|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 16, 2023 23:44:28 GMT
Well I remember Merlyn Rees, trying to fight off allegations that he was only doing this to save the government's skin, indignantly saying he was a miner's son & cared a great deal about it (though his Wikipedia entry makes no mention of his dad being a miner) I think there had been an NCB scheme from 1974; the 1979 changes increased sums payable, refined the system and - and I believe this was the crucial point for Plaid support - extended it to other industries such as pottery workers (John Golding spoke in one debate on that subject) and slate quarry workers (very relevant to the two North Wales Plaid MPs). But miners certainly also gained from the changes. The big issue for the Blaid were the slate quarry workers of north-west Wales. Plaid played quite a canny game - they knew the state of the parties, and openly press released that their price for voting for the government was such a scheme for the slate workers. |
|
|
|
Post by redweeg on Nov 16, 2023 23:46:55 GMT
If bundled in 100's it only takes for 1 paper at the top of the bundle to account for a swing of almost 200 at the recount stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by redweeg on Nov 16, 2023 23:49:29 GMT
Labour called for one in Aberdeen Central when they lost by 800. The RO was not keen to give them one and told them that amounted to 8 bundles, then asked "the rest" if we were happy with the result I told him, "no, but I am content with it" and that was the last word on the subject. You mean by 617 back in 2011? Even then that is still too high for a recount. The rule of thumb is that only majorities in single or double digits can be recounted as to affect the result. 617 if counted in 100's could be reversed by 4 votes on a bundle check. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 17, 2023 0:06:08 GMT
Labour called for one in Aberdeen Central when they lost by 800. The RO was not keen to give them one and told them that amounted to 8 bundles, then asked "the rest" if we were happy with the result I told him, "no, but I am content with it" and that was the last word on the subject. You mean by 617 back in 2011? Even then that is still too high for a recount. The rule of thumb is that only majorities in single or double digits can be recounted as to affect the result. In 2019 the recount in Coventry South moved the result from an approximately 200 vote Labour lead to a 401 vote one, and the recount in Coventry North West from around an approximately 400 vote Labour lead to a 208 vote one. If the Coventry South provisional result had been out from the final one by the same amount in the opposite direction it would have changed the result. And Coventry uses 25 vote bundles.
|
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Nov 17, 2023 11:05:16 GMT
The Aberdeenshire returning officer made the point to me that recounts should be considered not on the basis of the apparent margin but on the basis of how competently the count had been carried out.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 17, 2023 11:20:12 GMT
The Aberdeenshire returning officer made the point to me that recounts should be considered not on the basis of the apparent margin but on the basis of how competently the count had been carried out. The two are not entirely independent factors, though. If you could put the competency of the count into a numerical form, it would amount to something like a confidence interval for the official result (something like "there is a 95% chance that the actual balance of votes cast are within X votes of the published figures"). The more competent the count, the lower the margin that could plausibly be overturned in a recount. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 17, 2023 11:26:21 GMT
Aside from Winchester and North East Fife type margins it seems unlikely that recounts will ever actually change the result Its not common, but there are instances of margins running into hundreds of votes being overturned in GE recounts. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 17, 2023 13:45:54 GMT
Aside from Winchester and North East Fife type margins it seems unlikely that recounts will ever actually change the result Its not common, but there are instances of margins running into hundreds of votes being overturned in GE recounts. That’s why they do them. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 19, 2023 21:56:25 GMT
Recently looking up High Elms Country Park, I noted that the Bromley ward of Darwin is the largest and least-densely populated ward in any London borough. And that Bromley has the lowest population density of any London borough.
Is there any Met borough with a lower density, and how many Met wards are larger or less densely - populated than Darwin?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 19, 2023 22:11:49 GMT
Recently looking up High Elms Country Park, I noted that the Bromley ward of Darwin is the largest and least-densely populated ward in any London borough. And that Bromley has the lowest population density of any London borough. Is there any Met borough with a lower density, and how many Met wards are larger or less densely - populated than Darwin? Calderdale for one must have a much lower density and the Calder ward itself looks to cover a similar area to the whole of Bromley. They'd be a number of wards there and in other of the Yorkshire Mets |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 19, 2023 22:18:06 GMT
Recently looking up High Elms Country Park, I noted that the Bromley ward of Darwin is the largest and least-densely populated ward in any London borough. And that Bromley has the lowest population density of any London borough. Is there any Met borough with a lower density, and how many Met wards are larger or less densely - populated than Darwin? Calderdale for one must have a much lower density and the Calder ward itself looks to cover a similar area to the whole of Bromley. They'd be a number of wards there and in other of the Yorkshire Mets Calderdale is a very good shout. Presumably Saddleworth Moor must come under one or more of Calderdale, Oldham and Kirklees? |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 19, 2023 22:33:12 GMT
Recently looking up High Elms Country Park, I noted that the Bromley ward of Darwin is the largest and least-densely populated ward in any London borough. And that Bromley has the lowest population density of any London borough. Is there any Met borough with a lower density, and how many Met wards are larger or less densely - populated than Darwin? I believe Calder wins here (roughly 35% less dense than Darwin) - but there are a few others. The Penistone wards, Harewood in Leeds, and Sprotbrough in Doncaster for instance. The nearest your side of the Pennines gets is Saddleworth North but this is about 33% denser than Darwin (if Saddleworth is in fact on your side, I'm not sure they themselves know). Doncaster as a whole is the least dense Met - that surprised me as I assumed it would be Calderdale, but in fairness the topography of the Pennines probably makes Calderdale feel a lot bigger (in terms of area) than it actually is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2023 23:02:32 GMT
Recently looking up High Elms Country Park, I noted that the Bromley ward of Darwin is the largest and least-densely populated ward in any London borough. And that Bromley has the lowest population density of any London borough. Is there any Met borough with a lower density, and how many Met wards are larger or less densely - populated than Darwin? I believe Calder wins here (roughly 35% less dense than Darwin) - but there are a few others. The Penistone wards, Harewood in Leeds, and Sprotbrough in Doncaster for instance. The nearest your side of the Pennines gets is Saddleworth North but this is about 33% denser than Darwin (if Saddleworth is in fact on your side, I'm not sure they themselves know). Doncaster as a whole is the least dense Met - that surprised me as I assumed it would be Calderdale, but in fairness the topography of the Pennines probably makes Calderdale feel a lot bigger (in terms of area) than it actually is. Also I think Fax and its outskirts are a larger proportion of the borough than Donny and its outskirts |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 20, 2023 1:00:12 GMT
All Met/London wards with density of less than 300 per km2
Calderdale, Calder - 116.8
Doncaster, Spotbrough - 133.8
Barnsley, Penistone East - 136.4
Doncaster, Norton and Askern - 158.3
Barnsley, Penistone West - 160.2
Doncaster, Tickhill and Wadsworth - 174.8
Leeds, Harewood - 175.2
Bromley, Darwin - 176.3
Sheffield, Stannington - 185.2
Calderdale, Ryburn - 186.6
Calderdale, Luddendenfoot - 219.8
Oldham, Saddleworth North - 235.7
Bradford, Worth Valley - 238.9
Solihull, Meriden - 249.2
Kirklees, Colne Valley - 271.1
Doncaster, Hatfield - 276.1
Sheffield, Stocksbridge and Upper Don - 284.0
St Helens, Rainford - 293.4
Calderdale, Todmorden - 293.4
|
|
|
|
Post by greyfriar on Dec 12, 2023 8:53:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 12, 2023 9:14:20 GMT
Not really a secret ballot is it! |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Dec 12, 2023 9:50:20 GMT
All Met/London wards with density of less than 300 per km2 Calderdale, Calder - 116.8 Doncaster, Spotbrough - 133.8 Barnsley, Penistone East - 136.4 Doncaster, Norton and Askern - 158.3 Barnsley, Penistone West - 160.2 Doncaster, Tickhill and Wadsworth - 174.8 Leeds, Harewood - 175.2 Bromley, Darwin - 176.3 Sheffield, Stannington - 185.2 Calderdale, Ryburn - 186.6 Calderdale, Luddendenfoot - 219.8 Oldham, Saddleworth North - 235.7 Bradford, Worth Valley - 238.9 Solihull, Meriden - 249.2 Kirklees, Colne Valley - 271.1 Doncaster, Hatfield - 276.1 Sheffield, Stocksbridge and Upper Don - 284.0 St Helens, Rainford - 293.4 Calderdale, Todmorden - 293.4 Amidst the Pennine moorlands (and a section of the North Downs which started this exchange), Meriden stands out like a sore thumb. Birmingham airport and the NEC account for a large part of the hectarage, and of course have zero voters. The rest isn't partcularly sparse - more dense than many rural constituencies in the flatlands. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Dec 12, 2023 10:21:20 GMT
All Met/London wards with density of less than 300 per km2 Calderdale, Calder - 116.8 Doncaster, Spotbrough - 133.8 Barnsley, Penistone East - 136.4 Doncaster, Norton and Askern - 158.3 Barnsley, Penistone West - 160.2 Doncaster, Tickhill and Wadsworth - 174.8 Leeds, Harewood - 175.2 Bromley, Darwin - 176.3 Sheffield, Stannington - 185.2 Calderdale, Ryburn - 186.6 Calderdale, Luddendenfoot - 219.8 Oldham, Saddleworth North - 235.7 Bradford, Worth Valley - 238.9 Solihull, Meriden - 249.2 Kirklees, Colne Valley - 271.1 Doncaster, Hatfield - 276.1 Sheffield, Stocksbridge and Upper Don - 284.0 St Helens, Rainford - 293.4 Calderdale, Todmorden - 293.4 Amidst the Pennine moorlands (and a section of the North Downs which started this exchange), Meriden stands out like a sore thumb. Birmingham airport and the NEC account for a large part of the hectarage, and of course have zero voters. The rest isn't partcularly sparse - more dense than many rural constituencies in the flatlands. They're in Bickenhill |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Dec 12, 2023 10:29:25 GMT
Not really a secret ballot is it! Well, it certainly does make the fact of whether or not the single elector in the polling district voted into public knowledge. It also means that if it is not public knowledge that the elector opted out of having their information appear in the full register, then their name and address will be public knowledge. However, provided that the count is carried out according to regulations, then unless the handling of that ballot box and/or its content becomes a question in subsequent legal proceedings, the only people, apart from the elector themself, who should have any chance of knowing who that elector voted for are electoral staff who are legally forbidden to divulge that knowledge to any third party (the first and second parties in this instance being the elector themself and the electoral staff). Because the only time during the count at which the ballot paper's polling district should be individually distinguishable is during the verification stage - after that time, the count must be conducted in such a way as to make the vote indistinguishable from any other votes cast in its ward. (On a final technical point: I understand that it would in general be legal to count the votes from an individual ballot box separately, should that be the most convenient legally acceptable method of conducting a count, and even to publish the result for that ballot box separately - but that, where the number of eligible electors in any polling district or larger area is below a certain threshold (somewhere, I believe, in double figures), then such a separate count is no longer legally acceptable unless the votes concerned amount to all votes cast in that particular contest.) |
|
|
|
Post by greyfriar on Dec 12, 2023 11:00:47 GMT
Ideally the sole resident would be a psephology geek lamenting the loss of electoral heritage which came with the demise of rotten boroughs.
|
|
