What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
Oh you did. Casually chucked in some past warm episodes just to muddy the waters. It's what you do, you cheeky "consultant geologist" you. Warming->greenhouse gases in the past, that was one of yours before you moved on wasn't it?
You don't really want to talk about aerosols though do you, you just want to sound credible enough to seed doubt to any casual reader.
Ipcc, pressure group, lol.
You see this is what you do and why you look so foolish. I link to peer reviewed papers and explain the basics of the subject whilst you make fatuous comments which have no relevance to the argument. It is no wonder you are not taken seriously.
What I said is that my speciality was Bronze Age and Roman Warm periods. I made no reference at all to grapes because they are irrelevant. Its all about rocks and soils with a bit of tree rings and large numbers of dead snail thrown in. Geology remember, not oenology.
Groan. No Richard, I linked to thousands of peer reviewed papers explaining the basics, and you called them a pressure group.
And on we drone...
You do know the IPCC have had to remove portions of their reports several times after they have some items have been found to be nothing more than regurgitated propaganda from Greenpeace?
That on more than one occasion scientists whose work has been quoted have been felt impelled to rebut the IPCC interpretation of their work?
Andrew Neil suggesting the only important thing about the by election is shether Ukip have beaten the Tories into 2nd???
So how well the Labour vote holds up and whether the Lib Dems keep their deposit don't really matter. Neil showing his impartial credentials there.
It's not as if it was gong to get wall to wall coverage anyway with the floods and storms completely dominating the news. I suspect a good many westminster journos would like to have their copy written right now with a quick and easy summary. Safe labour hold just isn't interesting while there is at least a little interest in second/third place and just how badly the lib dems did. That should give them enough to go on. If the result fits then the narrative of the kippers going off the boil will be pushed by tory friendly journos like Neil for obvious reasons.
What's the point of that? Do you want me to say "no, you're the one that's discredited!"
Tell me again about the grapes Roman Britain Mr "consultant geologist" who knows is stuff and isn't at all a professional obfuscator, not at all.
Here's some science babe x
www.ipcc.ch
Hmm. Two nights ago I linked to a series of peer reviewed papers outlining some of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms that are believed to influence climate change. This was as a result of you showing you had no idea what the concept of climate forcing meant (a concept by the way that is valid whichever side of the AGW argument you are on.)
Your response is to link to a political pressure group and try and claim it is science.
Have you actually found out what feedback mechanisms do yet Hugh? Or are you still blindly relying on your internet research abilities to talk your way out of this?
By the way the whole Roman grapes argument is meaningless in climate science and of course I have never at any time mentioned them. Clever trick but it failed.
Oh you did. Casually chucked in some past warm episodes just to muddy the waters. It's what you do, you cheeky "consultant geologist" you. Warming->greenhouse gases in the past, that was one of yours before you moved on wasn't it?
You don't really want to talk about aerosols though do you, you just want to sound credible enough to seed doubt to any casual reader.
Ipcc, pressure group, lol.
You see this is what you do and why you look so foolish. I link to peer reviewed papers and explain the basics of the subject whilst you make fatuous comments which have no relevance to the argument. It is no wonder you are not taken seriously.
What I said is that my speciality was Bronze Age and Roman Warm periods. I made no reference at all to grapes because they are irrelevant. Its all about rocks and soils with a bit of tree rings and large numbers of dead snail thrown in. Geology remember, not oenology.
Groan. No Richard, I linked to thousands of peer reviewed papers explaining the basics, and you called them a pressure group.
And on we drone...
Actually you didn't. You linked to a political interpretation of science. It is sad that you do not now the difference.
Moderators, for my own good can you ban me from interacting with this geologist climate denying professional obfuscator?
It's clogging up the thread but strangely irresistable.
Lost the argument so throwing in the towel....need I say any more.
Good night, and good night on the AGW nonsense - a disgrace to the scientific method.
Try to synthesise thousands of peer reviewed papers from across the globe into one report that is so simple it could even be read by a geologist and that will happen.
The IPCC is a political organ of the green lobby nothing more. The fact you do not realise that shows us the credibility of your scientific knowledge.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
He's not an "expert".
He is though very intelligent and knows where the waters can be muddied if the layman is listening, as all the best professional climate science obfuscators are.
Do they send them to school somewhere in Russia or Dubai or something to teach them how to do this? It's impressive.
University College Cardiff. 1983 -1986. Geology and Archaeology
As I said, not an expert.
"University of Nether Wallop, Art and Drama, 1991-1989. Take that!"
Who knows who you are Hugh? Frankly who cares? Like so many other scientific illiterates on here you can claim what you like because you are anonymous. Of course the difference between us is that I post under my own name because I have nothing to hide. Everything I say on here can be checked and certainly there are a fair few on here who have a reasonable knowledge of my background.
You on the other hand are just another internet warrior with a desperately poor grasp of climate science (even of the bits you are supposedly agreeing with)
Andrew Neil suggesting the only important thing about the by election is shether Ukip have beaten the Tories into 2nd???
So how well the Labour vote holds up and whether the Lib Dems keep their deposit don't really matter. Neil showing his impartial credentials there.
It's not as if it was gong to get wall to wall coverage anyway with the floods and storms completely dominating the news. I suspect a good many westminster journos would like to have their copy written right now with a quick and easy summary. Safe labour hold just isn't interesting while there is at least a little interest in second/third place and just how badly the lib dems did. That should give them enough to go on. If the result fits then the narrative of the kippers going off the boil will be pushed by tory friendly journos like Neil for obvious reasons.
When it comes to by elections people are generally interested in who's one and what placing everyone is. However more important to the national picture is the respective vote shares and how they've changed since the election.
He wasn't interested in the Somerset farmers being flooded, he wasn't interested in the Yorkshire floods of 2007 but now he's very much concerned with apparantly unlimited money available when the stockbroker belt is affected.
But to be even handed the Labour government didn't give a toss about the Yorkshire floods of 2007 either and Cameron preferred to go on a mud hut building photostunt when his own constituency was flooded that year.
It will though add to the image that the political establishment is only interested in issues if London is affected.
Your prejudice against Cameron knows no bounds. If anything, I'd say he and the government (and the media) have, at least until the last few days, rather neglected the flood victims of Berkshire, Surrey and Kent compared with those (a much smaller number) hit in the Somerset Levels.
LOL
YOUR prejudice for Cameron knows no bounds.
Which as you're no fool is blinding you to what the visuals look like.
Its only been the last few days when the focus has been on the stockbroker belt.
And its only now that Cameron starts promising money.
Now it doesn't matter whether those two things are connected because what it looks like is Cameron only being concerned when the stockbroker belt is affected.
Now whether that's true or not the bottom line is that the visuals are not good for Cameron.
ar
It is not a North-South battle.
1. When a natural crisis impacts many people over a long time and the media focus on the story to the exclusion of other news, then it reaches a critical mass which forces politicians to act and be seen to act. The build up to critical mass may be a single explosive event (say, Dunblane in 1997) or a slow build up (say, the outbreak of foot and mouth in Surrey in 2007). This could happen anywhere and draws politicians of all colours to the area affected regardless of its political affiliation or economic importance..
2. The "money is no object" is a standard response in crisis management. The commitment should not be taken literally. It is designed to reassure the suffering that all resources are being applied to resolving their problem and to unbind the solution providers, temporarily, from pre-established budgetary and other organisational constraints.
Floods forced my Wythenshawe by-election report off #c4news tonight, so you can watch it here online instead http://bit.ly/1gsXzwr
Crick muckraking at its finest!
Muckraking?? That's a standard crick by-election piece. Give them all coverage but with in a cheeky tweak to their noses and add in plenty of local colour. Little point having a few fawning set-piece interviews with the candidates. What's the point of that?
The Hamiltons were the most amusing by far. Their icy silence was hilarious.
He wasn't interested in the Somerset farmers being flooded, he wasn't interested in the Yorkshire floods of 2007 but now he's very much concerned with apparantly unlimited money available when the stockbroker belt is affected.
But to be even handed the Labour government didn't give a toss about the Yorkshire floods of 2007 either and Cameron preferred to go on a mud hut building photostunt when his own constituency was flooded that year.
It will though add to the image that the political establishment is only interested in issues if London is affected.
Your prejudice against Cameron knows no bounds. If anything, I'd say he and the government (and the media) have, at least until the last few days, rather neglected the flood victims of Berkshire, Surrey and Kent compared with those (a much smaller number) hit in the Somerset Levels.
LOL
YOUR prejudice for Cameron knows no bounds.
Which as you're no fool is blinding you to what the visuals look like.
Its only been the last few days when the focus has been on the stockbroker belt.
And its only now that Cameron starts promising money.
Now it doesn't matter whether those two things are connected because what it looks like is Cameron only being concerned when the stockbroker belt is affected.
Now whether that's true or not the bottom line is that the visuals are not good for Cameron.
ar
It is not a North-South battle.
1. When a natural crisis impacts many people over a long time and the media focus on the story to the exclusion of other news, then it reaches a critical mass which forces politicians to act and be seen to act. The build up to critical mass may be a single explosive event (say, Dunblane in 1997) or a slow build up (say, the outbreak of foot and mouth in Surrey in 2007). This could happen anywhere and draws politicians of all colours to the area affected regardless of its political affiliation or economic importance..
2. The "money is no object" is a standard response in crisis management. The commitment should not be taken literally. It is designed to reassure the suffering that all resources are being applied to resolving their problem and to unbind the solution providers, temporarily, from pre-established budgetary and other organisational constraints.
Its no good Avery, Cameron has mishandled the visuals and all the long winded explanations in the world wont alter the fact that he needs to be constantly on alert to appearing to favour 'stockbroker belt' / rich / toffs etc.
He wasn't interested in the Somerset farmers being flooded, he wasn't interested in the Yorkshire floods of 2007 but now he's very much concerned with apparantly unlimited money available when the stockbroker belt is affected.
But to be even handed the Labour government didn't give a toss about the Yorkshire floods of 2007 either and Cameron preferred to go on a mud hut building photostunt when his own constituency was flooded that year.
It will though add to the image that the political establishment is only interested in issues if London is affected.
Your prejudice against Cameron knows no bounds. If anything, I'd say he and the government (and the media) have, at least until the last few days, rather neglected the flood victims of Berkshire, Surrey and Kent compared with those (a much smaller number) hit in the Somerset Levels.
LOL
YOUR prejudice for Cameron knows no bounds.
Which as you're no fool is blinding you to what the visuals look like.
Its only been the last few days when the focus has been on the stockbroker belt.
And its only now that Cameron starts promising money.
Now it doesn't matter whether those two things are connected because what it looks like is Cameron only being concerned when the stockbroker belt is affected.
Now whether that's true or not the bottom line is that the visuals are not good for Cameron.
ar
It is not a North-South battle.
1. When a natural crisis impacts many people over a long time and the media focus on the story to the exclusion of other news, then it reaches a critical mass which forces politicians to act and be seen to act. The build up to critical mass may be a single explosive event (say, Dunblane in 1997) or a slow build up (say, the outbreak of foot and mouth in Surrey in 2007). This could happen anywhere and draws politicians of all colours to the area affected regardless of its political affiliation or economic importance..
2. The "money is no object" is a standard response in crisis management. The commitment should not be taken literally. It is designed to reassure the suffering that all resources are being applied to resolving their problem and to unbind the solution providers, temporarily, from pre-established budgetary and other organisational constraints.
Its no good Avery, Cameron has mishandled the visuals and all the long winded explanations in the world wont alter the fact that he needs to be constantly on alert to appearing to favour 'stockbroker belt' / rich / toffs etc.
On another subject, have you checked your 'vanilla system' PMs recently?
How is turnout calculated? (In particular how is it calculated so much earlier than the count?)
The first stage of the count is the "verification stage" at which the total number of votes is counted (separately for each ballot box) to make sure that the number of votes is the same as the number issued in the polling stations. In other words, it's a check against fraudulent insertion of extra votes after the polling has finished. That produces a turnout figure.
Then, the ballot papers are mixed up and sorted according to candidate, then bundled and counted per candidate.
The verification stage is when the agents and observers from the main parties do their tallying because that is when they can get a good idea of how voting has gone in each area, and they can compare that with their canvassing records.
the verification stage is done separately for each ballot box, but then the law saus that the votes must be mixed up so that it is not possible to get sub-totals of the actual result for the candidates in particular areas.
01.04: Labour believe that the Lib Dems are on 4.99% of the vote at present. That means they’d lose their deposit. Bur guess what, the yellows may try to prolong the process by calling for a deposit to save their dignity deposit.
The UK is the only country I know of where a detailed breakdown of how each area voted is not allowed. Whoever changes the law on that deserves a Nobel Prize IMO. The amount of time spent by anoraks trying to work out how each area might have voted is enormous.
01.04: Labour believe that the Lib Dems are on 4.99% of the vote at present. That means they’d lose their deposit. Bur guess what, the yellows may try to prolong the process by calling for a deposit to save their dignity deposit.
01.04: Labour believe that the Lib Dems are on 4.99% of the vote at present. That means they’d lose their deposit. Bur guess what, the yellows may try to prolong the process by calling for a deposit to save their dignity deposit.
Andrew Neil suggesting the only important thing about the by election is shether Ukip have beaten the Tories into 2nd???
So how well the Labour vote holds up and whether the Lib Dems keep their deposit don't really matter. Neil showing his impartial credentials there.
It's not as if it was gong to get wall to wall coverage anyway with the floods and storms completely dominating the news. I suspect a good many westminster journos would like to have their copy written right now with a quick and easy summary. Safe labour hold just isn't interesting while there is at least a little interest in second/third place and just how badly the lib dems did. That should give them enough to go on. If the result fits then the narrative of the kippers going off the boil will be pushed by tory friendly journos like Neil for obvious reasons.
When it comes to by elections people are generally interested in who's one and what placing everyone is. However more important to the national picture is the respective vote shares and how they've changed since the election.
I don't disagree but after you get the raw numbers in a report it's all about the narrative and who's up or down viewed through current expectations. Put bluntly they want someone to poke hard with a stick and someone for them to say 'didn't they do well'? Easy to understand, easy to package and none of that boring complexity of a nuanced result. Clear winners and clear losers.
I would put serious money that Richard on this forum has stayed well clear of all such scientific papers and reviews of papers on the subject, instead offering his amateur opinions on a discussion forum in the belief that his opinions are of equal value to those peer reviewed theories from those with expert knowledge in a subject.
If you're referring to Richard Tyndall, then I would recommend that you keep your serious money in your bank account.
I've had many strong disagreements with Richard, but on this matter he knows his stuff. Experts can and do disagree, of course, so I'm not saying he's necessarily right, but he does speak with some good knowledge.
He's not an "expert".
He is though very intelligent and knows where the waters can be muddied if the layman is listening, as all the best professional climate science obfuscators are.
Do they send them to school somewhere in Russia or Dubai or something to teach them how to do this? It's impressive.
University College Cardiff. 1983 -1986. Geology and Archaeology
As I said, not an expert.
"University of Nether Wallop, Art and Drama, 1991-1989. Take that!"
Who knows who you are Hugh? Frankly who cares? Like so many other scientific illiterates on here you can claim what you like because you are anonymous. Of course the difference between us is that I post under my own name because I have nothing to hide. Everything I say on here can be checked and certainly there are a fair few on here who have a reasonable knowledge of my background.
You on the other hand are just another internet warrior with a desperately poor grasp of climate science (even of the bits you are supposedly agreeing with)
You're anonymous to me, chum.
All I know is that you are a geologist (consultant - in what industry I can only guess) and a practiced climate science obfuscator.
I invited you to dazzle us with your aerosol theories, but you declined.
Perhaps stick to "global warming has stopped" as your myth du jour, your audience seem to be lapping that one up at the moment after so many others have been trashed.
I may be anonymous to you Hugh but that is only because you indulge in willful ignorance as the only way to maintain your delusions. It is telling that the more apparent your lack of knowledge of climate science has become the more you have resorted to attempts to discredit those who have highlighted your shortcomings.
There is no other way of putting it: UKIP need to man up when it comes to fighting elections. Labour have done nothing wrong. It is just sore losing from a party that has been handed a lesson in campaigning.
He wasnt factually wrong, he had a point of sorts but of course the campaign started before it became official so 3 days is overstating his case. Perhaps a minimum length of campaign / maximum time to leave a seat open could be legislated for but actually this is a nothing issue that he's using to avoid talking about the result.
Make of this what you will... If ukip only just scrape second and the lib dems lose their deposit, the headlines on here will be about how bad ukip did
And I offered 5/6 under 10.5 ld % and no one took it
Yes this campaign was short. But Labour often "goes long" on by elections. The reality is it is defined by how much on a base we already have established. Just the same as the Lib Dems did in Eastleigh and the Tories would as well.
Farage is just whining cos his party has been handed a lesson in campaigning.
Make of this what you will... If ukip only just scrape second and the lib dems lose their deposit, the headlines on here will be about how bad ukip did
And I offered 5/6 under 10.5 ld % and no one took it
I considered taking it but plumped for Tory overs instead. Then that poll came out.
If you offer to cover their deposit between you they might drop the demand for a recount and let us have the result!
Of course it's actually more of a prestige thing, strange as that may sound.
The one thing all of their canvassers will have been hoping to do is get 5% +1 vote and if they're a handful below that they're not going to keep quiet about it.
#LabourGroundGame has really shown tonight that - and this is not always the case - when it is deployed it can see off UKIP in its safe seats. I can't say the same for the Tories....
#LabourGroundGame has really shown tonight that - and this is not always the case - when it is deployed it can see off UKIP in its safe seats. I can't say the same for the Tories....
How long does it take to recount the Lib Dem votes?
Five minutes at the most I guess.
The recounts in Croydon Central in 2005 took about 75 minutes each. A recount in circumstances like this would be about 30 to 60 minutes. They do not, of course, re-count "only" the Lib Dem votes.
I am not getting carried away. But I am sure that UKIP hardly set Rotherham and South Shields alight in the 2010 election. We have gone away and worked on dealing with them. Indeed that work will still need to be done. But tonight it looks like we have developed a set of winning tactics to deal with UKIP.
And that is the really positive thing Labour can take from tonight.
How long does it take to recount the Lib Dem votes?
Five minutes at the most I guess.
The recounts in Croydon Central in 2005 took about 75 minutes each. A recount in circumstances like this would be about 30 to 60 minutes. They do not, of course, re-count "only" the Lib Dem votes.
If I were the Returning Officer, I would offer the Lib Dems a 10% discount rather than incur the added marginal costs of keeping the count going for another hour.
It is time the election count process was privatised, Mr. Loony.
Twitter Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk 21m Farage coming across as a rather desperate sore loser on Sky News. Not the avuncular Farage the public usually see. Bitter stuff
Sunder Katwala @sundersays 21m Lucy Powell:'we work all year round; u can't just fly in+have a pint'. Farage: 'I've been on benders that lasted longer than this campaign'
I'd be genuinely happy if Labour had found a way to deal with UKIP, on most main issues their views are pretty much the opposite of mine (except Europe ironically enough), but I cant see that this result is proof of your claim. It was always going to be a tough area for them, that's been stated here plenty of times since the start of the campaign. Have they really done that much worse than they would have after a different type of Labour campaign?
I am not getting carried away. But I am sure that UKIP hardly set Rotherham and South Shields alight in the 2010 election. We have gone away and worked on dealing with them. Indeed that work will still need to be done. But tonight it looks like we have developed a set of winning tactics to deal with UKIP.
And that is the really positive thing Labour can take from tonight.
Let's wait for the swings, IOS.
If Labour can't improve their share of the vote with a grab and run by election in a rock solid Manchester seat a year and bit off a general election, then there will be no hope for Miliband in 2015.
Absolutely right that tonight in and off itself doesn't mean we can "deal with ukip" This just shows the right direction. We have to keep moving that way.
Also I actually quite UKIP causing low level to moderate problems in safe Labour seats. Should make those safe Labour areas work that bit harder.
Totally o/t but have you been doing any work in our constituency at all? Any feel from the doorsteps on whether attitudes to Simon have changed significantly since the last GE or whether he might get more of a tactical Tory vote to give him a chance of holding on (you may have missed Iain Dale's prediction that he's a dead cert to win!).
I am not getting carried away. But I am sure that UKIP hardly set Rotherham and South Shields alight in the 2010 election. We have gone away and worked on dealing with them. Indeed that work will still need to be done. But tonight it looks like we have developed a set of winning tactics to deal with UKIP.
And that is the really positive thing Labour can take from tonight.
Let's wait for the swings, IOS.
If Labour can't improve their share of the vote with a grab and run by election in a rock solid Manchester seat a year and bit off a general election, then there will be no hope for Miliband in 2015.
An 11% increase is quite good, not brilliant, but will be good enough to keep the troops in good heart.
Comments
Well, we all know there is a bad smell when you lift the lid on the sewer that is Labour
You do know the IPCC have had to remove portions of their reports several times after they have some items have been found to be nothing more than regurgitated propaganda from Greenpeace?
That on more than one occasion scientists whose work has been quoted have been felt impelled to rebut the IPCC interpretation of their work?
Did they do it at the count?? That's why it's so funny.
I love spread betting
Good night, and good night on the AGW nonsense - a disgrace to the scientific method.
The IPCC is a political organ of the green lobby nothing more. The fact you do not realise that shows us the credibility of your scientific knowledge.
You on the other hand are just another internet warrior with a desperately poor grasp of climate science (even of the bits you are supposedly agreeing with)
It is not a North-South battle.
1. When a natural crisis impacts many people over a long time and the media focus on the story to the exclusion of other news, then it reaches a critical mass which forces politicians to act and be seen to act. The build up to critical mass may be a single explosive event (say, Dunblane in 1997) or a slow build up (say, the outbreak of foot and mouth in Surrey in 2007). This could happen anywhere and draws politicians of all colours to the area affected regardless of its political affiliation or economic importance..
2. The "money is no object" is a standard response in crisis management. The commitment should not be taken literally. It is designed to reassure the suffering that all resources are being applied to resolving their problem and to unbind the solution providers, temporarily, from pre-established budgetary and other organisational constraints.
Muckraking?? That's a standard crick by-election piece. Give them all coverage but with in a cheeky tweak to their noses and add in plenty of local colour. Little point having a few fawning set-piece interviews with the candidates. What's the point of that?
The Hamiltons were the most amusing by far. Their icy silence was hilarious.
Until about 10 years ago I'm sure the media used to report the electorate figure a few days before the election but they don't seem to bother now.
They count how many votes have been cast first, before allocating them to different parties.
So 24,024 votes gives a turnout of 28.24%.
Then, the ballot papers are mixed up and sorted according to candidate, then bundled and counted per candidate.
The verification stage is when the agents and observers from the main parties do their tallying because that is when they can get a good idea of how voting has gone in each area, and they can compare that with their canvassing records.
the verification stage is done separately for each ballot box, but then the law saus that the votes must be mixed up so that it is not possible to get sub-totals of the actual result for the candidates in particular areas.
01.04: Labour believe that the Lib Dems are on 4.99% of the vote at present. That means they’d lose their deposit. Bur guess what, the yellows may try to prolong the process by calling for a deposit to save their dignity deposit.
Jack @imjackyeah 1m
Conservatives claiming their second. #Wythenshawe
My other spread bet could be winner.
Apathy 428
Tory 168
LD 27
Lab 16
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/apathy-biggest-party-manchester-elections-6705898
Sky news! Farage is getting destroyed by Lucy Powell!
#LabourGroundGame
I liked the part when he said "yes I am sure there are lots of local Labour Councillors who work hard here all year round."
I liked the bit where he said he'd been on benders that lasted longer than this campaign.
Yeah that was a good line. He is factually wrong though. Labour often waits a long time before we call an election.
Lucy Powell:'we work all year round; u can't just fly in+have a pint'.
Farage: 'I've been on benders that lasted longer than this campaign
If you offer to cover their deposit between you they might drop the demand for a recount and let us have the result!
He wasnt factually wrong, he had a point of sorts but of course the campaign started before it became official so 3 days is overstating his case. Perhaps a minimum length of campaign / maximum time to leave a seat open could be legislated for but actually this is a nothing issue that he's using to avoid talking about the result.
And I offered 5/6 under 10.5 ld % and no one took it
Yes this campaign was short. But Labour often "goes long" on by elections. The reality is it is defined by how much on a base we already have established. Just the same as the Lib Dems did in Eastleigh and the Tories would as well.
Farage is just whining cos his party has been handed a lesson in campaigning.
The one thing all of their canvassers will have been hoping to do is get 5% +1 vote and if they're a handful below that they're not going to keep quiet about it.
You beat a party who lost their deposit here last time, dont get too carried away, it's not a landslide of Cornish proportions.
What is it with Lib Dem donors and legal issues?
Five minutes at the most I guess.
Now I know why it is the government services sector which accounts for the greatest proportion of recent falls in productivity.
Already corrected for grammar ;-)
I am not getting carried away. But I am sure that UKIP hardly set Rotherham and South Shields alight in the 2010 election. We have gone away and worked on dealing with them. Indeed that work will still need to be done. But tonight it looks like we have developed a set of winning tactics to deal with UKIP.
And that is the really positive thing Labour can take from tonight.
It is time the election count process was privatised, Mr. Loony.
Mark Ferguson @Markfergusonuk 21m
Farage coming across as a rather desperate sore loser on Sky News. Not the avuncular Farage the public usually see. Bitter stuff
Sunder Katwala @sundersays 21m
Lucy Powell:'we work all year round; u can't just fly in+have a pint'. Farage: 'I've been on benders that lasted longer than this campaign'
20 Ukip
13 Tory
5 Chortle ...or as close to damn it
I'd be genuinely happy if Labour had found a way to deal with UKIP, on most main issues their views are pretty much the opposite of mine (except Europe ironically enough), but I cant see that this result is proof of your claim. It was always going to be a tough area for them, that's been stated here plenty of times since the start of the campaign. Have they really done that much worse than they would have after a different type of Labour campaign?
If Labour can't improve their share of the vote with a grab and run by election in a rock solid Manchester seat a year and bit off a general election, then there will be no hope for Miliband in 2015.
Absolutely right that tonight in and off itself doesn't mean we can "deal with ukip" This just shows the right direction. We have to keep moving that way.
Also I actually quite UKIP causing low level to moderate problems in safe Labour seats. Should make those safe Labour areas work that bit harder.
Totally o/t but have you been doing any work in our constituency at all? Any feel from the doorsteps on whether attitudes to Simon have changed significantly since the last GE or whether he might get more of a tactical Tory vote to give him a chance of holding on (you may have missed Iain Dale's prediction that he's a dead cert to win!).
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps6WUTwSYsM&