Sleaford & North Hykeham

[Sibboleth]

Well that was worth everyone's time.

[greenhert]

Best ever parliamentary result from the Lincolnshire Independents, on a curious note (8.8%, despite coming 5th).

Disappointed about Sarah Stock's performance (just 462 votes).

[cj]

Dec 9, 2016 3:14:41 GMT Sibboleth said:

Well that was worth everyone's time.

For the RO's hat alone surely

[Andrew_S]

Labour only 471 votes from fifth place.

[Sibboleth]

Told you all not to listen to early rumours from rural counts.

[iain]

+5.3% - Lib Dem
+3.6% - Lincs Ind
-2.2% - UKIP
-2.8% - Conservative
-7.1% - Labour

[Andrew_S]

Dec 9, 2016 3:14:39 GMT neilm said:

Better than I expected for Labour.

You must have had low expectations for them.

[justin124]

A poor result for UKIP who have lost votes - down over 2%.

[Andrew_S]

Tory votes:

Sleaford by-election: 17,517
Newark by-election: 17,431

[iain]

Dec 9, 2016 3:25:28 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

I think that this is a pretty spectacular result for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Good, yes. Spectacular, not really.

It is, though, extremely poor for Labour. While the points around lack of organisation and effort are true, they should not be losing any voteshare at all, let alone 7%, as the main opposition in a pretty much uncontested by-election.

[johnloony]

On first hearing (on Sky) I wrote down 4486, 86, 17517, making a total of 32741, 43 spoilt, and therefore a discrepancy of 109.
On checking on BBC i-player, I got 4426, 186, 17517, making 32781, but still a discrepancy of 69.
Have the numbers been confirmed? If it's 4486 then it would be a discrepancy of only 9.

Edit:
The result is not yet on the North Kesteven District Council website, but there is a photo f the result on its Facebook page, which shows the numbers as
4426, 186, 17570 and thus a total of 32834 and discrepancy of 16

www.facebook.com/northkestevendc/photos/a.826767864028812.1073741828.816965028342429/1243206472384947/?type=3

[johnloony]

8.8% of the votes for the Lincolnshire Independents candidate is the 2nd highest ever share of the vote for a candidate in 5th place in a parliamentary by-election in the UK, certainly since 1918 and probably since 1832. The highest was 9.7% for the Green Party in Norwich North in 2009. The next highest I could find were 7.1% for the SSP in Glasgow Anniesland in 2000, 6.6% for Independent Conservative in Dartford in 1920, and 5.2% for Plaid Cymru in Swansa East in 1963.

[Pimpernal]

Dec 9, 2016 3:15:42 GMT greenhert said:

Best ever parliamentary result from the Lincolnshire Independents, on a curious note (8.8%, despite coming 5th).

Yes, I did wonder if they'd beat Labour actually... the betting indicated it would be close.

Frankly a dreadful result for UKIP - thankfully hidden by the fact it's even worse for Labour.

[froome]

Dec 9, 2016 3:15:42 GMT greenhert said:

Best ever parliamentary result from the Lincolnshire Independents, on a curious note (8.8%, despite coming 5th).

Disappointed about Sarah Stock's performance (just 462 votes).

Yes, despite not living up to my prediction, it is a very good result for the Lincs Indies, and particularly for Marianne Overton, who undoubtedly has quite a personal vote in many of the villages. A by-election would normally see the main parties focus their resources and squeeze any votes from Independents or minor parties, so increasing her percentage by 3% is impressive. But it does show that close-knit rural communities are more resilient to by-election campaigning.

[Deleted]

Only party who will be celebrating tonight is the conservatives. Can the Conservative candidate say this is a result which signals the people have overwhelming vote for Mrs May's brexit plan? Or is that a Lib Dem trait to make ridiculous statements?

[maxque]

Dec 9, 2016 7:47:25 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

Dec 9, 2016 0:56:46 GMT Sibboleth said:

Labour have no effective organisation at all in the constituency, barely even running candidates in district elections.

It is this kind if statement.......that makes me want to move there

Well, it applies to all parties, but Conservatives.

If you like single-party areas where the same people are running things since decades....

[Deleted]

[Deleted]

Sheesh that ain't good for Labour, admittedly on what wouldn't be fertile territory.

Corbynism ain't working.

[carlton43]

Dec 9, 2016 3:25:28 GMT ntyuk1707 said:

I think that this is a pretty spectacular result for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

That is a quite excellent Conservative result in votes and percentage for a party on the defence, in the glare of Brexit and over 6-years into their administration.

It is a very poor result for Labour by position but the numbers for all three followers are low and close.

It is poor for the LDs after the excitement and expectations of RP. They have been second here and are not that far 'on the move' if can't beat UKIP.

It is far from good for UKIP except in placing. Second is always good but those numbers are not. Lost share. But after a torrid time I am quite pleased.

The Conservatives a clear 1st with well over 50%. The UKIP 2nd and not much loss of percentage despite all. LDs stalled a bit. Labour forced 4th.

Happy with that but glad I went to bed as not worth stayng up for. 

[carlton43]

Dec 9, 2016 3:31:08 GMT Andrew_S said:

Tory votes:

Sleaford by-election: 17,517
Newark by-election: 17,431

Same sort of safe and rather stolid seat in the east.