, being the arithmatical genius that you are, missed the point of completely
cockneyrebel
New Member
nwnm I think you missed the point that he was actually taking the piss out of you.
Better get back to explaining this shit result, rather than calling names... imvho, of course...
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
fishers gate and a sense of humour ARE YOU SURE?
I think cockneyrebel meant glenquagmire was taking the piss, not me.
You still haven't answered the question - what's your basis for believing from the Leyton result that the SWP-led slate can get 5% in the GLA list election in 10 weeks time? I've shown a calculation that says it can be extrapolated to 2.86% - what's wrong with this, what your extrapolation and how have you calculated it
cockneyrebel
New Member
Yeap. I don't think nwmn realised that glenquagmire was taking the piss out of him.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
in which case you both missed post #53
So, from your silence, can I take it that you've conceded the Leyton result means the SWP will not get 5% in the GLA List election?
from just about every post I've made on the subject you should conclude that I think hitting 7% or over in 1 ward is an ok start
in a ward you should be easily getting 20-30% and really winning .. and you'll get zero in carsholton and barnet havering and westminister er most of london tbh .. areas like leyton are the areas you need to be getting 15-20%s to get 5% overall .. not a hope in hell .. i'll put 50£ thruchris harmans door if you do .. ok? .. and you do like wise to .. oh i'll think of some better cause
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Even if Respect got 11.5% last time round? Strange idea of progress...
The key issue here was that Respect woudl have got more votes in both elections if their campaigns were not sabotaged by ex respect members who are preventing Respect from standing under their own name. At this rate, there will be few left canddiates standing , anywhere, in May, and especially in the GLA Elections.
Its not easy to get 20% - especially as Socialism doesnt offer quick and easy answers to social issues like other ideologies. its a gradual thing- and 7% is a good base on which to fire up people to say they can have a socialist elected to the GLA
As I understand it Carole Vincent did use the Respect name in at least some of her campaign literature so your excuse for a poor vote dosent work.
BarryB
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
No-one prevented anyone standing. And no-one ruled out endorsement. Linda Smith simply said that there had to be discussions. Despite telephoning Linda, the SWP refused point blank to hold any discussion whatsover about endorsement.
Linda and Salma Yaqoob have written to John Rees on several occasions asking for discussions, without even receiving the courtesy of a reply.
One of the approved ballot paper names of Respect is still "Respect (George Galloway)" by the way.
but why do respect members need to discuss anything with ex-respect members such as Galloway, Smith & Yaqoob etc. When they resigned from respect, they resigned. Smith is quite happy to do the states work by refusing to resign as nominating officer when required to do so by Respect,preventing socialists standing under their own name at elections.
Actually, does. Unless they were canvassed and it was explained to every voter individually that Respect are being prevented from standing under their name by ex-members, they may have though Vincent was just any other independant.
Oh come off it. The local paper gave Carole Vincent plenty of publicity as a Respect candidate. And at least some of her leaflets mentioned Respect.
BarryB
Im certainly no supporter of Respect Renewal but even I think its disgraceful for you to claim that Smith is happy to do the states work. Respect Renewal has at least as much right to the name of Respect as SWP Respect.
BarryB
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Because they have never resigned from Respect. Linda Smith in particular is a fully paid up member until October 2008. The only people who resigned from anything were the four SWP-backed councillors who resigned the whip - one of whom has now joined the Tories.
sorry that is rubbish mate .. IWCA and HI get 20%'s easily for a position as ( more )radical than respect on the door .. swp have been active in areas like this for 30 years and more and that they have neither influence or electoral support is a damning indictment of their politics and strategy you had a corrupt council a smear artist labour and a rightwing lib lab pact in a muslim area too and with a high profile candidate .. no sorry there are no excuses
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Example of one of Vincent's leaflet at:
http://www.respectcoalition.org/pdf/f744.pdf
However it is fair to say that the SWP were schizophrenic about use of the Respect label. They do not say in the leaflets that Vincent was "the Respect candidate" and other documents talk about "Respect" (sic) "supporting" her.
And at least one of her leaflets, mysteriously disappeared from the SWP-Respect website, had "People Before Profit" far more prominently and it is widely assumed that this will be the name the SWP will seek to register with the electoral commission for future elections.
Lindsey German's latest election leaflet says "Respect" (sic) "back" Lindsey German. "People Before Profit" is the slogan on the poster, though mysteriously not the leaflet.
German's latest leaflet also says that "Respect has selected a team of candidates to contest the Greater London Authority (GLA) elections on 1st May 2008". The SWP. however, have "removed" the GLA candidacy of Newham Councillor Hanif Abdulmuhit from the City and East constituency (he was selected in July 2007 before the split) and were going to select an SWP-backed candidate last week. I don't know if new Tory councillor Ahmed Hussain had cast his vote before he defected from the Lindsey German's SWP to David Cameron's Tories without, according to him, changing his politics.
But it does all make more nonsense regarding their claim that they are the continuity of Respect, and is further evidence to weaken their case in law and before the Electoral Commission.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
sorry that is rubbish mate .. IWCA and HI get 20%'s easily for a position as ( more )radical than respect on the door .. swp have been active in areas like this for 30 years and more and that they have neither influence or electoral support is a damning indictment of their politics and strategy you had a corrupt council a smear artist labour and a rightwing lib lab pact in a muslim area too and with a high profile candidate .. no sorry there are no excuses
IWCA and HI do not use the 'S' word however and most their campaigning is populist rather than political. They have never contested a by-election in recent times afaik. In a by-election, tactical voting tends to come to the fore and the individual candidates are submitted to a greater level of scrutiny.
7.2% is a poor result - not disastrous as would less than 5% have been, but worse than the 11.5% scored in 2004, which was a good start, that was not built on by the SWP. The whole point of Galloway's letter in August 2007 was that under the SWP's leadership stewardship (Rees in particular), Respect has not set up a functioning political organisation to fight such elections. Many people in Respect have now seen that this is the fault of the SWP's strategy of "united front of a special kind", rather than making Respect a political party fighting in the community all year round, not just a front wheeled out at elections. The IWCA have done rather better in that regard.
They resigned the whip - not from respect as you well know. Smith et al voted with their feet on respect and effectively set up another organisation
In fact Hackney Independent fought a by election in Hoxton on 5 May 2005.
The result was:
Labour 1443 43.8%
Con 649 19.6%
Lib Dems 586 17.7%
Hackney Independent 310 9.4% (Tony Butler)
Green 201 6.1%
Respect 115 3.4%
The turnout was 44.96% which is high for a by election in Hackney but can be explained by the fact that the General Election took place the same day.
Neither Hackney Independent or the Greens stood in the May 2006 election where the 3 Hoxton seats were retained by Labour.
The IWCA stood in the neighbouring Hackney ward of Haggerston in 2002 coming second to Labour. And Hackney Independent (which came from the IWCA) stood in Haggerston in 2006 also coming second to Labour.
BarryB
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Thanks. I stand corrected. Though a by-election on the same day as the General Election is not exactly a normal by-election, hence the reason I missed it.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
They resigned the whip - not from respect as you well know. Smith et al voted with their feet on respect and effectively set up another organisation
The four councillors didn't just resign the Respect whip, they set up their own 'Independent' group on the council with their own leader, deputy leader and structure.
No other party would tolerate such disloyalty from its members. When the Liverpool Broad Left set up their own group on the Council in 1993, they accepted they had put themselves outside the Labour Party and did not argue that they had left.Smith has insisted on negotiations with Rees. The SWP-backed conference was illegitimate. It is the SWP who have set up their own organisation. The Electoral Commission have refused the SWP's request to remove Smith as nominating officer and leader, saying it is a matter for the two sides to resolve.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
