ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
Member is Online
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 8, 2017 9:38:56 GMT
In view of the large number of by-elections yesterday, perhaps the following summary will be useful: London Borough CouncilsCroydon, South Norwood: Lab hold English District/Borough CouncilsBabergh, Sudbury South: Lab gain from Con Cannock Chase, Hednesford Green Heath: Lab gain from Con Cannock Chase, Hednesford South: Green gain from Con Colchester, Shrub End: Con gain from LDem East Cambridgeshire, Ely South: LDem gain from Con Lancaster, Skerton West: Lab hold Lewes, Ouse Valley and Ringmer: Green gain from Con Just wondering why you have separated out London from the rest of England? I know London Boroughs were established under a different Act of Parliament, but London is still an integral part of England. I was just following the general practice of Rallings and Thrasher in their handbook series, where they segregated councils into their different types. In the 2014 handbook (the last hard copy I think they published) the London borough results were listed first. |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 8, 2017 9:45:30 GMT
Just wondering why you have separated out London from the rest of England? I know London Boroughs were established under a different Act of Parliament, but London is still an integral part of England. I was just following the general practice of Rallings and Thrasher in their handbook series, where they segregated councils into their different types. In the 2014 handbook (the last hard copy I think they published) the London borough results were listed first. Thanks. Seems a bizarre practice to follow because it implies that London is not a part of England. Still a great service that Rallings and Thrasher provide so not going to complain too much. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 8, 2017 9:46:44 GMT
GLASGOW Cardonald
Candidate Party First Second Third Fourth Fifth
Jim KAVANAGH Scottish Labour Party 2,614 + 1 2,615 + 26 2,641 + 42 2,683 + 253 2,936
Alex MITCHELL Scottish National Party (SNP) 1,972 1,972 + 9 1,981 + 85 2,066 + 35 2,101
Thomas HADDOW Scottish Conservative and Unionist 552 + 2 554 + 12 566 + 8 574 - 574 -
John G SMITH Scottish Green Party 147 + 4 151 + 10 161 - 161 - -
Isabel NELSON Scottish Liberal Democrats 80 + 2 82 - 82 - - -
Antony SAMMEROFF Scottish Libertarian Party 12 - 12 - - - -
Not transferrable + 3 3 + 25 28 + 26 54 + 286 340
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
Member is Online
|
Post by ColinJ on Sept 8, 2017 9:54:59 GMT
GLASGOW Cardonald
Candidate Party First Second Third Fourth Fifth
Jim KAVANAGH Scottish Labour Party 2,614 + 1 2,615 + 26 2,641 + 42 2,683 + 253 2,936
Alex MITCHELL Scottish National Party (SNP) 1,972 1,972 + 9 1,981 + 85 2,066 + 35 2,101
Thomas HADDOW Scottish Conservative and Unionist 552 + 2 554 + 12 566 + 8 574 - 574 -
John G SMITH Scottish Green Party 147 + 4 151 + 10 161 - 161 - -
Isabel NELSON Scottish Liberal Democrats 80 + 2 82 - 82 - - -
Antony SAMMEROFF Scottish Libertarian Party 12 - 12 - - - -
Not transferrable + 3 3 + 25 28 + 26 54 + 286 340
Interesting, but not surprising, that continuing Green votes split 2 SNP to 1 Lab upon their elimination. And that continuing Conservative votes split 7 Lab to 1 SNP upon their elimination. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 8, 2017 10:52:24 GMT
Got the percentages and it was close: Hednesford & Rawnsley (Staffs): CON: 32.5% (-3.5) LAB: 31.9% (+4.2) GRN: 28.9% (+3.8) UKIP: 3.8% (-3.9) LDEM: 1.5% (+1.5) CIP: 1.4% (-2.1) That's a lower swing to Labour than the opinion polls have been saying and a slightly lower swing than Labour achieved between the local elections and the general election. The Tories would probably have won an majority had that been the swing across the country between May and June. It does back up all the evidence that there has been a swing of some size to Labour since the local elections, though. As has been discussed on these boards, the Tories had a much stronger than average result in Cannock this June. And it is fairly clear that the Greens stopped Labour winning here. Still an annoying result, though! |
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Sept 8, 2017 10:56:26 GMT
That's a lower swing to Labour than the opinion polls have been saying and a slightly lower swing than Labour achieved between the local elections and the general election. The Tories would probably have won an majority had that been the swing across the country between May and June. It does back up all the evidence that there has been a swing of some size to Labour since the local elections, though. As has been discussed on these boards, the Tories had a much stronger than average result in Cannock this June. And it is fairly clear that the Greens stopped Labour winning here. Still an annoying result, though! And Labour had a much worse than average result too. Maybe Cannock is one of those places where the Tories do better at a General election than in local elections. Though IIRC the Tories did very well in Cannock in the County Council elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Sept 8, 2017 11:07:18 GMT
HEREFORDSHIRE Golden Valley South Jinman, Peter Charles (Independent) 462 Cole, Simeon Wood (Conservative and Unionist Party) 254 Baker, Richard (Independent) 152 Milln, Jeremy James (Green Party) 109 Coda, Anna-Maria (Labour Party) 104 IND: 42.7% (+42.7) GAIN CON: 23.5% (-42.3) IND: 14.1% (+14.1) GRN: 10.1% (-7.1) LAB: 9.6% (+9.6) |
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Sept 8, 2017 12:01:30 GMT
That's a lower swing to Labour than the opinion polls have been saying and a slightly lower swing than Labour achieved between the local elections and the general election. The Tories would probably have won an majority had that been the swing across the country between May and June. It does back up all the evidence that there has been a swing of some size to Labour since the local elections, though. As has been discussed on these boards, the Tories had a much stronger than average result in Cannock this June. And it is fairly clear that the Greens stopped Labour winning here. Still an annoying result, though! I think you can easily view this as Labour stopped the Greens from winning, since it is easier to persuade people to tactically vote for you from second and yet we still nearly took the seat. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 8, 2017 12:08:00 GMT
Yes, you did well - indeed, your best local election night generally for some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 8, 2017 17:15:26 GMT
I was just following the general practice of Rallings and Thrasher in their handbook series, where they segregated councils into their different types. In the 2014 handbook (the last hard copy I think they published) the London borough results were listed first. Thanks. Seems a bizarre practice to follow because it implies that London is not a part of England. Still a great service that Rallings and Thrasher provide so not going to complain too much. The Rallings and Thrasher method segregates both Metropolitan Councils and Unitary Councils, as well as the London Boroughs. If there had been a ward from either of those two sets up this week, using that scheme wouldn't have given the impression. |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Sept 8, 2017 18:19:56 GMT
Seems Labour very much can still win in Cannock Chase. Would have won all three without the Greens. The Shrub End figures don't seem to have been posted, so here they are: Con 681 Lab 572 LD 373 Ind 54 UKIP 52 Green 34 |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 8, 2017 19:10:47 GMT
Herefordshire Golden Valley South is apparently an Independent gain from the Conservatives, with Labour in fifth, but no details - not even concerning which of the Independents won. But as one of them is very famous and the other one was tweeting on the eve of poll about how Royal Mail had failed to deliver his leaflets, that may be a clue. Did he think that the free delivery thingy applied to local elections? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 21:40:50 GMT
Is there any gossip on this Unionist guy in Fortissat? I'm personally predicting that he will become the right-wing Tommy Sheridan. He's apparently been a member of Shotts Community Council since 1992. There could be a niche for a Loyalist party in parts of the Central Belt, but this guy seems like more of a local phenomenon. www.abbup.org/single-post/2017/08/17/John-Jo-Leckie-for-Fortissat-Ward-North-Lanarkshire(I'm slightly amused by the idea of 'a Unionist opposition voice on North Lanarkshire Council on matters like bin collections and classroom assistants'). |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Sept 11, 2017 18:30:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lancyiain on Sept 11, 2017 19:38:26 GMT
Why do they record transfers from BUSP to Labour? It's undoubtedly interesting, but it isn't really relevant is it? Surely they can't have checked that just for psephological value, can they? |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,729
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Sept 11, 2017 19:46:53 GMT
51 SNP supporters transferred to the BUSP? Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 21:31:17 GMT
So...
UKIP: BUSP 7, Con 3, Grn 2, Lab 1, SNP 1, n/t 4
Grn: SNP 8, Lab 5, Ind 4, Con 1, n/t 6
Ind: BUSP 46, Lab 40, Con 31, SNP 21, n/t 50
Con: BUSP 175, Lab 80, SNP 13, n/t 191
SNP: Lab 281, BUSP 51, n/t 472
BUSP: Lab 290, n/t 849
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 12, 2017 5:36:47 GMT
Why do they record transfers from BUSP to Labour? It's undoubtedly interesting, but it isn't really relevant is it? Surely they can't have checked that just for psephological value, can they? Because the legislation is worded stupidly, requiring votes to continue to be transferred until the winning candidate has reached the original quota, regardless of whether the winning candidate has or has not already got more votes than all other candidates combined (including non-transferable). In other words, the legislation doesn't take into account the effect of the fact that some votes are non-trnsferable. Returning Officers in Scotland sometimes ignore this technicality, and stop the count as soon as it got to the last two candidates. In this case, the publication of multiple zeroes after the decimal point implies that the count has been done by machine instead of people, i.e. that commonsense has not been applied. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 12, 2017 9:14:00 GMT
But as said before, the "superfluous" transfers are still interesting to us anoraks so it isn't all bad  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 12, 2017 9:52:07 GMT
51 SNP supporters transferred to the BUSP? Interesting. Not altogether surprising that a small number of SDP voters would prefer any other candidate to Labour? Would not have been that surprising if that was true of a lot more than 51 ? |
|
