Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 0:19:58 GMT
We're getting Thank You leaflets templates sorted, hold on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 0:22:17 GMT
Chadsmead (Lichfield) Result: LDem - 36.0% (+4.8) - 206 LAB - 27.4% (-1.6) - 157 UKIP - 18.8% (+18.8) - 108 CON - 17.8% (-22.0) - 102 Bloody hell, what a terrible result. Only positives is that it is in a totally unloseable seat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 0:24:21 GMT
Ill forget that one if we get over 35 in Amber Valley!
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 31, 2014 0:28:18 GMT
Anyone know whether Amber Valley is / has counted or are they waiting until the morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Walker on Jan 31, 2014 0:29:19 GMT
Not a fishes about the result in Amber Valley, perhaps they're counting in the morning?
Fun fact, it's snowing round those parts. A light flurry. Methinks the counting hall is snowed under by a whopping one millimeter. British aid, everyone, British aid.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,893 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 31, 2014 0:29:53 GMT
Chadsmead (Lichfield) Result: LDem - 36.0% (+4.8) - 206 LAB - 27.4% (-1.6) - 157 UKIP - 18.8% (+18.8) - 108 CON - 17.8% (-22.0) - 102 Bloody hell, what a terrible result. Only positives is that it is in a totally unloseable seat. There are few such seats in the new environment....and lichfield is no longer one of them....not if we can beat you into 4th in a ward you have held. Think on't! ADDED And 18.8+17.8=36.6 OR put another way 'winning by 4'!!! ADDED You wankers split our bloody vote!!!! |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jan 31, 2014 0:43:27 GMT
Anyone know whether Amber Valley is / has counted or are they waiting until the morning. It's not a definitive answer but Amber Valley DC's website does say the result "will be posted here on the day after the election", suggesting either a Friday count or they simply can't be bothered to update their website outside of office hours. |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Jan 31, 2014 7:41:29 GMT
Interesting that UKIP haven't got a candidate in a ward formerly held by the BNP Is it? Perhaps the old BNP councillor has now defected to Labour like certain other BNP folk? |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 31, 2014 8:45:53 GMT
Interesting that UKIP haven't got a candidate in a ward formerly held by the BNP Is it? Perhaps the old BNP councillor has now defected to Labour like certain other BNP folk? How does that stop UKIP from fielding a candidate? o.o |
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Jan 31, 2014 8:53:35 GMT
Is it? Perhaps the old BNP councillor has now defected to Labour like certain other BNP folk? How does that stop UKIP from fielding a candidate? o.o merely making irrelevant observations in the vein of merseymick |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 8:57:59 GMT
Steven GRAINGER [The Conservative Party Candidate] 350 (32.3%)
Sheila OAKES [The Labour Party Candidate] 548 (58.3%)
Kate SMITH [Liberal Democrat] 41 (9.4%)
Heanor East result
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 31, 2014 9:02:31 GMT
Steven GRAINGER [The Conservative Party Candidate] 350 (32.3%) Sheila OAKES [The Labour Party Candidate] 548 (58.3%) Kate SMITH [Liberal Democrat] 41 (9.4%) Heanor East result Either the votes or the percentages are incorrect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 9:19:26 GMT
Steven GRAINGER [The Conservative Party Candidate] 350 (32.3%) Sheila OAKES [The Labour Party Candidate] 548 (58.3%) Kate SMITH [Liberal Democrat] 41 (9.4%) Heanor East result Either the votes or the percentages are incorrect. Votes are right, I have just got up and not had a coffee, so gladly stand corrected. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,301
|
Post by maxque on Jan 31, 2014 9:25:19 GMT
Talking of Amber Valley, they are inviting local election candidates to sign the ''Local Election Compact'', which is well-meaning, I suppose, but is quite wierd coming from an election authority ( here). Does that kind of compact is frequent, or it's an unique idea? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,301
|
Post by maxque on Jan 31, 2014 9:27:28 GMT
I'm getting:
Labour: 58.4%
Conservative: 37.3%
Liberal Democrat: 4.4%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2014 9:55:47 GMT
Wow - good tory result really. Unlike Lichfield!
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 31, 2014 10:00:57 GMT
Wow - good tory result really. Unlike Lichfield! Yes, looks like the Tories are the most attractive party to former BNP voters.  |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 31, 2014 10:09:03 GMT
Would have thought given there are potential votes for a right-wing fourth party, proved by past BNP success, that UKIP would have been wanting to take advantage of that.
But in terms of the comment above about BNP councillors transferring to Labour (I can thiunk of one, a lady in Burnley) - I'm all in favour of a sinner repenting. People can change their mind and reject small-minded right wing extremist parties like the BNP and UKIP
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 31, 2014 10:10:10 GMT
Wow - good tory result really. Unlike Lichfield! Yes, looks like the Tories are the most attractive party to former BNP voters. I would far rather have people voting Conservative than voting BNP. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 31, 2014 10:31:57 GMT
MORAY Buckie
Gordon Cowie (Independent) 830 (44.6%)
Linda McDonald (SNP) 670 (36.0%)
Marc MacRae (Independent) 220 (11.8%)
Margaret Irene Gambles (Conservative) 143 (7.7%)
Quota 933.
Gambles eliminated; second round:
Gordon Cowie (Independent) +77 = 907
Linda McDonald (SNP) +9 = 679
Marc Macrae + 28 = 248
Macrae eliminated; third round:
Gordon Cowie (Ind) +127 = 1,034
Linda McDonald (SNP) +31 = 710
Cowie elected.
|
|
