Sharon
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 2,564 
|
Post by Sharon on Nov 3, 2017 0:27:22 GMT
Are Bucks CC & South Bucks counting tonight?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Nov 3, 2017 0:33:41 GMT
The last South Bucks by-election counted on the night and that was only four weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Nov 3, 2017 0:42:14 GMT
Maybe different with a double count, requiring ballot paper separation etc.
Alternatively the results have been declared and were so boring that no one has tweeted them ...
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Nov 3, 2017 1:31:30 GMT
Maybe different with a double count, requiring ballot paper separation etc. Alternatively the results have been declared and were so boring that no one has tweeted them ... I'd settle for a couple of boring comfortable holds after a really poor night. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 3, 2017 2:38:31 GMT
Absolutely delighted with the night's results so far even though the good performance of the Lib Dems has played havoc with my own over cautious predictions- can live with that, and now await Beaconsfield with more interest.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Nov 3, 2017 3:09:12 GMT
Just spotted on Buckinghamshire County Council website that the count commences at 10am.
|
|
|
|
Post by froome on Nov 3, 2017 3:39:59 GMT
Election maps reports that not only LD beat Cons - but also Greens: Cons coming in just 3rd "Lib Dem GAIN #Braunton East from Conservative who were pushed into third by the @thegreenparty". Can someone post the actual votes? |
|
|
|
Post by cuthbertbede on Nov 3, 2017 5:50:43 GMT
Election maps reports that not only LD beat Cons - but also Greens: Cons coming in just 3rd "Lib Dem GAIN #Braunton East from Conservative who were pushed into third by the @thegreenparty". Can someone post the actual votes? Yes - these were posted in a Lib Dem Facebook group - hopefully they're correct. LD 459 Grn 387 Con 225 Lab 165 |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 3, 2017 6:14:37 GMT
Can someone post the actual votes? Yes - these were posted in a Lib Dem Facebook group - hopefully they're correct. LD 459 Grn 387 Con 225 Lab 165 We were three votes short of matching the Jigger vote.  |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Nov 3, 2017 7:06:10 GMT
Can someone post the actual votes? Yes - these were posted in a Lib Dem Facebook group - hopefully they're correct. LD 459 Grn 387 Con 225 Lab 165 LD 37.1% (+3.0) Grn 31.3% (+10.5) Con 18.2% (-17.5) Lab 13.3% (+6.3) |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 3, 2017 7:21:49 GMT
LD 37.1% (+3.0) Grn 31.3% (+10.5) Con 18.2% (-17.5) Lab 13.3% (+6.3) Actually a slightly disappointing vote for the Lib Dems after all the hype - we got out our core vote, which was enough in the circumstances of a collapsing Tory vote going to the Greens, who could have put themselves in pole position for next time. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 3, 2017 7:30:40 GMT
While we are still on matters Braunton, I haven't seen anywhere the other major claim to fame of the place - the Great Field, one of only three surviving examples of an unenclosed medieval open field in England (maybe nobody mentions it because I guess its in Braunton West). But it is an indication that folk thereabouts do like to hang on to old things if they work - whether that's a medieval open field or Derrick Spear.
|
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,645
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Nov 3, 2017 7:40:38 GMT
National bad news week for the Tories being reflected in local by elections ( Apart from Copeland). Having said that they would have lost Southport and Braunton anyway. The Lib Dems had very well known experienced candidates in both.
Very surprised with Arun.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 3, 2017 8:28:41 GMT
None of us saw the Arun result coming. Was that something going on locally that none of us picked up, or was it an indication that in traditionally conservative (small c) places the shenanigans in Westminster are really playing out badly for the Tories? If the latter then Beaconnsfield could be interesting. I would say, btw, that even Copeland was not that brilliant for the Tories- on a good day they should have been able to take Egremont South with no other anti-Labour candidate to split the vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Nov 3, 2017 8:35:53 GMT
None of us saw the Arun result coming. Was that something going on locally that none of us picked up, or was it an indication that in traditionally conservative (small c) places the shenanigans in Westminster are really playing out badly for the Tories? If the latter then Beaconnsfield could be interesting. I would say, btw, that even Copeland was not that brilliant for the Tories- on a good day they should have been able to take Egremont South with no other anti-Labour candidate to split the vote. Not sure that this is a correct assessment about Copeland. Even in 2007 the shares for the ward with the same name were Labour 57%, Conservative 43%. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 3, 2017 8:59:28 GMT
None of us saw the Arun result coming. Was that something going on locally that none of us picked up, or was it an indication that in traditionally conservative (small c) places the shenanigans in Westminster are really playing out badly for the Tories? If the latter then Beaconnsfield could be interesting. I would say, btw, that even Copeland was not that brilliant for the Tories- on a good day they should have been able to take Egremont South with no other anti-Labour candidate to split the vote. I'd love to hear the story from an insider, but personally I was gratified rather than gobsmacked. The last result back in 2015 had LDs in 3rd behind UKIP and no Labour candidate. That suggested that (a) the UKIP vote was going to implode and (b) Labour were not locally strong and (c) we were still in the ring even in bad year for us. In that situation 2nd was perfectly doable for us and with the current Tory malaise once you are in second I reckon anything is possible if you campaign hard enough. It is only really surprising in context of the jiggerist national opinion polls. But our low VI figure masks a quite healthy activist base which can be mobilised for by-elections in particular; and I wonder rather about the likelihood-to-vote assessment of the Tory VI share. If that is as soft as I suspect then the scope to eat into it by any party that is willing to work hard and present itself as a viable alternative is significant. (Harder for Labour though as I think the reason for the still high Blue VI figure is fear of Labour.) I think our polling doldrums since 2015 are largely about people thinking we are finished rather than dislike of our policies and ethos. It is easier to counter that narrative on a local level than nationally - we have to keep plugging away at this stuff, every local election is a chance to engage with the voters. Marching to the sound of the guns, as a certain someone once said. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 3, 2017 9:26:54 GMT
None of us saw the Arun result coming. Was that something going on locally that none of us picked up, or was it an indication that in traditionally conservative (small c) places the shenanigans in Westminster are really playing out badly for the Tories? If the latter then Beaconnsfield could be interesting. I would say, btw, that even Copeland was not that brilliant for the Tories- on a good day they should have been able to take Egremont South with no other anti-Labour candidate to split the vote. Not sure that this is a correct assessment about Copeland. Even in 2007 the shares for the ward with the same name were Labour 57%, Conservative 43%. True, but this has been in an area which has been trending Tory over the last decade, and where the biggest local issue is probably Sellafield which tends to favour Tories over Labour. I did pick up a bit of Tory talking down of their chances in advance of this election and put it down to managing expectations, but maybe indicated lack of ambition. If not, I think it might indicate that the Westminster effect was felt here too. A great pity the electorate was not offered a choice outside the awful duopoly-if not Lib Dem then maybe Green or Independent as in 2015, then we might have had a bit of a surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Nov 3, 2017 9:32:25 GMT
LD 37.1% (+3.0) Grn 31.3% (+10.5) Con 18.2% (-17.5) Lab 13.3% (+6.3) Actually a slightly disappointing vote for the Lib Dems after all the hype - we got out our core vote, which was enough in the circumstances of a collapsing Tory vote going to the Greens, who could have put themselves in pole position for next time. That's an excellent result for us, and will certainly put us in a position to take this next time. Given the Lib Dems pole position as second place party, which I have no doubt featured in all their literature  , it's great to see our campaigning achieving some recognition here. |
|
|
|
Post by froome on Nov 3, 2017 9:39:31 GMT
Mind you, it is perhaps surprising that the Lib Dems did gain in Braunton East, if you read Andrew Teale's piece, where he says the Lib Dem candidate wanted to tackle local issues with air pollution and flooding. If that's the case, I'm surprised anyone voted for him!  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Nov 3, 2017 9:52:53 GMT
I would say that,to put it delicately, in places like Braunton it is essential that the Lib Dems are looking to the next generation and training them up,and taking on board all the issues that come from the Green Party. It is perfectly possible to achieve that so that good people of green outlook are able to vote LD in good conscience... I consider myself a green Lib Dem and would prefer not to see a divided vote whichever way that is achieved.
|
|
, it's great to see our campaigning achieving some recognition here.