Michael Taylor to fight Hazel Grove for Labour

[wheels]

Labour will have to concentrate resources on the more winnable areas of the Hazel Grove constituency. There are more Labour supporters than you may think in Marple, but some will have voted tactically in the last election to keep the Tory out.  After five years of Liberal collusion I suspect many wont be holding their noses this time and will vote with their hearts.

They would do that because they think a majority Tory government is better than a coalition would they. That really would be strange.

[tonysheldon]

Labour will have to concentrate resources on the more winnable areas of the Hazel Grove constituency. There are more Labour supporters than you may think in Marple, but some will have voted tactically in the last election to keep the Tory out.  After five years of Liberal collusion I suspect many wont be holding their noses this time and will vote with their hearts.

[wheels]

Well Wee Willy Wraggs (www) last leaflet was delivered commercially c/o Ashcrofts money indicating a lack of local workers.

[Dave]

I think they just push leaflets though doors - no shortage of those at the moment! 

[Bowden Guy]

I have lived in Marple for 14 years and have had more visits, in this period of time, from the Jehova Witnesses (3) than political canvassers (0). Love to know what these 800 people are up to.

[wheels]

Generally speaking you need between 800 and 1000 members/workers to deliver a victory in a genuinely contested election. I suspect neither Labour nor UKIP have anything like that in HG and what they do have will be pulled away to more significant seats to them.  Neither are relevant to this election.

[Dave]

As Harry says, it may not be the same story at the general election, but all the same, that's a thought-provoking pie chart! 

The turnout at the euro elections was only about 35%, AFAIK, and maybe there's was a disproportionately high number of UKIP supporters among those who bothered to vote, as they are the people who have the strongest opinions about the EU.  But this certainly lends strength to the bookies' view that UKIP will come ahead of Labour in Hazel Grove.   

[Harry]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of UKIP and here are a few reasons why:

- Widespread apathy about the existing political setup
- The only remotely popular alternative to the mainstream parties, who have contributed to the aforementioned apathy
- lack of a charismatic leader in the mainstream parties
- amidst all the flab and guff, they are campaigning on a tangible issue that's easy to relate to
- by-election victories have raised their profile and potential credibility
- some Tories will definitely be swayed (two MP defections will make it easier and more credible)

It may also be worth considering the Hazel Grove results of the 2014 Euro election. Although, obviously, people may vote differently in Euro, General and Local elections.


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Melancholyflower]

I wouldn't be so dismissive of UKIP and here are a few reasons why:

- Widespread apathy about the existing political setup
- The only remotely popular alternative to the mainstream parties, who have contributed to the aforementioned apathy
- lack of a charismatic leader in the mainstream parties
- amidst all the flab and guff, they are campaigning on a tangible issue that's easy to relate to
- by-election victories have raised their profile and potential credibility
- some Tories will definitely be swayed (two MP defections will make it easier and more credible)

[Howard]

Let's face it @simonesaffron, you rarely see a poor bookie.

[simonesaffron]

Oh! well, if it's in the Guardian and William Hills, I must be wrong.

[Duke Fame]

Is there?  Where? Not here, that's for sure:  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/lib-dems-sink-labour-take-lead-tories-opinium-poll

Note the bit that says 'Most Lib Dems think the party would be unwise to try to form a coalition if it secures fewer than 30 seats, as it would not be able to exercise sufficient clout in government or command many senior ministerial positions. The view is that the party in those circumstances would be better off trying to regroup and rebuild in opposition.'

And the bookies think the LibDems will have between 21 and 30 seats (6/4 at William Hill.  You can get 10/1 on 41-50 seats - go for it, Simone!)

As for this:   
It might be obvious to wheels, but it isn't to the bookies - at Watford William Hill put the Tories favourite at 6/4.

Just because some low level rag like the Guardian spins a story, it's not always true.

In fairness to Lib Dems, they've have the biggest increase in donations in their history and their membership is increasing again but you will struggle to find that in a rag like the Guardian. 

Lib Dems have also suffered from a media assault from a very media savvy Labour party that were gunning for the Lib Dems as soon as they were denied what would be an unworkable and weak coalition. You really should keep a more open mind, Dave, look beyond the spin and get to the truth.

[tonysheldon]

Also, coming onto the Marple website calling the Libdems names. Maybe they deserve to be called them, I don't know, but I can't help thinking that they won't be doing the same about you..

Of course the Libdems would never stoop so low. And they would never go back on their promises...

[Dave]

There is some evidence that many [LidDem] supporters have returned to them after turning their backs on the party immediately post 2010, after the shock of them entering the coalition.

Is there?  Where? Not here, that's for sure:  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/31/lib-dems-sink-labour-take-lead-tories-opinium-poll

Note the bit that says 'Most Lib Dems think the party would be unwise to try to form a coalition if it secures fewer than 30 seats, as it would not be able to exercise sufficient clout in government or command many senior ministerial positions. The view is that the party in those circumstances would be better off trying to regroup and rebuild in opposition.'

And the bookies think the LibDems will have between 21 and 30 seats (6/4 at William Hill.  You can get 10/1 on 41-50 seats - go for it, Simone!)

As for this:

Both Dave and Simone fail to factor in the half dozen or so seats the Lib Dems are expected to gain,  it might be more for all I know, Watford being the most obvious.

 
It might be obvious to wheels, but it isn't to the bookies - at Watford William Hill put the Tories favourite at 6/4.

[simonesaffron]

We could debate the nuances all day and it would only be speculation and opinion after all.

The LibDems are notoriously good campaigners and there is some evidence that many of their supporters have returned to them after turning their backs on the party immediately post 2010, after the shock of them entering the coalition.

Many now think that its the LD's who have been the success of the coalition, having acted in a grown up, restraining way often against the ideological hysterics of their coalition partners. It has to be accepted that despite the rantings  of the political press (which has actually imploded on the left and right and helped the LibDems no end) the idea of a coalition has become more acceptable to the voting public.

Wheels is correct there are at least ten seats that the Libdems trail second, but only in single figures percentages. Wheels mentions Watford, but there is Oxford, Redruth, Hampstead, Harrogate,Truro, Newton Abbot and 4/5 others that I can't recall. The LibDems could take some of these seats.

This is why despite the polls I say a target of 40 seats is not unrealistic.