Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results : October 16th 2014
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results : October 16th 2014
Harper Green on Bolton (Lab Defence)
Result: Labour 1,176 (51% -1%), UKIP 777 (33% +15%), Conservative 282 (12% -11%), Greens 38 (2% -2%), Liberal Democrats 28 (1% -3%), Independent 19 (1%)
Labour HOLD with a majority of 399 (18%) on a swing of 8% from Labour to UKIP
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29656489
UKIP 23% from standing start
Con -13%
Lab -10%
I'm not saying this is happening, but when you've got a minor party finally getting traction after years in the wilderness the standard course of action is to take the opportunity to enjoy some kind of bitter, personal internal factional schism...
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/government-wakes-up-to-political-cost.html
As for ebola, it's a giant con
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/from-ghana-ebola-is-not-real-and-only.html
http://electionforecast.co.uk/
Remarkably similar models both have LAB biggest party but well short of a majority
As Harry seems to have neglected the percentage changes for Tudor for some reason, let me offer them. The change since May this year is as follows:
CON -8%
LD +6%
LAB -5%
UKIP +5%
Green +1%
I make that a 7% swing from Conservative to Liberal Democrat so a fair result for the LDs. To my knowledge, the LDs have never won the Tudor Ward. Even during years like 1994 and 2002 when the Party took control of Kingston LB, the Conservatives always held Tudor so it was a seat the Tories ought to hold comfortably.
Ed Davey undoubtedly faces a huge challenge next May but this result will offer some grounds for optimism - that said, I suspect IF he holds the seat, his majority will be much nearer his 1997 number than his 2001 number.
UKIP won't be too disappointed with their result either - they polled 10% in the Beckton by-election as well so a long way from some of the more spectacular by-election scores elsewhere.
If you take the highest votes for each party last time the changes are
Con No Change
LibDem +10
Lab -2
Ukip -1
Green -7
http://www.englishelections.org.uk/england/lby/london/tudor.php
Like you say he is irresponsible and (I would add) dangerous
Look at that. Not one person voted against it. Not one. So what's the problem been these last 40 years?
Has Westminster ever perpetrated such a low-life piece of fakery?
No. People who support the status quo, rightly or wrongly, prefer not to have a referendum, because that keeps things the way they are. Just as UKIP, if we were outside the EU, would not demand a referendum on membership.
It all makes sense now. They're advocating for some sort of mass rubber bung rollout to halt the tide of bovine flatulant methane.
COWABUNGA!!!
Q. What's brown and comes out of the back of Cowes?
A The Isle of Wight ferry
And surely we accept people who reject society until they commit a crime, whereupon they are guilty of the crime. And as a final point, do we want to glorify that murder by giving it some kind of political significance?
Doesn't look like it goes to Cowes either. Bugger
I highly recommend the Red Funnel cooked breakfast, you will not have to eat for a week.
Senate races in LA and GA are getting closer. In both states if nobody gets 50% of the vote then there is a runoff.
In LA the runoff is in early December. In GA the runoff is not until early January.
So it is entirely possible that control of the Senate could be undecided until 2 months after the November election.
Should that happen you can imagine what the 2 months will be like here. It will be a bloodbath of biblical proportions.
Any caught throwing it into any harbours to be clapped in irons.
OTOH, it seems UKIP has a base of about 35% from which to grow, if they can.
Do you live in Wisbech?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Haller_Cooper
My view is that people should be able to go to Syria to try to overthrow Assad. He's a c**t, a dictator who maintains his position by murdering and torturing his people. He can expect people to try to overthrow him by force. Doing so is not "terrorism", it is normal political discourse if you are a dictator. But as soon as you fight for the Queen's enemies, you are dead meat.
But you do have to swear
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen
I wonder how many new Americans could define 'abjure'.
Let's face it, it is a sort of country.
I am currently watching Alias Smith and Jones, the 1971 western series, and am really enjoying it. I remember it on BBC 2.
Next on my list is Sienfeld. I must be the only person in the world who has never seen an episode.
Joyce, an American citizen, was convicted (stitched up) on the basis that he was in "possession" of the passport at the time he started working for the Germans, aided by the Labour government which had quietly changed the 1351 Act to fit his case. Lord Porter (dissenting) at the Court of Appeal House of Lords voted to quash the conviction on the (not unreasonable) grounds that whether or not Joyce was still in possession of the passport at the relevant time was a question for the jury...
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/944
Norway has NINE heritage railways.....so there!
Norway really DOES have better trains!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heritage_railways#Norway
I did call the UK consulate in Atlanta and ask about it. They understood completely and said it was no problem. I'm quite surprised how many people I know here with dual citizenship.
i) Joyce obtained a British passport (most likely unknowing he wasn't entitled to it). Legal, or at worst subject to a £2 fine if the facts had become known at the time.
ii) Joyce travelled to Germany in peacetime on the passport, and had no further use for it. Legal.
iii) Joyce, in reality never other than an American citizen, commenced working for the Germans. Legal.
iv) Joyce hanged for treason against the King of England, only after the law was changed to fit his case, and applied retrospectively.
Not our legal system's finest hour...
In 1945, Labour, realising that the case against Joyce was thin, changed the 600 year old law so that one witness to one act would be sufficient.
The only evidence presented against Joyce was one copper, who claimed that, while scanning the bands of his wireless once in October 1939, he heard a voice he recognised (he had arrested Joyce in the 1930s at a BUF scuffle) broadcasting from Germany.
The change in the law, on this thin evidence, was then applied retrospectively to Joyce to convict him of treason (subject entirely to the question of the passport of course, discussed below).
One problem with the case is that a foreign citizen, abroad and not attacking HM Forces, was found guilty of treason. This is an extraordinarily wide remit.
One thing you haven't answered is why wasn't he tried for treason by the USA?
Before the US entered the war, Joyce had applied for and obtained German citizenship. Again, perfectly legal under US (and British) law...
PG Wodehouse, objectively not a dissimilar case, in comparison had his knighthood delayed instead...