Putney

[manchesterman]

Jul 17, 2024 19:39:26 GMT @weld said:

This seat almost feels nostalgic now.

I will forever associate the seat with David Mellor, James Goldsmith and the 1997 declaration 

[Peter Wilkinson]

Jul 17, 2024 18:48:07 GMT manchesterman said:

Jul 17, 2024 18:26:29 GMT iainbhx said:

:So clearly the political parties were watching the count closely either.

Indeed. You could see the odd bundle getting overlooked but over six and a half thousand votes makes it sound like all the party officials were not 'on the ball' for whatever reason!

I've been present at a count* where a ballot box got overlooked until the agent for one of the parties queried the voting totals the following afternoon - and then found still under a table where it had been placed and forgotten after the verification of the ballot papers in it. And I have heard of enough other cases to suggest that similar things happen somewhere or other in the country every few years, even though any such delay in spotting the problem suggests that none of the parties involved were giving due attention to the count.

However, the figures quoted here suggest that an entire ward went missing...


*strictly speaking, at another count taking place in another part of the same room at the same time

[johnloony]

Jul 17, 2024 19:36:04 GMT finsobruce said:

Jul 17, 2024 19:26:51 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Presumably a Karl Marx walking tour just hangs around the back of an Engels walking tour asking for cash.

People talk a lot about Karl Marx but very little about his sister Onya who invented the starting pistol.

The linguistic pedant in my brain needs to point out that she was Onja not Onya

[Davıd Boothroyd]

A century ago, this seat's linear predecessor Wandsworth Central had a similar wrongful declaration. When totting up the results of the December 1923 general election, a batch of 1,000 for Sir John Norton-Griffiths was misread as 100. The wrong result (8,774 votes) was not corrected.

[ArmchairCritic]

I know it doesn't change the result but heads should roll over this.

[observer]

Jul 17, 2024 21:53:56 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

I know it doesn't change the result but heads should roll over this.

A severe talking to should suffice. Even a first warning.
We've all made honest mistakes!

[iainbhx]

Jul 17, 2024 21:53:56 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

I know it doesn't change the result but heads should roll over this.

It was one of the reasons to get rid of Birmingham's Chief Exec was a cock-up in the Kingstanding count, she fell upwards to Border Farce,

It didn't improve things, the next year, uncounted ballots were found hidden by the Elections Office from a variety of wards. There weren't that many and it didn't effect the results in any of the wards, but it was the attempt to hide them that was disturbing.

[Andrew_S]

Turns out it was another spreadsheet error, the same as Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physical vote counting. So the election workers watching the count wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.

www.wandsworth.gov.uk/the-council/elections-voting-and-registration/elections-and-referendums/general-election-2024/

I remember briefly noticing the reported 17% drop in turnout on the BBC page on election night but because I was looking through all the election results by 10 the next morning (which I managed to do despite being very tired like most other people) I didn't pay as much attention to it as I wish I had done at the time.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001434

This correction is significant enough to change the turnout at the election from 59.7% to 59.8% to one decimal place.

Before it was 28,805,931 votes out of an electorate of 48,214,128, now total votes are 28,812,489.

[ArmchairCritic]

Jul 17, 2024 22:23:18 GMT iainbhx said:

Jul 17, 2024 21:53:56 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

I know it doesn't change the result but heads should roll over this.

It was one of the reasons to get rid of Birmingham's Chief Exec was a cock-up in the Kingstanding count, she fell upwards to Border Farce,

It didn't improve things, the next year, uncounted ballots were found hidden by the Elections Office from a variety of wards. There weren't that many and it didn't effect the results in any of the wards, but it was the attempt to hide them that was disturbing.

Immediate dismissal....surely?

I like the attitude of the Wakefield ERO.

She once said to me, "I don't care about being quick, I care about being accurate."

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2024 20:17:11 GMT manchesterman said:

Jul 17, 2024 19:39:26 GMT @weld said:

This seat almost feels nostalgic now.

I will forever associate the seat with David Mellor, James Goldsmith and the 1997 declaration 

Sore loser watch, 1997 limited edition.

[ColinJ]

Jul 17, 2024 19:18:28 GMT hullenedge said:

Jul 17, 2024 18:48:07 GMT manchesterman said:

Indeed. You could see the odd bundle getting overlooked but over six and a half thousand votes makes it sound like all the party officials were not 'on the ball' for whatever reason!

It's a stinker. 1950 Warwick and Leamington 2,000 votes were 'missed'. A line of votes hadn't been added to the totals. Embarrassment for all and apologies quickly accepted.

I continue to be surprised that F.W.S. Craig, usually so assiduous in providing helpful and instructive footnotes in his British Parliamentary Results series, completely fails to mention that the Warwick and Leamington result printed in his 1950-1970 volume was not that announced by the Returning Officer at the count. We therefore depend on the Times Guide (page 320 of the 1950 volume) to set the record straight:

Originally announced:
Eden   26,326
Bithell   17,512

Corrected to:
Eden   27,353   (+1,027)
Bithell   18,400   (+888)

Total omitted votes: 1,915

[ColinJ]

Jul 17, 2024 22:31:25 GMT Andrew_S said:

Turns out it was another spreadsheet error, the same as Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physical vote counting. So the election workers watching the count wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.

www.wandsworth.gov.uk/the-council/elections-voting-and-registration/elections-and-referendums/general-election-2024/

I remember briefly noticing the reported 17% drop in turnout on the BBC page on election night but because I was looking through all the election results by 10 the next morning (which I managed to do despite being very tired like most other people) I didn't pay as much attention to it as I wish I had done at the time.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001434

This correction is significant enough to change the turnout at the election from 59.7% to 59.8% to one decimal place.

Before it was 28,805,931 votes out of an electorate of 48,214,128, now total votes are 28,812,489.

It is curious to note that the 6,558 extra votes resulted in trifling changes to the share of the votes achieved by each party. (Indeed the changes noted below could be explained by rounding.)

Labour:   49.0 to 48.9%  (-0.1%)
Conservative:   23.4 to 23.6%   (+0.2%)
Lib Dem:  12.1% (unchanged)
Green:   7.4 to 7.5%  (+0.1%)
Reform:  6.3 to 6.2%  (-0.1%)
Workers:  1.0% (unchanged)
Rejoin EU:  0.7% (unchanged)

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2024 5:31:16 GMT ColinJ said:

Jul 17, 2024 19:18:28 GMT hullenedge said:

It's a stinker. 1950 Warwick and Leamington 2,000 votes were 'missed'. A line of votes hadn't been added to the totals. Embarrassment for all and apologies quickly accepted.

I continue to be surprised that F.W.S. Craig, usually so assiduous in providing helpful and instructive footnotes in his British Parliamentary Results series, completely fails to mention that the Warwick and Leamington result printed in his 1950-1970 volume was not that announced by the Returning Officer at the count. We therefore depend on the Times Guide (page 320 of the 1950 volume) to set the record straight:

Originally announced:
Eden   26,326
Bithell   17,512

Corrected to:
Eden   27,353   (+1,027)
Bithell   18,400   (+888)

Total omitted votes: 1,915

Golly gosh. It's giving banana republic. 

[iainbhx]

Jul 18, 2024 5:21:44 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

Jul 17, 2024 22:23:18 GMT iainbhx said:

It was one of the reasons to get rid of Birmingham's Chief Exec was a cock-up in the Kingstanding count, she fell upwards to Border Farce,

It didn't improve things, the next year, uncounted ballots were found hidden by the Elections Office from a variety of wards. There weren't that many and it didn't effect the results in any of the wards, but it was the attempt to hide them that was disturbing.

Immediate dismissal....surely?

I like the attitude of the Wakefield ERO.

She once said to me, "I don't care about being quick, I care about being accurate."

Which is best, although I do remember being annoyed at a ward count where there was a discrepancy of 2 papers between verified and counted and the DARO wanted to do a full recount to find them having done a bundle count. All the agents pointed out the majority was over 1000 and that where were at least 20 votes between each candidate and that it was 1am and none of us really cared. Accurate and sensible, which is what most counts are.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jul 18, 2024 5:21:44 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

Jul 17, 2024 22:23:18 GMT iainbhx said:

It was one of the reasons to get rid of Birmingham's Chief Exec was a cock-up in the Kingstanding count, she fell upwards to Border Farce,

It didn't improve things, the next year, uncounted ballots were found hidden by the Elections Office from a variety of wards. There weren't that many and it didn't effect the results in any of the wards, but it was the attempt to hide them that was disturbing.

Immediate dismissal....surely?

I like the attitude of the Wakefield ERO.

She once said to me, "I don't care about being quick, I care about being accurate."

Yes, and that's the attitude of pretty much all Returning Officers.

Wandsworth however has prided itself on being the first borough in London to announce results - and that goes back a very long time.

[Peter Wilkinson]

Jul 17, 2024 22:31:25 GMT Andrew_S said:

Turns out it was another spreadsheet error, the same as Plymouth Sutton & Devonport in 2017, not a problem with physical vote counting. So the election workers watching the count wouldn't have noticed anything amiss.

www.wandsworth.gov.uk/the-council/elections-voting-and-registration/elections-and-referendums/general-election-2024/

I remember briefly noticing the reported 17% drop in turnout on the BBC page on election night but because I was looking through all the election results by 10 the next morning (which I managed to do despite being very tired like most other people) I didn't pay as much attention to it as I wish I had done at the time.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001434

This correction is significant enough to change the turnout at the election from 59.7% to 59.8% to one decimal place.

Before it was 28,805,931 votes out of an electorate of 48,214,128, now total votes are 28,812,489.

Though these days, spreadsheet errors are enough of a known risk that at least some election workers should be keeping enough of an eye open to spot and question major ones (though I do recognise that most of them will probably be far too tired to do so after a long election day). Do we know whether the error affected both the verification figures and the actual count, or just the count? (The latter should be easy to pick up - the former would be more difficult, but is at any rate an obvious question if reported turnout changes, for instance, are that large).

[elinorhelyn]

Regardless of the spreadsheet errors, the margin of victory in Putney and Battersea tells us the Tories have further to fall in Wandsworth come 2026.

[londonseal80]

Jul 18, 2024 12:55:19 GMT elinorhelyn said:

Regardless of the spreadsheet errors, the margin of victory in Putney and Battersea tells us the Tories have further to fall in Wandsworth come 2026.

Agreed I don’t think the Conservatives will gain this back this council back until a “2006 type of election” I think Labour could make further gains both in the Putney wards and maybe take the remaining seats in Wandsworth Town and St Mary’s. The Tories will still likely hold both Northcote and Wandsworth Common very comfortably, at the same the Tories might regain the 3rd Balham seat and perhaps take South Balham ward too formerly Bedford. If the Tories do gain a council in 2026 it will more likely be Sutton or Croydon than Wandsworth or Westminster.

[aargauer]

Jul 18, 2024 5:27:10 GMT @weld said:

Jul 17, 2024 20:17:11 GMT manchesterman said:

I will forever associate the seat with David Mellor, James Goldsmith and the 1997 declaration 

Sore loser watch, 1997 limited edition.

I think that's unfair. He just wanted a cheap pop at another loser who was being a dick.

Actual bad losers: Truss, Shahid Malik, that Lib Dem in Oldham

[batman]

I remember it well. He ranted at Goldsmith but it was ill-directed. Goldsmith polled only about 1500 but Mellor lost by about twice that amount, so it was the wrong target. Goldsmith looked very ill in the pictures, and indeed he was - he was dead only a few weeks later.