|
Post by BossMan on Mar 21, 2014 0:09:23 GMT
Is Bideford definitely counting tonight, or is it bedtime?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 21, 2014 0:18:01 GMT
2003 LD 0 2007 LD 0 2011 LD 0 So at least those 13 people actually had someone to vote for this time... Not so. There was no Liberal Democrat candidate to vote for and we can't be sure what would have happened had there been one. Not standing a candidate is not the equivalent of standing but obtaining no votes. I don't claim this is a ward with good Liberal Democrat organisation because it isn't, but even the base level of party identification should count for something more than 13 votes in a reasonable sized ward.
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Mar 21, 2014 0:18:29 GMT
Is Bideford definitely counting tonight, or is it bedtime? The Torridge switchboard said they thought they were counting but Electoral Services was on answerphone.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 21, 2014 0:19:51 GMT
Is Bideford definitely counting tonight, or is it bedtime? The Torridge switchboard said they thought they were counting but Electoral Services was on answerphone. In a small district like Torridge, there probably is only one officer on Electoral Services, and that probably isn't their only job.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 21, 2014 0:25:05 GMT
2003 LD 0 2007 LD 0 2011 LD 0 So at least those 13 people actually had someone to vote for this time... Not so. There was no Liberal Democrat candidate to vote for and we can't be sure what would have happened had there been one. Not standing a candidate is not the equivalent of standing but obtaining no votes. I don't claim this is a ward with good Liberal Democrat organisation because it isn't, but even the base level of party identification should count for something more than 13 votes in a reasonable sized ward. Add to that the defeat of the highest-profile Staffordshire Moorlands (even arguably North Staffordshire) LibDem, Christina Jebb, in last year's County elections, and it doesn't really reflect anything positive for them.
|
|
Chris
Independent
Posts: 573
|
Post by Chris on Mar 21, 2014 0:26:27 GMT
The Torridge switchboard said they thought they were counting but Electoral Services was on answerphone. In a small district like Torridge, there probably is only one officer on Electoral Services, and that probably isn't their only job. There are two EROs in Torridge or at least there were a few months ago when I was still working in the district! You won't get through to electoral services as I doubt the count is taking place at the council offices - they normally hold counts at one of the polling stations. For district, county and parliamentary elections they are conducted at Langtree village hall which is central to the district but the middle of nowhere. I expect the delay is due to the fact that they also have a town council by-election to deal with for the same ward. My money is on Sam Robinson winning, who I had hoped would be our candidate!
|
|
|
Post by brianjrvs on Mar 21, 2014 0:28:01 GMT
Gamston, Rushcliffe
Con 444 UKIP 173 Lib Dem 170 Lab 218
|
|
|
Post by BossMan on Mar 21, 2014 0:28:20 GMT
I'm off to bed. Someone tweet me if the Bideford result comes within the next five minutes or so...
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 21, 2014 0:44:24 GMT
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,016
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Mar 21, 2014 3:41:24 GMT
FLASH Labour gain Portsoken Serious dislike. What could they add to anything in the City? Can't be less representative than the various City councillors living in Surrey or Essex and elected by people not living in the City either.
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Mar 21, 2014 9:32:11 GMT
Torridge - Bideford East
James CRAIGIE (Labour) 140 - 18.7% Dermot MCGEOUGH (Conservative) 150 - 20.0% David RATCLIFF (Independent) 106 - 14.0% Sam ROBINSON (Independent) 295 Elected - 39.5% Alan SMITH (Independent) 17 - 2.3% Bob WOOTTON (Liberal Democrats) 39 5.2%
Bideford East Parish Council
James CRAIGIE (Labour) 166 - 29.2% Steve FORD (Conservative) 197- 34.7% David RATCLIFF (Independent) 205 Elected - 36.1%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 9:32:21 GMT
Serious dislike. What could they add to anything in the City? Can't be less representative than the various City councillors living in Surrey or Essex and elected by people not living in the City either. The point of the City is as a world-class business centre. Thus living there really has little importance.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,016
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Mar 21, 2014 9:52:52 GMT
Can't be less representative than the various City councillors living in Surrey or Essex and elected by people not living in the City either. The point of the City is as a world-class business centre. Thus living there really has little importance. I'm aware, but does Wall Street or any other world-class business centre has its own local Council, with those unusual rules? No. It's a relic of a distant past.
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Mar 21, 2014 10:01:15 GMT
Broadland: Wroxham
LD 482 Con 341 UKIP 112 Lab 63
Turnout 25%
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 21, 2014 11:56:56 GMT
Can't be less representative than the various City councillors living in Surrey or Essex and elected by people not living in the City either. The point of the City is as a world-class business centre. Thus living there really has little importance. It's a residential ward. Just because they happen to be in the same authority as a world-class business centre, doesn't mean they don't need decent local representation.
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Mar 21, 2014 12:04:21 GMT
If you suggested that the Wall Street area should have a separate local government with the company ownerships massively outvoting the residents they would wonder what drugs you had taken.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 21, 2014 12:34:32 GMT
According to Andrew Teale's report that area was moved from Tower Hamlets in the 90s so isn't part of the historic city. I didn't know there had been such a boundary change there. Does anyone know why that occurred?
|
|
|
Post by redfellow on Mar 21, 2014 12:52:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Mar 21, 2014 13:10:34 GMT
Given that the four residential wards are on the outskirts of the city, you'd think the natural boundary change would be to move them all into neighbouring boroughs.
For that matter, given the anachronistic manner in which the City is run, there doesn't seem to be any reason why its territory couldn't be co-extensive with other authorities. You could move the land area and the remaining residential voters into neighbouring boroughs, whilst maintaining certain responsibilities for the City and confining the electorate to the business vote.
Of course, that's an obvious halfway house, but it's always baffling that the City has been allowed to be preserved in aspic so totally.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 21, 2014 13:16:43 GMT
Given that the four residential wards are on the outskirts of the city, you'd think the natural boundary change would be to move them all into neighbouring boroughs. That's what I was thinking
|
|