|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Oct 3, 2017 7:54:48 GMT
You clearly don't understand me. I am not making any claim about the Labour vote. What appears to have happened is that several thousand Conservative votes ended up with the Liberal bundles. Since the Conservative was still easily elected they would have no reason to query Apologies if I slightly misunderstood the point you are making but I do not think it changes my basic point -if anything it strengthens it. I thought we were talking about a Labour agent of quite appalling incompetence in suburban Surrey but no you are talking about the Tory agent in a winning seat being so incredibly complacent that he has been prepared to throw away thousands of votes. As someone who has worked as a constituency agent in several general elections, and as a counting agent over decades, I have to say I find that incomprehensible. It surely explodes your point. If you’re a Liberal agent anxiously doing sums to work out if you’ve got more than one-eighth of the total you might be all over it. If you’re a Conservative agent who has been told (a) your man is in, (b) his vote is 700 up on October 1974 and (c) his majority is up from 10,300 to 12,000, what incentive do you have to query it? Particularly as, as has been known to happen (and still does), the actual tallying of the bundles has been done at tables away from the counting agents in the way ColinJ ’s March post shows. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2017 9:58:57 GMT
It surely explodes your point. If you’re a Liberal agent anxiously doing sums to work out if you’ve got more than one-eighth of the total you might be all over it. If you’re a Conservative agent who has been told (a) your man is in, (b) his vote is 700 up on October 1974 and (c) his majority is up from 10,300 to 12,000, what incentive do you have to query it? Particularly as, as has been known to happen (and still does), the actual tallying of the bundles has been done at tables away from the counting agents in the way ColinJ ’s March post shows. I take your point but I can assure you when I was agent saving deposits was not the issue- good second place was assured but the Tory incumbent too far ahead for that to be an issue either, but neither I nor my friendly Tory agent would have ever let a single vote escape either of us, it was a matter of professional competence. I find this laxity quite astonishing. I do take the point about tallying the bundles sometimes away from the eyes of the counting agents, ( bad practice,I would say),and yes I remember this coming up on my recounting recounts thread first time round,, but if the agent and his counting agents have been doing their job properly they will know the result before it gets to this stage. Maybe I can understand, reluctantly, the odd bundle being let go in the circumstances described, but for the sort of shift here we are talking a lot more than the odd bundle. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Oct 3, 2017 10:31:21 GMT
To take a more recent example, the Greater Manchester Mayoral election had a ward breakdown published. There is general agreement on here that the breakdown for Holyrood ward in Prestwich is wrong, but that wrong breakdown went into the final published tally.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 3, 2017 11:38:12 GMT
Gents can we get back to the local by-elections, please.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2017 12:20:39 GMT
Gents can we get back to the local by-elections, please. yessir The three remaining by-elections for Oct 12th should be going up soon ( my wife goes into respite this afternoon and I can finish those off shortly, I hope) and maybe folk can then get their teeth into Sheffield (Beighton), Ashfield (Hucknall) and Aberdeenshire (Inverurie) rather than fighting old battles over general elections from prehistory... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2017 14:41:12 GMT
Ashfield DC Hucknall North Ward
Con resigned on election as MP
5 candidates:
Sheila Clarke (Con)
Stephen John Crosby (UKIP)
James Alan Harvey (Lib Dem)
Ian Morrison (Lab)
John Anthony Wilmott (Ashfield Independent-Putting Hucknall First)
2003 election results: Ind 841/774, Con 739, Lab 620
2007 election results: Con 673/644, Lab 666/521, Ind 542, LD 372/337
2011 election results: Lab 1075/1012, Con 682/643, Ind 289, UKIP 225, Green 163, LD 101/90
2015 election results: Con 1820/1673/1513, Lab 1797/1517/1509, UKIP 1067, HFCF 741/506/452, Green 436
note HFCF = Hucknall First Commnity Forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2017 15:34:05 GMT
Sheffield City MB Beighton Ward
Labour resigned
5 candidates:
Shane Harper (UKIP)
Bob McCann (LIb Dem)
Anthony Richard Naylor (Green)
Laurence Douglas Smith (Con)
Sophie Jane Wilson (Lab)
2004 election results: Lab 2501/2133/1966, Con 1141/1082/1045, LD 673/622/422, Ind 570, Green 517
2006 election results: Lab 1655,Con 745, BNP 659, LD 564, Green 255
2007 election results: Lab 2018, Lab 1068, LD 695, Green 334
2008 election results: Lab 1730, Con 1234, LD 746, Green 318
2010 election results: Lab 3550, LD 1988, Con 1606, BNP 525, UKIP 259, Green 229
2011 election results: Lab 2986, Con 991, LD 570, Green 333
2012 election results: Lab 2553,UKIP 555, Green 257, LD253, Con 248, EDP 171
2014 election results: Lab 1743, UKIP 1237, Con 547, Green 180,LD 156, TUSC 58
2015 election results: Lab 3646, UKIP2129, Con 1574, LD 509, Green 322, Tusc 86
2016 election results: Lab 1962/1947/1704, UKIP 1154, Con 777, LD 239/239/151, TSC 141
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2017 16:47:55 GMT
Aberdeenshire UA Inverurie & District Ward
Conservative resigned
5 candidates:
Lesley Berry (Con)
Scott Bremner (Lib Dem)
Sarah Flavell (Lab)
Elaine Mitchell (SNP)
Craig Stewart (Green)
2007 election result (first preference and stage at election):
SNP 1515 elected stage 1
LD 1316 1
LD 865 3
Con 762 5
Lab 567
Ind 123
2012 election result:
SNP 688 elected stage 2
SNP 612 5
Con 608 5
LD 606 5
Lab 463
Ind 211
Ind 196
Green 113
2017 election result:
Con 1732 elected stage 1
SNP 1085 1
Ind 982 1
LD 568 4
SNP 245
Lab 206
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Oct 3, 2017 18:07:12 GMT
I'd just like to say, combining the two elements of this thread, that I think Yellow Peril has proved himself an invaluable addition to this forum, and not only for the work he puts in, for example on the collation of local byelection information recently - especially in trying circumstances. I think many of us are grateful for his range of contributions, presented with the benefit of experience and commitment but always in a pleasant and positive manner. I must say too that I am personally convinced that Pete and the others arguing that major tallying mistakes do happen in general elections are correct. I have always considered the SE Staffordshire result in this light, but had not noticed Chertsey 1979 before - I started my Almanac efforts in 1983. In recent decades, constituency candidates and campaigns just do not make this kind of difference in all but very exceptional circumstances. Perhaps counter-intuitively, bundle errors are almost more likely than those picked up in disputes about individual papers - a case of the wood and the trees - as long as the overall result is not in close doubt. By the end stage, if everyone is reasonably happy with the figures, they are likely just to want to get on to the rest of life. As I imagine some reading this will be.  |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Oct 3, 2017 22:23:30 GMT
It surely explodes your point. If you’re a Liberal agent anxiously doing sums to work out if you’ve got more than one-eighth of the total you might be all over it. If you’re a Conservative agent who has been told (a) your man is in, (b) his vote is 700 up on October 1974 and (c) his majority is up from 10,300 to 12,000, what incentive do you have to query it? Particularly as, as has been known to happen (and still does), the actual tallying of the bundles has been done at tables away from the counting agents in the way ColinJ ’s March post shows. I take your point but I can assure you when I was agent saving deposits was not the issue- good second place was assured but the Tory incumbent too far ahead for that to be an issue either, but neither I nor my friendly Tory agent would have ever let a single vote escape either of us, it was a matter of professional competence. Why? It may well be that you scramble for every vote in every godforsaken seat so your national party can later on do a "We won THIS many votes and under a fair voting system we'd have won THIS many seats" analysis and go on about the crucial issue of PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. I can't see why the Conservative agent would give two hoots in a seat won with a 5-figure majority. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 3, 2017 23:29:10 GMT
Why? It may well be that you scramble for every vote in every godforsaken seat so your national party can later on do a "We won THIS many votes and under a fair voting system we'd have won THIS many seats" analysis and go on about the crucial issue of PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. I can't see why the Conservative agent would give two hoots in a seat won with a 5-figure majority. Yes because I believe in votes. I believe in the whole concept of the individual vote and equal worth of each vote, and In that far more than support for a particular party, so yes I do believe in proportional representation. I find the idea of casually not bothering about individual votes because the win is in the bag deeply offensive, On Thursday, this week and next people will be voting in local by elections ( remember the thread?). Those individuals who cast their votes matter, and if you do not subscribe to that belief why bother with a forum like this? |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Oct 8, 2017 12:31:54 GMT
Are Three Rivers Labour getting desperate?
From their latest offering in Oxhey Hall & Hayling: "At the last local election here in July Labour got within an ace of beating the Conservatives."
Presumably they are referring to the Chorleywood South by-election in July - result LD 64% / Con 27% / Lab 7%.
Apart from being obviously deliberately misleading, that is - to put it politely - stretching the definitions of the word 'here' and the phrase 'within an ace'.
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,729
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 8, 2017 12:56:16 GMT
Are Three Rivers Labour getting desperate? From their latest offering in Oxhey Hall & Hayling: "At the last local election here in July Labour got within an ace of beating the Conservatives." Presumably they are referring to the Chorleywood South by-election in July - result LD 64% / Con 27% / Lab 7%. Apart from being obviously deliberately misleading, that is - to put it politely - stretching the definitions of the word 'here' and the phrase 'within an ace'. Actually, they may be referring to the collated votes from the divided ward in the constituencies of South West Hertfordshire and Watford in June, as estimated by ElectoralCalculus (grinding of teeth). Like it or not, it seems to be having some effect on the way local parties are targeting wards. We shall see how successful this is..I doubt it will work. |
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Oct 8, 2017 13:22:10 GMT
Only problem with that is they refer to a local election.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Oct 8, 2017 13:22:59 GMT
Are Three Rivers Labour getting desperate? From their latest offering in Oxhey Hall & Hayling: "At the last local election here in July Labour got within an ace of beating the Conservatives." Presumably they are referring to the Chorleywood South by-election in July - result LD 64% / Con 27% / Lab 7%. Apart from being obviously deliberately misleading, that is - to put it politely - stretching the definitions of the word 'here' and the phrase 'within an ace'. Actually, they may be referring to the collated votes from the divided ward in the constituencies of South West Hertfordshire and Watford in June, as estimated by ElectoralCalculus (grinding of teeth). Like it or not, it seems to be having some effect on the way local parties are targeting wards. We shall see how successful this is..I doubt it will work. Except the reference is specifically to 'the last local election here' and to July rather than June. |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,729
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 8, 2017 14:52:45 GMT
Only problem with that is they refer to a local election. Nobody said they were bright. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 8, 2017 19:42:12 GMT
Are Three Rivers Labour getting desperate? From their latest offering in Oxhey Hall & Hayling: "At the last local election here in July Labour got within an ace of beating the Conservatives." Presumably they are referring to the Chorleywood South by-election in July - result LD 64% / Con 27% / Lab 7%. Apart from being obviously deliberately misleading, that is - to put it politely - stretching the definitions of the word 'here' and the phrase 'within an ace'. The logic here is perfectly clear to me! If Labour had got 27% they would have been equal with the Conservatives. The number 2 would change 7% into 27%. In the deck of cards 2 is next to Ace. So clearly they were in some sense "within an ace" I am waiting for the accompanying bar chart however... |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 8, 2017 20:12:50 GMT
Maybe they meant May - they must have been competitive here in the county council elections with a big lead in Hayling
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 8, 2017 22:03:55 GMT
So obviously I had to go and spend half an hour doing some number crunching on the CC results. For what it's worth (and its worth half an hour of my time if nothing else) this is my estimate of how the ward voted in May:
Con 649 40.2%
Lab 489 30.3%
LD 335 20.8%
UKIP 98 6.1%
Grn 43 2.7%
It has to be borne in mind that neither of the county council divisions containing this ward offered any prospects for the Lib Dems who had significantly bigger fish to fry elsewhere in Three Rivers.
And even less informative I suspect, the figures from June (don't know how this compares with the EC numbers and can't be bothered to look)
Con 1689 48.3%
Lab 1400 40.0%
LD 251 7.2%
UKIP 110 3.1%
Grn 49 1.4%
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,729
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Oct 9, 2017 0:36:44 GMT
So obviously I had to go and spend half an hour doing some number crunching on the CC results. For what it's worth (and its worth half an hour of my time if nothing else) this is my estimate of how the ward voted in May: Con 649 40.2% Lab 489 30.3% LD 335 20.8% UKIP 98 6.1% Grn 43 2.7% It has to be borne in mind that neither of the county council divisions containing this ward offered any prospects for the Lib Dems who had significantly bigger fish to fry elsewhere in Three Rivers. And even less informative I suspect, the figures from June (don't know how this compares with the EC numbers and can't be bothered to look) Con 1689 48.3% Lab 1400 40.0% LD 251 7.2% UKIP 110 3.1% Grn 49 1.4% Just for fun: EC guesses: Con: 1699 44.34% Lab: 1466 38.36% LD:. 334. 8.72% UKIP: 280. 7.31% Grn: 35. 0.91% Oth:. 18 0.47% (there were, of course, no others standing in either of the constituencies this ward is in). Not that far off your calculations, @pete Whitehead. |
|
