maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,306 
|
Post by maxque on Oct 24, 2014 10:20:01 GMT
North Ayrshire (2012; 2014by): SNP: 40.9% (+6.1; +12.8) Ind: 23.6% (-16.1; -2.3) Lab: 19.9% (+19.9; -5.0) Con: 15.6% (-0.7; -5.5) Since when was Oban in Ayrshire?  Indeed, North Ayrshire is next week (Largs, despite the ward being called North Coast and Cumbraes). I trusted my memory of what I had wrote before instead of checking my notes. I'll be more cautious in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2014 10:23:23 GMT
I thought the Scottish result had scuppered me again but the results from Gloucestershire and Sussex look more encouraging
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 24, 2014 11:27:36 GMT
Is it just me, or did last night turn out as mildly encouraging for the coalition parties and rather disappointing for UKIP?
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 24, 2014 11:36:09 GMT
Is it just me, or did last night turn out as mildly encouraging for the coalition parties and rather disappointing for UKIP? Certainly encouraging for the Conservatives with decent results in Chichester, Glos, Sussex and Folkestone. I think the Forest of Dean result is a bit disappointing for UKIP, elsewhere they're getting confortable 20% results, which is probably about par for the course, but they didn't have any really good results this week. The Folkestone result is encouraging for the LDs - possibly not an awful lot to cheer about elsewhere. That would be my take, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2014 11:55:00 GMT
Is it just me, or did last night turn out as mildly encouraging for the coalition parties and rather disappointing for UKIP? Its just you |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 24, 2014 11:58:13 GMT
Argyll and Bute really doesn't tend to vote on party lines, though - it depends very much who the candidate is - and ticket-splitting is very common.
|
|
|
|
Post by listener on Oct 24, 2014 12:01:25 GMT
Dear Mr Administrator
I see that Argyll and Bute are holding community council by-elections on 27 November, including Bute. Nominations close on Monday (27 October). Are you tempted?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 24, 2014 12:22:43 GMT
I might have expected UKIP to poll a bit better in some of the areas that were contested, although I don't buy the pro-Coalition spin. Maybe in the Forest of Dean but I take it that a strong Independent vote substantially lowers our ceiling there. The results in the other seats were I think about par |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 24, 2014 14:11:54 GMT
Depends on the area. In some areas the Independents are a party, either informally or formally. This is true, but such "Independent groups" are silly, and I refuse to recognise their legitimacy.  Well you might have a problem then because I'd lay heavy odds on the City Independents gaining control of Stoke City Council in a landslide next May. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 24, 2014 15:51:13 GMT
This is true, but such "Independent groups" are silly, and I refuse to recognise their legitimacy. Well you might have a problem then because I'd lay heavy odds on the City Independents gaining control of Stoke City Council in a landslide next May. But they're a registered party, are they not? I'm talking about organised slates who only stand as "Independent". Argyll and Bute actually has two such groups. One is called Argyll First and the other is something like the Argyll Independent Group. All the members of both groups stood as just "Independent" candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Oct 24, 2014 15:52:31 GMT
Dear Mr Administrator I see that Argyll and Bute are holding community council by-elections on 27 November, including Bute. Nominations close on Monday (27 October). Are you tempted? Not really since I now live in Sandwell and work in Walsall. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 24, 2014 16:27:46 GMT
Well you might have a problem then because I'd lay heavy odds on the City Independents gaining control of Stoke City Council in a landslide next May. But they're a registered party, are they not? I'm talking about organised slates who only stand as "Independent". Argyll and Bute actually has two such groups. One is called Argyll First and the other is something like the Argyll Independent Group. All the members of both groups stood as just "Independent" candidates. Unless they've quietly changed since our last elections in 2011 they're registered as a Group with the Council but not for electoral purposes, which is their justification for being "Independent", and in most cases have only put "Independent" on their nomination papers (on a couple of occasions in the past members of the Group have actually stood against each other). They are saying however that they will have an agreed manifesto for 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 24, 2014 16:38:08 GMT
Argyll & Bute, North Oban & Lorn - SNP gain from an Independent
- based on first preference votes | Party | 2014 B2 votes | 2014 B2 share | since 2014 B1 | since 2012 | since 2011 B | since 2007 | | SNP | 1,090 | 40.9% | +16.3% | +10.2% | -3.2% | +18.6% | | Independent | 629 | 23.6% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Labour | 530 | 19.9% | -1.9% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Conservative | 415 | 15.6% | -2.8% | +6.4% | -5.0% | +7.1% | | Past Independents |
|
| -35.2% | -54.9% | -24.6% | -54.6% | | Liberal Democrat |
|
|
| -5.2% | -10.6% | -14.6% | | Total votes | 2,664 |
| 110% | 73% | 109% | 58% |
Swing to SNP but magnitude not meaningful Chichester, Rogate - Conservative hold | Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2011 | 2010 B result | since 2007 | since 2003 | | Conservative | 342 | 71.2% | -19.8% | unopposed | -1.9% | +10.5% | | UKIP | 138 | 28.8% | from nowhere |
| from nowhere | +18.6% | | Labour |
|
| -8.9% |
|
|
| | Liberal Democrat |
|
|
|
| -26.8% | -29.1% | | Total votes | 480 |
| 44% |
| 51% | 55% |
Swing not meaningful Durham, Burnopfield & Dipton - Labour gain from Derwentside Independent| Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2013 "top" | since 2013 "average" | since 2008 "top" | since 2008 "average" | | Labour | 656 | 44.9% | +6.8% | +2.8% | +20.7% | +20.3% | | Derwentside Independent | 655 | 44.8% | +3.5% | +6.4% | -1.5% | -1.1% | | Conservative | 83 | 5.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | -5.4% | -5.7% | | Green | 68 | 4.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Past Independents | |
| -20.7% | -20.7% |
|
| | Liberal Democrat | |
|
|
| -18.4% | -18.2% | | Total votes | 1,462 |
| 79% | 88% | 61% | 62% |
A small (~1½%) swing Derwentside Independent to Labour since 2013 based on "top" votes but away (~1¾%) from Labour on "average votes" - although ~11% Derwentside Independent to Labour since 2008 Durham, Evenwood - Labour hold | Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2013 "top" | since 2013 "average" | since 2008 "top" | since 2008 "average" | | Labour | 546 | 38.2% | -7.9% | -6.7% | +3.2% | +2.1% | | Conservative | 396 | 27.7% | -0.3% | +1.5% | -8.5% | -7.6% | | UKIP | 309 | 21.6% | -4.4% | -7.3% | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Independent | 108 | 7.5% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Green | 72 | 5.0% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Teesdale Independent | |
|
|
| -28.9% | -28.6% | | Total votes | 1,431 |
| 76% | 84% | 64% | 66% |
Swing Labour to Conservative ~4% since 2013 but Conservative to Labour ~5% since 2008 Forest of Dean, Newnham & Westbury - an Independent hold | Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2011 "top" | since 2011 "average" | since 2007 "top" | since 2007 "average" | | Independent | 321 | 38.5% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Conservative | 216 | 25.9% | -4.9% | +2.6% | -7.5% | -0.5% | | UKIP | 102 | 12.2% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Labour | 100 | 12.0% | -1.0% | -0.4% | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Green | 70 | 8.4% | -7.7% | -10.1% | -13.1% | -15.4% | | Liberal Democrat | 25 | 3.0% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Past Independent | |
| -40.1% | -45.9% | -45.1% | -49.9% | | Total votes | 834 |
| 42% | 48% | 49% | 54% |
Swing not meaningful Gloucestershire, Mitcheldean - Conservative gain from an Independent
| Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2013 | | Conservative | 959 | 38.4% | +14.0% | | UKIP | 550 | 22.0% | +2.7% | | Independent | 455 | 18.2% | from nowhere | | Labour | 278 | 11.1% | +0.8% | | Liberal Democrat | 150 | 6.0% | +0.3% | | Green | 106 | 4.2% | +0.4% | | Past Independent | |
| -36.4% | | Total votes | 2,498
|
| 79% |
Swing not meaningful Mid Sussex, Haywards Heath Lucastes - Conservative hold | Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2011 "top" | since 2011 "average" | since 2007 "top" | since 2007 "average" | | Conservative | 524 | 56.4% | +3.9% | +4.1% | +19.2% | +18.5% | | UKIP | 203 | 21.9% | +14.8% | +14.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Liberal Democrat | 112 | 12.1% | -10.9% | -10.8% | -19.6% | -19.0% | | Labour | 90 | 9.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Green |
|
| -17.5% | -17.7% |
|
| | Independents * |
|
|
|
| -31.1% | -31.1% | | Total votes | 929 |
| 42% | 42% | 50% | 53% |
* former Conservative Councillors for the ward elected in 2003 Swing Conservative to UKIP ~5% since 2011 Shepway, Folkestone Harvey West - Conservative hold | Party | 2014 votes | 2014 share | since 2011 "top" | since 2011 "average" | since 2007 "top" | since 2007 "average" | | Conservative | 385 | 36.4% | -18.8% | -19.0% | -27.7% | -28.0% | | UKIP | 293 | 27.7% | from nowhere | from nowhere | +20.7% | +20.7% | | Liberal Democrat | 262 | 24.8% | +3.4 | +3.1% | +11.3% | +11.4% | | Green | 61 | 5.8% | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Labour | 57 | 5.4% | -18.0% | -17.6% | from nowhere | from nowhere | | Shepway Independent |
|
|
|
| -15.5% | -15.2% | | Total votes | 1,058 |
| 66% | 69% | 78% | 79% |
Swing since 2011 not meaningful but Conservative to UKIP ~24% since 2007
|
|
|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 25, 2014 17:56:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Oct 26, 2014 0:00:13 GMT
Good point. If it was a tie would we all get 5 faults? Although not definitive, research indicates the initial count for Burnopfield & Dipton was a tie but a recount gave a 1 vote margin. There is no indication the result was determined by lot whilst the total votes declared plus the votes rejected in the official result tallies with the ballot papers issued. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 26, 2014 9:30:15 GMT
Good point. If it was a tie would we all get 5 faults? Although not definitive, research indicates the initial count for Burnopfield & Dipton was a tie but a recount gave a 1 vote margin. There is no indication the result was determined by lot whilst the total votes declared plus the votes rejected in the official result tallies with the ballot papers issued. If there's a drawing of lots to decide an election, it's always in public - the defeated side would never believe their defeat unless they actually saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 26, 2014 14:02:43 GMT
IMO the returning officer ought to have to make some type of special statement if the result is determined by lot. At the moment I don't think there's any way of knowing whether a 1 vote majority result is actually a 1 vote majority after counting the votes or a result decided by lot.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 26, 2014 14:13:13 GMT
What's interesting is that despite all the talk of Labour and Conservatives being close because they happened to be on the same side in the indyref, the Conservative transfers didn't show much evidence of it (183 to Independent, 91 to Labour and 12 to SNP). And in the same light, for all the talk of Labour and SNP as dire opponents, Labour voters could have prevented the SNP winning if they had made sure to transfer to the Independent. Instead when Labour was eliminated, 268 transferred to Independent and 97 to SNP with 256 non-transferable. Reading much of anything into vote transfers when there is still and independent in the running is probably best avoided. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2014 13:26:07 GMT
Can I just personally object to the concept of an "Ind hold". Independents aren't a party, every independent candidate is essentially a separate party. In these cases, I personally call it a "New Independent gain". Exception to the rule is that the Independents are a party in A&B. |
|
