The full recount in Coventry (and perhaps others will follow?) makes the WM a bit less of a sure thing than the Betfair odds of 1.05 for Labour suggest. Probably worth laying a few quid.
Really?
How often do recounts change results?
Doesn't it depend on if the full recount is a result of huge bundling error from the bundle check? And we dont know for sure how close it is. One assumes very for the RO to permit a full recount
I'm just talking statistically: I don't remember a single time a recount has resulted in an election result changing, although there was a time when it was withing 10 votes, and along the recounts there was one showing a different result.
You're taking 20-1, for something which is probably a 200-1 shot. Maybe more. Unless you're sitting on a massive profits and need the liquidity, it simply doesn't look value.
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Indeed. It isn't at all difficult to give a short, magnanimous concession speech. It's the right thing to do, and doing otherwise makes you look dreadful.
I only caught a bit of the speech and it was her giving a campaign pitch about knife crime. You're at the count Sue, you've already lost. You're not going to win more votes.
She said Sadiq must try harder and then said he owed it to the families of all of those killed by knives, implying he caused their deaths. She is a disgrace.
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Yes, because there are 100 000 or so people remortgaging every month.
And decent numbers of Brexit crusties dying off each month, too.
Brexit is becoming normalised, though.
Even on here it's nothing like as heated as it used to be.
That’s because it’s pretty much universally understood as a dismal failure.
In any case, the wider point is that each month the demographics get worse for the Tories.
The essence of democracy is that people change their mind. You come up with a great retail offer, and a plan, you explain it clearly, you get votes.
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
Interesting. My bro' was very annoyed about it but has come round. Now thinks it’s necessary and that cleaning up our cities is the right thing to do.
Some people were slightly annoyed for a few days and then the world didn't collapse and life carried on.
It has been massively overstated as a problem. Just as "London hates Khan" has been.
The Tories no longer understand London, or Londoners. They don't understand what they vote for, or why they vote. They tried to fix the electoral system and failed rather than choosing a decent candidate.
If they'd have chosen Rory Stewart they'd have walked it.
No, if Andy Street isn't walking even the West Midlands, Stewart certainly would't have won London either in the current climate
Tend to agree, though I suspect it would have been a closer-run thing.
Hall does seem like a disastrously bad candidate to me so it says a lot of about the relatively firmness of the London Con vote that she actually didn’t do terribly - roughly a third is not a collapse. Stewart might have added another 5-6% from DNVs, soft Labs and LDs.
If Labour win the West Midlands with the independent taking a huge amount of votes from Labour in Birmingham then it shows just how badly the Tories have done . It’s also a warning to Labour re the Muslim vote .
Recount won't 'materially change' Andy Street's numbers in West Midlands, Labour sources say Labour sources have suggested a recount in Coventry isn't going to "change materially" Tory incumbent Andy Street's numbers in the West Midlands mayoral race, Sky News political editor Beth Rigby says. A full recount has been ordered in the Coventry borough, with the race currently "too close to call". Beth, who is in Birmingham, says that while the result is on a "knife edge," there is hope in the Labour camp that Richard Parker could have edged the race. She says there will be a "massive upset" if Mr Street loses the mayoralty, with one former cabinet minister telling her it would be "devastating". Beth adds that there is chatter within the Conservative Party that if Mr Street does lose, he may be offered a parliamentary constituency, however, that remains "speculative". A short time ago, Labour sources told Sky News a recount was requested by Mr Street's team.
3000 votes isn’t close in terms of errors, unless there’s been some sort of massive mistake like a missing pile. So I don’t think reflects very well on the Street team.
3000 votes is close in terms of such a large area. It is the equivalent of 150 votes in a single parliamentary constituency. Such a margin would be likely to generate a Full Recount. Were this partial recount to change the overall result, I suspect a Full Recount would have to be ordered across all boroughs there.
Yes I was saying it’s close in % terms but in raw terms a recount is surely not very likely to make a material difference. It would have to be some monumental error.
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Indeed. It isn't at all difficult to give a short, magnanimous concession speech. It's the right thing to do, and doing otherwise makes you look dreadful.
I only caught a bit of the speech and it was her giving a campaign pitch about knife crime. You're at the count Sue, you've already lost. You're not going to win more votes.
She said Sadiq must try harder and then said he owed it to the families of all of those killed by knives, implying he caused their deaths. She is a disgrace.
It's not too egregious in terms of things she's said previously, it's pretty common to link your opponent to a perceived weakness personally. What I don't get is why she's doing it in a concession speech. It's not going to win her votes and it's going to lose her some friends. It's spiteful and stupid.
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
Yes it is. For general elections the maximum mean absolute error acceptable before we declare a polling error is (around) 3%. Now a single error is an absolute error not a mean absolute error, so you'd have to look at the other parties as well. But facially 9% is too big. Which makes me think something is wrong with YouGovs panel, turnout model, or both.
Their last poll was 47 25, 11% out, 3 and change% high on Khan and nearly 8% low on Hall. Garbage really, we all did much better with straws in the wind. Once all assembly results are in they can also be compared as were polled also
The blue team that matters won bigly today. Just interrupting my end of 22 years of hurt bender to point that out. Now a season of VAR heartbreak and tonkings by petroleum backed riches awaits. But I’m enjoying today for a number of reasons.
A question for our polling experts. Everyone was rightly saying that if Khan lost it would be the biggest failure of polling practically ever. He won but with an 11% margin rather than the 20% margins that were being predicted.
Is this still a big polling error? 9% out seems big to me but not sure if that is just my perception.
Yes it is. For general elections the maximum mean absolute error acceptable before we declare a polling error is (around) 3%. Now a single error is an absolute error not a mean absolute error, so you'd have to look at the other parties as well. But facially 9% is too big. Which makes me think something is wrong with YouGovs panel, turnout model, or both.
Yes, the evidence from these local elections is that the pollsters giving Labour 20% to 25% polling leads are overstating Lab by quite a lot.
The pollsters that have Labour around 10% to 15% ahead are probably there or thereabouts.
So it looks like the Tories can’t even play the expectation management game properly now….
They said losing over 500 council seats would be the worst result for the Tories and avoided that
So avoiding the worse result by a whisker means the expectations were well managed?
Come on, most people will summarise it as losing 500, or about half their seats, it's not really possible to manage for that outcome anyway.
It looks a worse result now than it did 24 hours ago. The later council results were poor for the Tories. Losing 473 seats may be the right side of the catastrophe benchmark of 500, but not by a lot. The LDs and Greens did exceptionally well, which wasn't much commented on yesterday, and the full extent of their success is only now being appreciated. Labour did OK, and for the moment ok is just fine for them.
Now we have the Mayoral results and it turns out that the crumb of comfort they were feeding on is smaller than expected.
It's bad, It's very bad. No spin can be put on it. November looms.
Maybe he really will hang on until 2025. Can it really get any worse?
Yes, because there are 100 000 or so people remortgaging every month.
And decent numbers of Brexit crusties dying off each month, too.
Brexit is becoming normalised, though.
Even on here it's nothing like as heated as it used to be.
That’s because it’s pretty much universally understood as a dismal failure.
In any case, the wider point is that each month the demographics get worse for the Tories.
The essence of democracy is that people change their mind. You come up with a great retail offer, and a plan, you explain it clearly, you get votes.
Great retail offer is code for bribery.
I take it you mean 'bribery' as in letting people keep more of their own money. Whereas increasing public sector pay and pensions isn't bribery, that's just rewarding our plucky public servants.
It's amazing the power of the PB rampers for Susan Hall (you know who you are..), they even persuaded the Sky and BBC politicos to run with it all day.
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
In Outer London, where people drive, Khan's vote didn't increase (except in the wealthy pro green SW), in inner London it did.
His margin in inner London, where you can walk easily or use a bus, taxi or tube and don't need the car, was enough to secure him victory in London overall
As the guy on the BBC carefully explained the result in Bexley was exactly the same as last time so no swing to Hall and in Havering a slight swing to Khan.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
Bob Marshall Andrews and his 'I'm Lazarus' moment wasn't it?
Edit - oops no, he was Medway
I met Bob Marshall Andrews on a train back in the 2000s. Really interesting chat about politics. Seemed an open and decent fellah. Said he was doomed to lose at next GE.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
Bob Marshall Andrews and his 'I'm Lazarus' moment wasn't it?
Edit - oops no, he was Medway
No this was Gordon Henderson (Tory) and Derek Wyatt (Lab). The Bob Marshall-Andrews moment was just down to speculation that turned out to be wrong, not a recount changing the result (although there was a recount).
Recount won't 'materially change' Andy Street's numbers in West Midlands, Labour sources say Labour sources have suggested a recount in Coventry isn't going to "change materially" Tory incumbent Andy Street's numbers in the West Midlands mayoral race, Sky News political editor Beth Rigby says. A full recount has been ordered in the Coventry borough, with the race currently "too close to call". Beth, who is in Birmingham, says that while the result is on a "knife edge," there is hope in the Labour camp that Richard Parker could have edged the race. She says there will be a "massive upset" if Mr Street loses the mayoralty, with one former cabinet minister telling her it would be "devastating". Beth adds that there is chatter within the Conservative Party that if Mr Street does lose, he may be offered a parliamentary constituency, however, that remains "speculative". A short time ago, Labour sources told Sky News a recount was requested by Mr Street's team.
3000 votes isn’t close in terms of errors, unless there’s been some sort of massive mistake like a missing pile. So I don’t think reflects very well on the Street team.
3000 votes is close in terms of such a large area. It is the equivalent of 150 votes in a single parliamentary constituency. Such a margin would be likely to generate a Full Recount. Were this partial recount to change the overall result, I suspect a Full Recount would have to be ordered across all boroughs there.
Is it really the equivalent of 150 votes?
The average winning vote in 2019 was, what, 30,000? Andy Street will have gotten say 250,000 this time around. So, it's more like the equivalent of 300 votes. Yeah, that's super close, but I don't think many (or indeed any) 300 votes parliamentary margins ended up being reversed at recount.
The full recount in Coventry (and perhaps others will follow?) makes the WM a bit less of a sure thing than the Betfair odds of 1.05 for Labour suggest. Probably worth laying a few quid.
It's amazing the power of the PB rampers for Susan Hall (you know who you are..), they even persuaded the Sky and BBC politicos to run with it all day.
A lot of money was available for people cashing out at the right moment thanks to all the gossip. (Didn't include me though).
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
I think the Winchester result in 1997 changed several times before the LDs eventually won by just 2 votes. Somebody (I think the late rpjs of this board) did tell me the detail but I can't remember.
I also think that although returning officers have some discretion, they will normally recount (or at least bundle check) if the result is within 1% but only carry out a second recount if there is a significant change and it's very close (a few tens). And if it's on a knife-edge (like Winchester) normally 2 recounts with the same result settles it.
There may be others who have been agents more recently with better knowledge
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
In Outer London, where people drive, Khan's vote didn't increase (except in the wealthy pro green SW), in inner London it did.
His margin in inner London, where you can walk easily or use a bus, taxi or tube and don't need the car, was enough to secure him victory in London overall
As the guy on the BBC carefully explained the result in Bexley was exactly the same as last time so no swing to Hall and in Havering a slight swing to Khan.
But the comparison should be with UNS. With the Tories getting absolutely mullered across most of the country, no swing/only a small swing to Lab is actually a pretty respectable result for Sue.
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Indeed. It isn't at all difficult to give a short, magnanimous concession speech. It's the right thing to do, and doing otherwise makes you look dreadful.
I only caught a bit of the speech and it was her giving a campaign pitch about knife crime. You're at the count Sue, you've already lost. You're not going to win more votes.
She said Sadiq must try harder and then said he owed it to the families of all of those killed by knives, implying he caused their deaths. She is a disgrace.
It's not too egregious in terms of things she's said previously, it's pretty common to link your opponent to a perceived weakness personally. What I don't get is why she's doing it in a concession speech. It's not going to win her votes and it's going to lose her some friends. It's spiteful and stupid.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
I think the Winchester result in 1997 changed several times before the LDs eventually won by just 2 votes. Somebody (I think the late rpjs of this board) did tell me the detail but I can't remember.
I also think that although returning officers have some discretion, they will normally recount (or at least bundle check) if the result is within 1% but only carry out a second recount if there is a significant change and it's very close (a few tens). And if it's on a knife-edge (like Winchester) normally 2 recounts with the same result settles it.
There may be others who have been agents more recently with better knowledge
Interesting. I had previously thought the LDs were always ahead in Winchester 1997 despite all the recounts.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
In Outer London, where people drive, Khan's vote didn't increase (except in the wealthy pro green SW), in inner London it did.
His margin in inner London, where you can walk easily or use a bus, taxi or tube and don't need the car, was enough to secure him victory in London overall
As the guy on the BBC carefully explained the result in Bexley was exactly the same as last time so no swing to Hall and in Havering a slight swing to Khan.
The full recount in Coventry (and perhaps others will follow?) makes the WM a bit less of a sure thing than the Betfair odds of 1.05 for Labour suggest. Probably worth laying a few quid.
Really?
How often do recounts change results?
They did in one ward in Oxford yesterday, according to Twitter. But that was by a matter of half a dozen votes, not 3000.
My Dad thinks it is within 1000, he is at the Coventry count
Still too much to change though tbh
I'm on a weekend break in the West Mids - the BBC reporter here says the margin was around 2500, but the bundle check in Coventry had presumably turned up a sufficient discrepancy to warrant a full recount there.
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Agree, I actually stopped watching half-way through. It was too political. You don't make policy points on occasions like this, you congratulate the winners and thank the police, etc. Anything else sounds incredibly petty when you've just been defeated.
The full recount in Coventry (and perhaps others will follow?) makes the WM a bit less of a sure thing than the Betfair odds of 1.05 for Labour suggest. Probably worth laying a few quid.
Really?
How often do recounts change results?
I can't think of one case. Maybe Hyufd would know more?
If Gore had asked for a recount of all votes in Florida it might have been different.
Exeter 1910 is the only one I have found so far. And that was a court ordered recount. The original winning margin was 3 votes. This was reversed to a winning margin of 1. Not really sure it has much bearing on this case
Recount won't 'materially change' Andy Street's numbers in West Midlands, Labour sources say Labour sources have suggested a recount in Coventry isn't going to "change materially" Tory incumbent Andy Street's numbers in the West Midlands mayoral race, Sky News political editor Beth Rigby says. A full recount has been ordered in the Coventry borough, with the race currently "too close to call". Beth, who is in Birmingham, says that while the result is on a "knife edge," there is hope in the Labour camp that Richard Parker could have edged the race. She says there will be a "massive upset" if Mr Street loses the mayoralty, with one former cabinet minister telling her it would be "devastating". Beth adds that there is chatter within the Conservative Party that if Mr Street does lose, he may be offered a parliamentary constituency, however, that remains "speculative". A short time ago, Labour sources told Sky News a recount was requested by Mr Street's team.
3000 votes isn’t close in terms of errors, unless there’s been some sort of massive mistake like a missing pile. So I don’t think reflects very well on the Street team.
3000 votes is close in terms of such a large area. It is the equivalent of 150 votes in a single parliamentary constituency. Such a margin would be likely to generate a Full Recount. Were this partial recount to change the overall result, I suspect a Full Recount would have to be ordered across all boroughs there.
The difference is that you don't just need to overturn 150 votes in a single constituency (which is unlikely but just possible in terms of bundles being miscounted or put in the wrong pile). You need to do it 20 times, all in one direction, and without any countervailing errors in the other direction. That's extremely improbable.
As an election agent, I'd make the case for it. But I'd not hold out any real hope of getting a result out of it - it's just that even if there's a one in a thousand chance, you'd want to take it at that stage.
The full recount in Coventry (and perhaps others will follow?) makes the WM a bit less of a sure thing than the Betfair odds of 1.05 for Labour suggest. Probably worth laying a few quid.
Really?
How often do recounts change results?
They did in one ward in Oxford yesterday, according to Twitter. But that was by a matter of half a dozen votes, not 3000.
My Dad thinks it is within 1000, he is at the Coventry count
Still too much to change though tbh
I'm on a weekend break in the West Mids - the BBC reporter here says the margin was around 2500, but the bundle check in Coventry had presumably turned up a sufficient discrepancy to warrant a full recount there.
It's amazing the power of the PB rampers for Susan Hall (you know who you are..), they even persuaded the Sky and BBC politicos to run with it all day.
To be fair, the main ramper was Sue Hall's campaign, right? Someone (probably junior) boasted that they thought Susan had won, and it gained an absurd amount of traction.
If Street loses, he’s free to stand for Westminster and leader after the election.
I'd be in favour, just for the punning opportunities.
The Tories' first openly gay leader (not forgetting Eden was (a) bisexual and (b) it wasn't widely known to the public)?
Just imagining explaining that he's shagging Fabricant would surely be enough to put people off.
Heath was likely gay but closeted (rumour was he went cottaging as a young MP but whips warned him to shut off his sexuality).
Street is probably too moderate to be Tory leader for a term or 2. He is competent and would make a good PM but if Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election the Conservative membership will blame them for defeat and want a more red meat rightwinger as Leader of the Opposition
I don't think there's been any evidence found that suggests that Heath had a physical relationship with anyone. If he did, he certainly wasn't (semi-)open about it in the way that Eden was!
Correct.
But apparently just because someone years later says he thinks it was, that’s evidence. Wtf?
Actually, appears that the charge that Ted Heath was a "cottager" was published in 2007.
PBers with time on their hands, can peruse Brian Coleman's wiki bio, and judge for themselves how much credence to put in his assertions about Ted Heath, or just about anything else.
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
In Outer London, where people drive, Khan's vote didn't increase (except in the wealthy pro green SW), in inner London it did.
His margin in inner London, where you can walk easily or use a bus, taxi or tube and don't need the car, was enough to secure him victory in London overall
As the guy on the BBC carefully explained the result in Bexley was exactly the same as last time so no swing to Hall and in Havering a slight swing to Khan.
But the comparison should be with UNS. With the Tories getting absolutely mullered across most of the country, no swing/only a small swing to Lab is actually a pretty respectable result for Sue.
"Swings" between two different voting systems are meaningless.
Am wonder, just who(m) made money by means of ramping the allegedly-close London mayoral vote?
Do NOT mean any PBers!
But surely someone was doing the ramping to make money? And also through a bucket of eggs at faces of journos & pundits who OUGHT to know better than to fall for it?
The question is how and why normally sensible people - including a fair few PB’ers - lost their ability to stand back and see that in the current political climate a lousy Tory candidate was never going to win, in a month of Sundays?
Those who managed to exit their losing bets by passing the loss onto the greater fools were merely the lesser fools.
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
In Outer London, where people drive, Khan's vote didn't increase (except in the wealthy pro green SW), in inner London it did.
His margin in inner London, where you can walk easily or use a bus, taxi or tube and don't need the car, was enough to secure him victory in London overall
As the guy on the BBC carefully explained the result in Bexley was exactly the same as last time so no swing to Hall and in Havering a slight swing to Khan.
But the comparison should be with UNS. With the Tories getting absolutely mullered across most of the country, no swing/only a small swing to Lab is actually a pretty respectable result for Sue.
Rather I'd say it was disappointing for her, given she'd put so much emphasis on ULEZ.
Khan's support actually increased, so how do we interpret that as anything but an endorsement for ULEZ?
I've been saying this for months, the people opposed to ULEZ don't live in London. Londoners either don't care (as they don't drive) or they are supportive.
The Tories were entirely wrong to oppose it (of course they forced Khan to bring it in but that's a different story). They have got completely the wrong end of the stick and done the opposite of what they should have done.
In Outer London, where people drive, Khan's vote didn't increase (except in the wealthy pro green SW), in inner London it did.
His margin in inner London, where you can walk easily or use a bus, taxi or tube and don't need the car, was enough to secure him victory in London overall
As the guy on the BBC carefully explained the result in Bexley was exactly the same as last time so no swing to Hall and in Havering a slight swing to Khan.
But the comparison should be with UNS. With the Tories getting absolutely mullered across most of the country, no swing/only a small swing to Lab is actually a pretty respectable result for Sue.
A couple of factors though. 1 Khan is the incumbent. 2 Labour so strong in London already not many other voters to swing their way. ULEZ probably still a factor in bits of outer London but it's fading. Khan disliked for "cultural" reasons in bits of outer London too, although a lot of them are in Kent and Essex these days. I think this is a pretty respectable result for Labour in London. All eyes now on the West Midlands. A Labour win there would be big.
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Agree, I actually stopped watching half-way through. It was too political. You don't make policy points on occasions like this, you congratulate the winners and thank the police, etc. Anything else sounds incredibly petty when you've just been defeated.
Unfortunately she is fundamentally not a very pleasant person.
The Tories need to steer clear of characters like Hall when they are choosing candidates in future. Have policy disagreements all you like, but basic decency is worth a lot in politics (a point I also made when analysing the reasons for Yousaf’s downfall).
If Street loses, he’s free to stand for Westminster and leader after the election.
I'd be in favour, just for the punning opportunities.
The Tories' first openly gay leader (not forgetting Eden was (a) bisexual and (b) it wasn't widely known to the public)?
Just imagining explaining that he's shagging Fabricant would surely be enough to put people off.
Heath was likely gay but closeted (rumour was he went cottaging as a young MP but whips warned him to shut off his sexuality).
There is not the slightest evidence that Heath went cottaging as a young MP. That is scurrilous and pedalled by those who got sucked into the Operation Conifer debacle.
He was a very shy man. That doesn’t mean he went out cottaging.
What really annoys me about this is that Ted Heath is not alive to defend himself.
There is evidence, it certainly is much less of a problem for his reputation than the allegations Savile procured boys for him on his yacht which was proved to be false
You should desist this. That isn’t evidence at all. It’s rumour mongering without any basis in evidence.
Rather like the latest Susan Hall fiasco, just because someone whispers something, doesn’t make it true.
Evidence.
'But Brian Coleman, a senior Tory member of the London Assembly, has claimed the ex-Prime Minister had actively sought gay sex in public places.
He said it was 'common knowledge' among Conservatives that Sir Edward had been given a stern warning by police when he underwent background checks for the post of Privy Councillor.'
That is evidence and from a former London Assembly member, not just anybody, you may disagree with it, it may be wrong but you cannot say there is no evidence it may be true
And if he did at a time homosexuality was still illegal and there few ways to meet a male partner otherwise, so what? Most couldn't care less about his sexuality now
Brian Coleman was not even born when these events were alleged to have happened.
I just tried to put £20 on Street after the Birmingham results were aired on the BBC, with a smaller margin for Lab than last time. Only £1.29 was matched at about 6 (the price I was looking at) - the remainder had to be submitted at 2.59. Price massively came in.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
I think the Winchester result in 1997 changed several times before the LDs eventually won by just 2 votes. Somebody (I think the late rpjs of this board) did tell me the detail but I can't remember.
I also think that although returning officers have some discretion, they will normally recount (or at least bundle check) if the result is within 1% but only carry out a second recount if there is a significant change and it's very close (a few tens). And if it's on a knife-edge (like Winchester) normally 2 recounts with the same result settles it.
There may be others who have been agents more recently with better knowledge
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
I think the Winchester result in 1997 changed several times before the LDs eventually won by just 2 votes. Somebody (I think the late rpjs of this board) did tell me the detail but I can't remember.
I also think that although returning officers have some discretion, they will normally recount (or at least bundle check) if the result is within 1% but only carry out a second recount if there is a significant change and it's very close (a few tens). And if it's on a knife-edge (like Winchester) normally 2 recounts with the same result settles it.
There may be others who have been agents more recently with better knowledge
Whilst Returning Officers have discretion, they surely risk a legal challenge were they to decline a recount! Post declaration he might also be savaged in public by the aggrieved candidate.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
I’m not pointing any finger on here but either there had been a lot of ramping going on these last 24-hours or someone has completely lost the meaning of “expectation management”. Hats off to Sevanta for calling the percentages.
It's amazing the power of the PB rampers for Susan Hall (you know who you are..), they even persuaded the Sky and BBC politicos to run with it all day.
To be fair, the main ramper was Sue Hall's campaign, right? Someone (probably junior) boasted that they thought Susan had won, and it gained an absurd amount of traction.
If anyone cared they could try to trace the rumour's TwiX history to see which journalists first passed it on. It might be useful knowledge for next time but it is probably more trouble than it is worth with the default interface.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
There was a brilliant story (despite the result) of a vet in St Andrews who finished after a hell of a day and sprinted to polling station to cast her vote for the SNP at about 9.55pm. She made it and the rest is history.
Best example of every vote might count I have come across.
Surely there's no chance they find a 3.000 error in Coventry?
Surely they recount everywhere or nowhere?
And even if they did find a 3,000 error in Coventry then Lab would want a full recount everywhere.
Depends on the winning margin in the "not-Coventry" council areas.
What do you mean? What surely matters is the overall closeness of the result, not how close the result is or isn't in individual areas. You could, for example, have a one vote difference overall, but each of the council areas could be an easy "win" for each candidate.
Surely there's no chance they find a 3.000 error in Coventry?
Surely they recount everywhere or nowhere?
And even if they did find a 3,000 error in Coventry then Lab would want a full recount everywhere.
Depends on the winning margin in the "not-Coventry" council areas.
What do you mean? What surely matters is the overall closeness of the result, not how close the result is or isn't in individual areas. You could, for example, have a one vote difference overall, but each of the council areas could be an easy "win" for each candidate.
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Agree, I actually stopped watching half-way through. It was too political. You don't make policy points on occasions like this, you congratulate the winners and thank the police, etc. Anything else sounds incredibly petty when you've just been defeated.
I guess the one thing she could have said - if she had a more subtle political touch than she does - is something like, "It is of course important to recognise the diversity of views across the city, and the very real concerns of those with poor public transport options who rely on their cars to get about, and those where crime is a growing problem. I look forward to working with the Mayor over the next four years to do more to improve the situation for these Londoners".
That's not a direct dig but does say that the issues you ran on haven't evapourated, and is a nod to your voters and light marking of the Mayor's card.
Independent Gaza candidate gets 40K in Brum bit of W Mids
Vote Gaza-obsessives, get Sunak!
Exactly. I understand though the anger totally and Starmer messed up with his LBC interview . Amazing how one quote has caused so much damage to Labour in high Muslim voter areas .
Am wonder, just who(m) made money by means of ramping the allegedly-close London mayoral vote?
Do NOT mean any PBers!
But surely someone was doing the ramping to make money? And also through a bucket of eggs at faces of journos & pundits who OUGHT to know better than to fall for it?
The question is how and why normally sensible people - including a fair few PB’ers - lost their ability to stand back and see that in the current political climate a lousy Tory candidate was never going to win, in a month of Sundays?
Those who managed to exit their losing bets by passing the loss onto the greater fools were merely the lesser fools.
Nothing wrong with making money on betting by taking advantage of silly rumours and gossip that others have freely decided to propagate for other reasons such as vanity, etc.
It's amazing the power of the PB rampers for Susan Hall (you know who you are..), they even persuaded the Sky and BBC politicos to run with it all day.
To be fair, the main ramper was Sue Hall's campaign, right? Someone (probably junior) boasted that they thought Susan had won, and it gained an absurd amount of traction.
If anyone cared they could try to trace the rumour's TwiX history to see which journalists first passed it on. It might be useful knowledge for next time but it is probably more trouble than it is worth with the default interface.
It used to be that journalists would “out” confidential sources who produced bullshit. But that stopped long ago.
In this case it was probably political novices and the turnout figures for various areas that started the rumours.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
There was a brilliant story (despite the result) of a vet in St Andrews who finished after a hell of a day and sprinted to polling station to cast her vote for the SNP at about 9.55pm. She made it and the rest is history.
Best example of every vote might count I have come across.
It was a waste of time though, wasn't it, as they won by two votes so she needn't have bothered?
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
There was a brilliant story (despite the result) of a vet in St Andrews who finished after a hell of a day and sprinted to polling station to cast her vote for the SNP at about 9.55pm. She made it and the rest is history.
Best example of every vote might count I have come across.
The losing Lib Dem candidate was the mum of a friend of mine from school. I felt bad for her although between the Lib Dems and the SNP I'm not sure I have very strong feelings.
It's amazing the power of the PB rampers for Susan Hall (you know who you are..), they even persuaded the Sky and BBC politicos to run with it all day.
To be fair, the main ramper was Sue Hall's campaign, right? Someone (probably junior) boasted that they thought Susan had won, and it gained an absurd amount of traction.
If anyone cared they could try to trace the rumour's TwiX history to see which journalists first passed it on. It might be useful knowledge for next time but it is probably more trouble than it is worth with the default interface.
There’s been a lot of “Khan’s in trouble” media over the last couple of months. I think there may have been something on here. There were certainly pieces in City AM, the FT and the Standard. I think it stemmed from trying to ignite interest in what was always going to be a bit of a procession.
Surely there's no chance they find a 3.000 error in Coventry?
Surely they recount everywhere or nowhere?
And even if they did find a 3,000 error in Coventry then Lab would want a full recount everywhere.
Depends on the winning margin in the "not-Coventry" council areas.
What do you mean? What surely matters is the overall closeness of the result, not how close the result is or isn't in individual areas. You could, for example, have a one vote difference overall, but each of the council areas could be an easy "win" for each candidate.
This fragmented count is a strange way to go about things. They should just bring all the ballot boxes to Brum and have a single count.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
There was a brilliant story (despite the result) of a vet in St Andrews who finished after a hell of a day and sprinted to polling station to cast her vote for the SNP at about 9.55pm. She made it and the rest is history.
Best example of every vote might count I have come across.
It was a waste of time though, wasn't it, as they won by two votes so she needn't have bothered?
About as close as we have had for a Westminster election in recent times.
Norstat poll for the Sunday Times, conducted post Yousaf resignation.
According to the poll, the SNP would attract votes from 29 per cent of the electorate — a fall of three points in a month — while Labour’s share increased by two points to 34 per cent. This would return 15 SNP MPs and amount to party’s poorest performance since 2010. Under Sturgeon, the SNP became the third largest party at Westminster, winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats in 2015. There are currently 43 SNP MPs.
In a further blow to the nationalists, the Scottish Conservatives, whose vote share remained at 16 per cent, would add three seats to return nine MPs while the Liberal Democrats, on 8 per cent, would boost their yield by one to five MPs.
Am wonder, just who(m) made money by means of ramping the allegedly-close London mayoral vote?
Do NOT mean any PBers!
But surely someone was doing the ramping to make money? And also through a bucket of eggs at faces of journos & pundits who OUGHT to know better than to fall for it?
The question is how and why normally sensible people - including a fair few PB’ers - lost their ability to stand back and see that in the current political climate a lousy Tory candidate was never going to win, in a month of Sundays?
Those who managed to exit their losing bets by passing the loss onto the greater fools were merely the lesser fools.
Stephen Bush was measured and considered and had reasons for why he thought it might be close. That swayed me somewhat.
Personally I did place some small bets on Sadiq when his odds went out (could have timed it better) because I thought Sadiq would win, but lacked confidence to go big.
Roger Mosey @rogermosey · 2h Now that we have an actual swing from the Conservatives to Labour, I’d be interested in the sourcing of “it is clear tonight”. (The final Savanta poll got the result pretty much right.)
Independent Gaza candidate gets 40K in Brum bit of W Mids
Vote Gaza-obsessives, get Sunak!
Exactly. I understand though the anger totally and Starmer messed up with his LBC interview . Amazing how one quote has caused so much damage to Labour in high Muslim voter areas .
He's usually shrewd and surefooted but he screwed up there. You don't have to indicate support for Israeli brutality towards Palestinians to prove you won't tolerate antisemitism. He's already proved that with his party management since he took over.
Voting intentions at Holyrood show the SNP at 34 per cent, remaining a point ahead of Labour in constituencies. The Conservatives would pick up 14 per cent of the vote, the Lib Dems 9 per cent, Greens 5 per cent and the remaining 5 per cent going to other parties.
On the more proportional regional list vote, Scottish Labour has edged a point ahead of the 27 per cent who support the SNP. The Tories would win 17 per cent of regional votes, the Greens 9 per cent, Lib Dems 8 per cent, Reform UK 6 per cent and Alba 4 per cent.
Under Curtice’s analysis, this would mean Labour becoming the largest party with 40 MSPs, compared with 38 for the SNP, 24 Conservatives, ten Greens, nine Lib Dems and eight Reform parliamentarians. This would mark an historic breakthrough in Scotland for the party founded by Nigel Farage — although Richard Tice is its leader; Farage is honorary president — as it at least partially replicates its opinion-poll gains in England by attracting some older, Brexit-supporting Tories north of the border.
I suspect the Tories may have done better in London had they desisted from constantly telling its residents what a shit city it is to live in.
A good point
What they should have said was "London is a great city, the greatest in the world, but we all know it is in decline, and that has all happened under Khan's watch. Do you want another four years of this desperate decay and mediocrity? The shuttering pubs? The end of nightlife? The petty crime and the grotty litter? Bring back our jewel of a city! Remember Boris at the Olympics, waving the flag!"
That would have had the merit of being true, while also flattering London. Our capital has declined under Khan (it's not all his fault, of course, so that's rather unfair - but politics is not fair)
HOWEVER to bring off a message like that you need a much more rizz messenger than Susan bloody Hall
Awful, awful speech from Hall. Please go away now.
Agree, I actually stopped watching half-way through. It was too political. You don't make policy points on occasions like this, you congratulate the winners and thank the police, etc. Anything else sounds incredibly petty when you've just been defeated.
I guess the one thing she could have said - if she had a more subtle political touch than she does - is something like, "It is of course important to recognise the diversity of views across the city, and the very real concerns of those with poor public transport options who rely on their cars to get about, and those where crime is a growing problem. I look forward to working with the Mayor over the next four years to do more to improve the situation for these Londoners".
That's not a direct dig but does say that the issues you ran on haven't evapourated, and is a nod to your voters and light marking of the Mayor's card.
Yes. Post election result speeches are one of the dignified rather than the efficient parts of our unwritten constitution. It is notable that the generally decent people do it well, whether in victory or defeat. As unifying ritual is has a real place. Just as Binface and co have their place like Lear's fool.
A rare example of recounts changing a result is Sittingbourne and Sheppey in 2005. Before the recount the Tories were 120 votes ahead; afterwards Labour were declared the winners by 79 votes.
There was a brilliant story (despite the result) of a vet in St Andrews who finished after a hell of a day and sprinted to polling station to cast her vote for the SNP at about 9.55pm. She made it and the rest is history.
Best example of every vote might count I have come across.
It was a waste of time though, wasn't it, as they won by two votes so she needn't have bothered?
About as close as we have had for a Westminster election in recent times.
Sure, and I'm joking. But the fact remains that, if she personally hadn't bothered the outcome wouldn't, in fact, have changed.
I heard a tale (forgotten where) that Rupert Allason was incredibly rude and boorish at a restaurant in Torbay on the eve of the 1997 General Election, and left an insulting tip. The staff, who weren't especially political, made a point of voting against him and telling their families and friends to do likewise. He lost by 12 votes.
The story may gain something in the telling, but it's at least possible that being a bit of a prick and leaving a dismal tip cost him his seat.
Comments
You're taking 20-1, for something which is probably a 200-1 shot. Maybe more. Unless you're sitting on a massive profits and need the liquidity, it simply doesn't look value.
Sounds utterly exhausting.
Hall does seem like a disastrously bad candidate to me so it says a lot of about the relatively firmness of the London Con vote that she actually didn’t do terribly - roughly a third is not a collapse. Stewart might have added another 5-6% from DNVs, soft Labs and LDs.
Anyway, we shall see.
Garbage really, we all did much better with straws in the wind.
Once all assembly results are in they can also be compared as were polled also
The pollsters that have Labour around 10% to 15% ahead are probably there or thereabouts.
The average winning vote in 2019 was, what, 30,000? Andy Street will have gotten say 250,000 this time around. So, it's more like the equivalent of 300 votes. Yeah, that's super close, but I don't think many (or indeed any) 300 votes parliamentary margins ended up being reversed at recount.
I also think that although returning officers have some discretion, they will normally recount (or at least bundle check) if the result is within 1% but only carry out a second recount if there is a significant change and it's very close (a few tens). And if it's on a knife-edge (like Winchester) normally 2 recounts with the same result settles it.
There may be others who have been agents more recently with better knowledge
Thanks @Andy_JS
Havering AND Redbridge
As an election agent, I'd make the case for it. But I'd not hold out any real hope of getting a result out of it - it's just that even if there's a one in a thousand chance, you'd want to take it at that stage.
IIRC he is much more hands off than Gates, say.
Or the Proud Boys depending on his mood.
Guardian - Out on the Heath?
Did Tory prime minister Sir Edward Heath make a habit of cottaging on Hampstead Heath?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/blog/2007/apr/25/outontheheat
PBers with time on their hands, can peruse Brian Coleman's wiki bio, and judge for themselves how much credence to put in his assertions about Ted Heath, or just about anything else.
Those who managed to exit their losing bets by passing the loss onto the greater fools were merely the lesser fools.
The Tories need to steer clear of characters like Hall when they are choosing candidates in future. Have policy disagreements all you like, but basic decency is worth a lot in politics (a point I also made when analysing the reasons for Yousaf’s downfall).
Blessed is Adam Smith, the Maker Of Markets. Blessed is his passage. Blessed is his Invisible Hand which smites the unbelievers.
Surely they recount everywhere or nowhere?
And even if they did find a 3,000 error in Coventry then Lab would want a full recount everywhere.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/fife-north-east-election-result-snp-win-two-votes-majority-marginal-seat-a7780801.html
> in 1998, in primary for WA State House; and
> in 2004, in general election for WA Governor.
Thus twice, out of over two dozen total recounts I've observed on behalf of candidates since 1990.
Best example of every vote might count I have come across.
That's not a direct dig but does say that the issues you ran on haven't evapourated, and is a nod to your voters and light marking of the Mayor's card.
Nice spin.
@Samfr
·
4m
Across Coventry, Sandwell and Dudley last time Street won by around 22k votes.
Parker needs a swing of about 5% across the three to win.
Super tight.
In this case it was probably political novices and the turnout figures for various areas that started the rumours.
According to the poll, the SNP would attract votes from 29 per cent of the electorate — a fall of three points in a month — while Labour’s share increased by two points to 34 per cent. This would return 15 SNP MPs and amount to party’s poorest performance since 2010. Under Sturgeon, the SNP became the third largest party at Westminster, winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats in 2015. There are currently 43 SNP MPs.
In a further blow to the nationalists, the Scottish Conservatives, whose vote share remained at 16 per cent, would add three seats to return nine MPs while the Liberal Democrats, on 8 per cent, would boost their yield by one to five MPs.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-snp-poll-scotland-6p59t5ls9
*grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Personally I did place some small bets on Sadiq when his odds went out (could have timed it better) because I thought Sadiq would win, but lacked confidence to go big.
Street: 39.5% (-11.3)
Parker: 35.0% (-2.8)
Yakoob: 12.8% (New)
RFM: 5.7% (+3.7)
GRN: 5.2% (-0.5)
LDM: 1.8% (-1.9)
A 4.25% swing to Parker - he needs 4.5%
Waiting for Sandwell & Coventry.
The seing outside Brum should see Parker home.........
Roger Mosey
@rogermosey
·
2h
Now that we have an actual swing from the Conservatives to Labour, I’d be interested in the sourcing of “it is clear tonight”. (The final Savanta poll got the result pretty much right.)
https://twitter.com/rogermosey/status/1786774093561282617
Voting intentions at Holyrood show the SNP at 34 per cent, remaining a point ahead of Labour in constituencies. The Conservatives would pick up 14 per cent of the vote, the Lib Dems 9 per cent, Greens 5 per cent and the remaining 5 per cent going to other parties.
On the more proportional regional list vote, Scottish Labour has edged a point ahead of the 27 per cent who support the SNP. The Tories would win 17 per cent of regional votes, the Greens 9 per cent, Lib Dems 8 per cent, Reform UK 6 per cent and Alba 4 per cent.
Under Curtice’s analysis, this would mean Labour becoming the largest party with 40 MSPs, compared with 38 for the SNP, 24 Conservatives, ten Greens, nine Lib Dems and eight Reform parliamentarians. This would mark an historic breakthrough in Scotland for the party founded by Nigel Farage — although Richard Tice is its leader; Farage is honorary president — as it at least partially replicates its opinion-poll gains in England by attracting some older, Brexit-supporting Tories north of the border.
What they should have said was "London is a great city, the greatest in the world, but we all know it is in decline, and that has all happened under Khan's watch. Do you want another four years of this desperate decay and mediocrity? The shuttering pubs? The end of nightlife? The petty crime and the grotty litter? Bring back our jewel of a city! Remember Boris at the Olympics, waving the flag!"
That would have had the merit of being true, while also flattering London. Our capital has declined under Khan (it's not all his fault, of course, so that's rather unfair - but politics is not fair)
HOWEVER to bring off a message like that you need a much more rizz messenger than Susan bloody Hall
I heard a tale (forgotten where) that Rupert Allason was incredibly rude and boorish at a restaurant in Torbay on the eve of the 1997 General Election, and left an insulting tip. The staff, who weren't especially political, made a point of voting against him and telling their families and friends to do likewise. He lost by 12 votes.
The story may gain something in the telling, but it's at least possible that being a bit of a prick and leaving a dismal tip cost him his seat.