Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 20:52:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 23, 2014 21:04:33 GMT
Very fishy. Where did the original figure of 4,000 come from? Unless the Tories reveal the figures, I'm minded to believe there were a large number of spoilt papers, but they don't want to admit it. Pathetic if true. Of course that assumption may be completely wrong, but if they gave the figures we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 23, 2014 22:07:51 GMT
Very fishy. Where did the original figure of 4,000 come from? Unless the Tories reveal the figures, I'm minded to believe there were a large number of spoilt papers, but they don't want to admit it. Pathetic if true. Of course that assumption may be completely wrong, but if they gave the figures we wouldn't be having this discussion. I notice the words used by Isabel Hardman in her initial report this evening were "The result is not due to be announced until this evening, but I hear that Tolhurst won by fewer than 50 votes on a turnout of 4,000." Now if someone told Hardman that the margin of victory was less than 50 (and if that was accurate) then the 5688 must include spoilt ballots because otherwise the margin of victory (as Davıd Boothroyd has kindly calculated) would be exactly 50 not less than 50. I suspect that what may have happened is that the number of valid votes was less than 4,500. this is reported to Hardman who then writes up her report using the words I quoted. Social media then erupts with people saying "4,000 votes for a £100K primary? FAIL!" The Tories then come up with the idea of publishing the 'Number of ballots returned' and the percentages of votes cast whilst making absolutely no mention whatsoever of the actual number of votes cast! This is what they are presenting as the result of their two candidate, no hustings, "open" primary. What a joke.
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Oct 23, 2014 22:36:57 GMT
The cover-up should do for them so long as our Great British journalists are up to the job. Crick maybe but then I've just looked at his twitter and after quoting 4000 he is now unquestioning over 5688. So I guess that leaves Guido...
Edit: Unless one goes for it and the pack follows.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 23, 2014 23:08:56 GMT
So there may have been around 1,500 spoilt papers and the likes of Crick can't be bothered to investigate it.
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 23, 2014 23:35:45 GMT
So there may have been around 1,500 spoilt papers and the likes of Crick can't be bothered to investigate it. I suspect that's because he hasn't bothered to think about what the words actually mean. He just looked at the statement "number of ballots returned 5688" and though to himself "oh right, it was actually 5688 votes cast". Time and again I've seen this lack of attention to detail in so called political journalists. Its not difficult to work out what the Tories are doing here, I've worked it out, you've worked it out and so has @cllrsharon and independentukip. Those working in the media just can't (or won't) be bothered to do this. I find the level of political analysis on this forum is far superior to most of what passes for journalism in the mainstream media, Edit: To his credit Crick does seem to have looked into this issue now - see below
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 23, 2014 23:47:54 GMT
The result could have been something like this for example:
Kelly Tolhurst: 2,043 (50.44%) Anna Firth: 2,007 (49.56%) Spoilt/blank: 1,638
Total returned: 5,688 Valid votes: 4,050
Some bright spark decides it wouldn't look too good to publish these figures so they come up with the clever ruse of revealing the total ballots returned and the percentages for the two candidates, which means they can avoid revealing the fact that nearly 30% of the returned ballots weren't valid votes.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2014 0:00:45 GMT
Isabel Hardman initially tweeted that 4,000 votes had been counted in the primary.
Where did she get that figure from? Thin air?
It must have come from somewhere, and a strong possibility IMO is that it was from the sum of the two candidates' number of votes.
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Oct 24, 2014 0:08:47 GMT
The result could have been something like this for example: Kelly Tolhurst: 2,043 (50.44%) Anna Firth: 2,007 (49.56%) Spoilt/blank: 1,638 Total returned: 5,688 Valid votes: 4,050 Some bright spark decides it wouldn't look too good to publish these figures so they come up with the clever ruse of revealing the total ballots returned and the percentages for the two candidates, which means they can avoid revealing the fact that nearly 30% of the returned ballots weren't valid votes. Might it not be a bit of "fun" if your highly plausible figures somehow emerged on the interweb as the apparent real figures. That would force the Tories out of their shell if they were not correct. Not being on Twitter I can't start the ball rolling sadly but how about it?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2014 0:16:34 GMT
The result could have been something like this for example: Kelly Tolhurst: 2,043 (50.44%) Anna Firth: 2,007 (49.56%) Spoilt/blank: 1,638 Total returned: 5,688 Valid votes: 4,050 Some bright spark decides it wouldn't look too good to publish these figures so they come up with the clever ruse of revealing the total ballots returned and the percentages for the two candidates, which means they can avoid revealing the fact that nearly 30% of the returned ballots weren't valid votes. Might it not be a bit of "fun" if your highly plausible figures somehow emerged on the interweb as the apparent real figures. That would force the Tories out of their shell if they were not correct. Not being on Twitter I can't start the ball rolling sadly but how about it? Interesting idea but I don't think I have enough followers to get the ball rolling. I'm hoping Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting might be more successful in getting hold of the figures.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 24, 2014 5:11:00 GMT
I was at primary school with a girl called Kellie Hocter which is nearly a spoonerism of Helicopter. An interesting etymological fact is that although it sounds like "Heli - Copter" it is actually derived from "Helico - Pter": helico- as in helix or spiral, and -pter as in wing (compare pterodactyl).
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 24, 2014 6:08:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2014 10:30:56 GMT
“Michael Crick @michaellcrick · 16m 16 minutes ago Tory officials in Rochester refuse to give precise figures on primary vote. Admit some spoilt ballots, but say not in region of 1600″ twitter.com/MichaelLCrick
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2014 11:47:29 GMT
|
|
Pimpernal
Forum Regular
A left-wing agenda within a right-wing framework...
Posts: 2,873
|
Post by Pimpernal on Oct 24, 2014 14:42:08 GMT
However it plays out, it's been a bit of a cock-up and isn't going to give the Tories their well-needed boost... Let alone the fact that 3000 people will now be asked to vote for a candidate they've just opposed! In Clacton, there were 16000 votes cast in the primary - the winning candidate eventually got barely 8000...
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2014 14:47:34 GMT
The woman the Tories have selected appears to be a bit of a cheerleader for Hamas judging by her Twitter
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 24, 2014 14:49:45 GMT
The woman the Tories have selected appears to be a bit of a cheerleader for Hamas judging by her Twitter That could leave Pimpernal in a dilemma
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 24, 2014 15:09:34 GMT
In Clacton, there were 16000 votes cast in the primary - the winning candidate eventually got barely 8000... Do you mean Totnes?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2014 15:09:42 GMT
Are the Tories still sending each cabinet minister to the constituency five times?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 24, 2014 15:22:50 GMT
Another headache for Dave. It turns out the new Tory candidate for Rochester is an anti-Israeli activist: mobile.twitter.com/montieTim Montgomerie: Very disappointing that the Tory candidate in Rochester advocates a boycott of Israel thejc.com/news/uk-news/1… 3:47pm - 24 Oct 14"
|
|