|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jul 13, 2018 6:52:44 GMT
Aha. Classic LD stuff, including the pint of cider in the Red Lion. |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318 
|
Post by markf on Jul 13, 2018 7:09:53 GMT
Barnsley Old Town is reported as an easy Labour hold, with the Democrats and Veterans in second. on less than 50% of the vote, perfect example of why FPTP is the wrong voting system . In Barnsley apart from the Penistone wards I don't think anti labour voters will vote Tory or Libdem but will vote for Citizens party or Ratepayers or Independents |
|
|
|
Post by Old Fashioned Leftie on Jul 13, 2018 7:12:48 GMT
Seems odd we've had Southwold but not Pakefield. Astonishing result for the Lib Dems in Southwold, clearly a popular candidate campaigning on a very important issue for the town. I have seen the result on the ALDC twitter feed, but as Pakefield in not there I think we can assume they have not taken that one as well. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jul 13, 2018 7:19:52 GMT
Barnsley, Old Town: Lab hold
Lab 548 DVP 338 C 157 LD 124 Yorks 47 BNP 25
Hartlepool, Rural West: C hold
C 678 Ind 546 Lab 184 Grn 87
City of London, Aldgate (Alderman): Susan Langley 174, Peter Hewitt (incumbent) 54
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 13, 2018 7:21:55 GMT
RUTLAND Oakham SW Independent GAIN ALDERMAN, Richard John (Independent) 178 BROOKES, Chris (Labour) 80 BURROWS, Joanna Mary (Liberal Democrat) 177 CLIFTON, Patsy (Conservative) 163 Turnout: 33.56% The victor (by lot) has 10 months to establish himself before the next election. Maybe he will,but the focus leaflets meanwhile write themselves - no need for dodgy bar charts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 7:47:19 GMT
It would be dodgy if they said the Tories "can't win here" though. It's embarrassing for them to finish 3rd but they still only lost by 14 votes. “Conservatives need 1400% of the extra votes that the Lib Dems need to beat the independent” Can’t win here! |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 13, 2018 8:29:20 GMT
It would be dodgy if they said the Tories "can't win here" though. It's embarrassing for them to finish 3rd but they still only lost by 14 votes. I think you misunderstand the cant win here message if you think it would be aimed at the Tories. |
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolliberal on Jul 13, 2018 8:43:09 GMT
No I haven't misunderstood at all. The LDs characteristically claim that the 3rd party can't win, even when they are in a close or challenging 3rd place. They certainly have done so in elections where the 3rd party has actually won. They might choose not to do so in Oakham perhaps. I mean I might be new to this but i'm pretty sure the party you squeeze in this circumstance is Labour... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jul 13, 2018 8:46:01 GMT
No I haven't misunderstood at all. The LDs characteristically claim that the 3rd party can't win, even when they are in a close or challenging 3rd place. They certainly have done so in elections where the 3rd party has actually won. They might choose not to do so in Oakham perhaps. ...because in this instance where the first three parties are near level pegging the relevant party would be the one in fourth place. I would be the last to deny the LDs don't always get it right, btw, and sometimes, shock horror, we get our predictions wrong. If you think it's easy to predict try the prediction comp here sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Walker on Jul 13, 2018 9:03:07 GMT
I'm told Pakefield is a Tory gain
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Fashioned Leftie on Jul 13, 2018 9:05:11 GMT
No I haven't misunderstood at all. The LDs characteristically claim that the 3rd party can't win, even when they are in a close or challenging 3rd place. They certainly have done so in elections where the 3rd party has actually won. They might choose not to do so in Oakham perhaps. ...because in this instance where the first three parties are near level pegging the relevant party would be the one in fourth place. I would be the last to deny the LDs don't always get it right, btw, and sometimes, shock horror, we get our predictions wrong. If you think it's easy to predict try the prediction comp here sometime. This is the first election in Oakham, and indeed much of Rutland, that Labour have fought in a long time. It appears we now have some people on the ground which may make it a little harder to squeeze our vote. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,746
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Jul 13, 2018 9:18:20 GMT
Pakefield (Waveney) result: CON: 43.8% (+11.9) LAB: 40.9% (-5.2) UKIP: 7.9% (+7.9) GRN: 4.4% (-8.3) LDEM: 3.0% (-6.3) Conservative GAIN from Labour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 9:31:03 GMT
Oakham South West (Rutland) result: IND: 29.8% (+29.8) LDEM: 29.6% (+29.6) CON: 27.3% (-5.7) LAB: 13.4% (+13.4) Independent GAIN from Conservative. In the Oxford Union election in June my opponent and I were tied on 93 votes and I only won on 2nd preferences by 0.4 votes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 9:33:36 GMT
Question: Am I right that technically, the Returning Officer can pick their preferred candidate in the case of a tie? Would they be likely to face repercussions if they did so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 9:37:57 GMT
Question: Am I right that technically, the Returning Officer can pick their preferred candidate in the case of a tie? Would they be likely to face repercussions if they did so? Something identical happened in the elections to Northumberland County Council last year - and the winner was also decided by lots - it was the difference between the Conservatives having a majority and the council being in NOC - the Lib Dem won and so the council stayed in NOC. For my own election I got 93 1st preferences but ended up with 120.3 votes owing to 2nd preferences from eliminated candidates or those who had exceeded quota - 13 people ran for 7 positions. |
|
|
|
Post by Rutlander on Jul 13, 2018 9:42:35 GMT
...because in this instance where the first three parties are near level pegging the relevant party would be the one in fourth place. I would be the last to deny the LDs don't always get it right, btw, and sometimes, shock horror, we get our predictions wrong. If you think it's easy to predict try the prediction comp here sometime. This is the first election in Oakham, and indeed much of Rutland, that Labour have fought in a long time. It appears we now have some people on the ground which may make it a little harder to squeeze our vote. In the last all-out Rutland elections (2015), Labour ran two candidates (in a three member ward), one of whom would have liked to be elected and one being supportive. Their candidate in Oakham this time was young and keen and had support from outside Rutland including from the Police & Crime Commissioner; given their Twitter activity I was actually expecting Labour to do better. Another time, I would predict him to run in his home ward, so his vote here could be squeezed by the LDs. I had assumed that the CONs would have an easy victory in Oakham SW as their candidate had the highest profile (i.e. the type that by friends (inc. the MP) is called "irrepressible"). |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,764
|
Post by mboy on Jul 13, 2018 9:49:12 GMT
Question: Am I right that technically, the Returning Officer can pick their preferred candidate in the case of a tie? Would they be likely to face repercussions if they did so? Paging Davıd Boothroyd |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 13, 2018 9:54:03 GMT
Question: Am I right that technically, the Returning Officer can pick their preferred candidate in the case of a tie? Would they be likely to face repercussions if they did so? No. The rules require the Returning Officer to decide between the tied candidates "by lot", which the courts have interpreted as meaning any random method. Not the RO's choice. (Rule 49 of the Parliamentary Election Rules in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006) |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 13, 2018 9:56:25 GMT
Pakefield (Waveney) result: CON: 43.8% (+11.9) LAB: 40.9% (-5.2) UKIP: 7.9% (+7.9) GRN: 4.4% (-8.3) LDEM: 3.0% (-6.3) Conservative GAIN from Labour. Another crap result for us there, what is wrong? |
|
andrewp
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,623
Member is Online
|
Post by andrewp on Jul 13, 2018 9:56:50 GMT
Pakefield (Waveney) result: CON: 43.8% (+11.9) LAB: 40.9% (-5.2) UKIP: 7.9% (+7.9) GRN: 4.4% (-8.3) LDEM: 3.0% (-6.3) Conservative GAIN from Labour. The results overall are far from the Conservative meltdown that many feared/ hoped for this week. |
|
