|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Apr 28, 2023 7:47:12 GMT
I once attended a wedding near Cardiff where out of deference to the grooms English family, the English words of Calon Lân were sung. It was terrible - they are clumsy and dont scan. And nobody knows them, so everyones heads were buried in the hymn books mumbling and stumbling along. After the English verse it was switched to Welsh which was sung at full voice with ease. Was that at the specific request / agreement of / consultation with the groom and/or his family, or was it an example of patronising presumption by the organisers? I would have been annoyed if that had happened to me. (I remember being annoyed when a choir on “Britain’s Got Talent” sand “Calon Lân” and Simon Cowell said he hadn’t heard that song before). It’s a very bizarre hymn to sing (the English version I mean) at a wedding when there are so many other options available. |
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Apr 28, 2023 10:23:11 GMT
ALDC say 28% swing from Lab to LD. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 28, 2023 10:51:04 GMT
For anyone who doesn't want to venture into Twitterdom: Baker, Mair (Lab) - 485 - 53.5% (-25.7%) Burton, Dan (LibDem) - 274 - 30.2% (+30.2%) Davies, Craig (Green) - 42 - 4.6% (+4.6%) Griffths-Warlow, Ioan Macsen (Plaid) - 34 - 3.8% (+3.8%) Harry, Jake (Con) - 71 - 7.8% (-14%) Pretty decent for the LibDems You do realise that nobody needs to 'venture' into Twitter in order to read the embedded Tweet which David posted above yours. Are you suggesting there are people who are so irrationally hostile to the whole concept of Twitter that they woukd refuse to read the text within the tweet within David's post and must have it copied and pasted into a separate post? If so, why indulge them? |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Apr 28, 2023 13:27:45 GMT
For anyone who doesn't want to venture into Twitterdom: Baker, Mair (Lab) - 485 - 53.5% (-25.7%) Burton, Dan (LibDem) - 274 - 30.2% (+30.2%) Davies, Craig (Green) - 42 - 4.6% (+4.6%) Griffths-Warlow, Ioan Macsen (Plaid) - 34 - 3.8% (+3.8%) Harry, Jake (Con) - 71 - 7.8% (-14%) Pretty decent for the LibDems You do realise that nobody needs to 'venture' into Twitter in order to read the embedded Tweet which David posted above yours. Are you suggesting there are people who are so irrationally hostile to the whole concept of Twitter that they woukd refuse to read the text within the tweet within David's post and must have it copied and pasted into a separate post? If so, why indulge them? At the time I posted it, the second tweet had only just been posted, and so wasn't visible on David's post, which only had the first tweet. If it had been visible, I wouldn't have posted it: only a fool would do so, and only a fool would interpret my post other than as an effort to help. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
|
Post by maxque on Apr 28, 2023 22:59:32 GMT
For anyone who doesn't want to venture into Twitterdom: Baker, Mair (Lab) - 485 - 53.5% (-25.7%) Burton, Dan (LibDem) - 274 - 30.2% (+30.2%) Davies, Craig (Green) - 42 - 4.6% (+4.6%) Griffths-Warlow, Ioan Macsen (Plaid) - 34 - 3.8% (+3.8%) Harry, Jake (Con) - 71 - 7.8% (-14%) Pretty decent for the LibDems You do realise that nobody needs to 'venture' into Twitter in order to read the embedded Tweet which David posted above yours. Are you suggesting there are people who are so irrationally hostile to the whole concept of Twitter that they woukd refuse to read the text within the tweet within David's post and must have it copied and pasted into a separate post? If so, why indulge them? Some browsers and/or privacy settings block imbeds. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 28, 2023 23:31:31 GMT
You do realise that nobody needs to 'venture' into Twitter in order to read the embedded Tweet which David posted above yours. Are you suggesting there are people who are so irrationally hostile to the whole concept of Twitter that they woukd refuse to read the text within the tweet within David's post and must have it copied and pasted into a separate post? If so, why indulge them? Some browsers and/or privacy settings block imbeds. NHS Wi-Fi being an example unless you kid them by using a VPN set to Australia! |
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Apr 29, 2023 6:11:45 GMT
Just wondering what thew turnout was normally pretty low in these solid wards
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Apr 29, 2023 6:44:43 GMT
Just wondering what thew turnout was normally pretty low in these solid wards A rather low 11.6% . Electorate 7890. Ballots issued 912 |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 29, 2023 11:28:49 GMT
At the time I posted it, the second tweet had only just been posted, and so wasn't visible on David's post, which only had the first tweet. If it had been visible, I wouldn't have posted it: only a fool would do so, and only a fool would interpret my post other than as an effort to help Not doing your usual scores for this one? |
|
|
|
Post by phil156 on Apr 30, 2023 4:11:48 GMT
Just wondering what thew turnout was normally pretty low in these solid wards A rather low 11.6% . Electorate 7890. Ballots issued 912 Thankyou Andrew Where do you get the figures for the electorate from please then saves me asking |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Apr 30, 2023 7:49:26 GMT
|
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Apr 30, 2023 8:13:09 GMT
Increasingly, there seems to be a tendency for the Notice of Result of Poll to carry the official figure for the number of voters, although unfortunately this is not the case for the Penderry by-election. Sometimes the council's website archive the official number of electors on their results pages. In the absence of either of these your approach to estimating the electorate from the entry numbers for the various polling stations from the Notice of Polling Stations is the best way forward but unlikely to be 'exact', because of the following factors related to the "rolling" register provisions: 1) Inserted entries, often given a register number such as 673/1, 673/2, 1374/1 etc. These lead to an underestimation of the number of electors. 2) Deleted entries, where the RO has been notified of a death or removal. These lead to an overestimation of the number of electors. 3) The inclusion of 17 year olds awaiting their 18th birthday before becoming eligible to vote, indicated by the day/month printed before their name. These lead to an overestimation of the number of electors. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on May 1, 2023 1:03:28 GMT
In the absence of either of these your approach to estimating the electorate from the entry numbers for the various polling stations from the Notice of Polling Stations is the best way forward but unlikely to be 'exact', because of the following factors related to the "rolling" register provisions: 1) Inserted entries, often given a register number such as 673/1, 673/2, 1374/1 etc. These lead to an underestimation of the number of electors. 2) Deleted entries, where the RO has been notified of a death or removal. These lead to an overestimation of the number of electors. 3) The inclusion of 17 year olds awaiting their 18th birthday before becoming eligible to vote, indicated by the day/month printed before their name. These lead to an overestimation of the number of electors. Since this discussion was sparked by lack of information from a Welsh primary authority, should we not note that instances of 15-year-olds awaiting their 16th birthday would be applicable in this case (as indeed it would be for a Scottish local election)? |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on May 1, 2023 6:51:01 GMT
In the absence of either of these your approach to estimating the electorate from the entry numbers for the various polling stations from the Notice of Polling Stations is the best way forward but unlikely to be 'exact', because of the following factors related to the "rolling" register provisions: 1) Inserted entries, often given a register number such as 673/1, 673/2, 1374/1 etc. These lead to an underestimation of the number of electors. 2) Deleted entries, where the RO has been notified of a death or removal. These lead to an overestimation of the number of electors. 3) The inclusion of 17 year olds awaiting their 18th birthday before becoming eligible to vote, indicated by the day/month printed before their name. These lead to an overestimation of the number of electors. Since this discussion was sparked by lack of information from a Welsh primary authority, should we not note that instances of 15-year-olds awaiting their 16th birthday would be applicable in this case (as indeed it would be for a Scottish local election)? Thanks for this. I was aware that 16 and 17 year olds can vote in Scottish local elections and for the devolved Parliament, but was unaware this applied applied in Wales. I note that Northern Ireland have the same provisions as England. |
|
