Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who got closest to LAB’s winning margin of 18.36% in South

SystemSystem Posts: 12,600
edited November 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who got closest to LAB’s winning margin of 18.36% in South Yorks?

The final result in Thursday South Yorkshire PCC by-elections had LAB ahead of UKIP by 18.36%. If you think that you are near please submit your claim by 1800 tomorrow to Competitions@politicalbetting.com.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    First !
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Also ran !
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Without pondering, I'd say that covers it.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,277
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Doesn't sound so much like a wet tory troll as someone from the hard left who means it!
  • Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    First day of nominations by SLAB yesterday

    Jim Murphy nominated by

    Jackie Baillie MSP
    Claire Baker MSP
    Richard Baker MSP
    Gemma Doyle MP
    Mark Griffin MSP
    James Kelly MSP
    Ken Macintosh MSP
    Hanzala Malik MSP
    Jenny Marra MSP
    Margaret McCulloch MSP
    Pamela Nash MP
    John Pentland MSP
    Richard Simpson MSP

    Neil Findlay nominated by

    Jayne Baxter MSP
    Katy Clark MP
    Michael Connarty MP
    Ian Davidson MP
    Cara Hilton MSP
    Graeme Morrice MP
    Elaine Murray MSP
    Alex Rowley MSP
    Elaine Smith MSP

    Sarah Boyack nominated by

    Claudia Beamish MSP
    Sarah Boyack MSP
    Malcolm Chisholm MSP
    Sheila Gilmore MP
    Rhoda Grant MSP
    Mark Lazarowicz MP
    David Stewart MSP

    Deputy

    Katy Clark nominated by

    Katy Clark MP
    Michael Connarty MP
    Ian Davidson MP

    Kezia Dugbale nominated by

    Jackie Baillie MSP
    Jayne Baxter MSP
    Malcolm Chisholm MSP
    Cara Hilton MSP
    Ken Macintosh MSP
    Margaret McCulloch MSP
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited November 2014
    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Doesn't sound so much like a wet tory troll as someone from the hard left who means it!
    I'm not going to boast/concede my PB herd or Blue credentials but if by that you mean I'd sooner vote Labour than UKIP then I suppose that might make me 'hard left' from some people's perspective.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    The Britain First endorsement for Ukip strengthens the BNP in suits argument perfectly.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,277
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Doesn't sound so much like a wet tory troll as someone from the hard left who means it!
    I'm not going to boast/concede my PB herd or Blue credentials but if by that you mean I'd sooner vote Labour than UKIP then I suppose that might make me 'hard left' from some people's perspective.
    It just sounds like something Diane Abbott would say... you vote for who you like I don't care!
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    So Murphy and Neil Findlay are sure to be on the ballot (Findlay needs one more nom but he can nominate himself). Boyack needs 3 further nominations.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    I think we're getting the Labour Bradford East selection today.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    isam said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Doesn't sound so much like a wet tory troll as someone from the hard left who means it!
    I'm not going to boast/concede my PB herd or Blue credentials but if by that you mean I'd sooner vote Labour than UKIP then I suppose that might make me 'hard left' from some people's perspective.
    It just sounds like something Diane Abbott would say... you vote for who you like I don't care!
    Busted.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    They are counting the votes in BE right now.
    We will get Neath results too at some of point before midnight
    AndyJS said:

    I think we're getting the Labour Bradford East selection today.

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new either.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    anotherDave said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new either.
    Indeed but what there is wrong in what I've said?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    anotherDave said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new either.
    Indeed but what there is wrong in what I've said?
    UKIP are nazis?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,384
    volcanopete said:

    The Britain First endorsement for Ukip strengthens the BNP in suits argument perfectly.

    BNP in blazers please; IIRC Nick Griffin wears a suit. If, of course he hasn’t been purged by the BNP!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    To answer antifrank's very pertinent question FPT re Jim Murphy: the money is talking. All the more meaningfully in the absence of a betfair market.

    That said, I agree with the basic analysis: his only advantage appears to be his profile.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT: Mr. Freggles, why is a devolved Parliament sound for Scotland but silly for England? I don't care that there are 50 million of us.

    Regionalisation is bullshit that cannot deliver fairness. The reasoning is thus:
    Scotland's either about to get lots more power, or it isn't. If it isn't, it'll break away.

    If that happens, I'd agree the case for an English Parliament will likely end (contingent on what happens with Wales).

    If Scotland does get much more power then justice for England demands we have the same powers. Leaving aside your strange desire to needlessly carve England up, the power cannot be delivered regionally unless you want varying taxation rates within England. Can you imagine how complicated and divisive it would be to have varying income tax and VAT rates between (for example) Yorkshire and Lincolnshire it would be?

    It would institutionalise division and foster bitterness. Poorer parts would complain that London gets more spending per head. Londoners would complain that they effectively export money to poorer parts and get complaints rather than gratitude. Both would have valid points but now they'd have regionalised bullshit parliaments which would enable narrow-minded demagogues exacerbating tensions by blaming 'the other' side.

    England has no divine right to exist and creating a political structure that would be inherently divisive is madness. Have you not seen that devolution almost destroyed the UK this very year, and may yet do so?

    I do not want to fritter England away on a foolish, ill-considered, and short-sighted programme to balkanise a kingdom over a thousand years old to suit the petty political ambitions of the empty-headed pygmies wallowing in Westminster.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited November 2014
    anotherDave said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    anotherDave said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

    It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

    That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

    Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

    Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new either.
    Indeed but what there is wrong in what I've said?
    UKIP are nazis?
    You are confusing me with Matt Parris.

    Some might say elements of my troll are actually what has been British foreign policy for hundreds of years so that's not really jumping in to you needing the Nazi smear defence.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood.

    But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost."

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9355882/how-to-fight-ukip/
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    AndyJS said:

    "It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood.

    But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost."

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9355882/how-to-fight-ukip/

    as per this article on the last thread, I preferred the first paragraph. ISAM preferred later sections.....
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    On a lighter note, this match between Newcastle and Liverpool is turgid stuff.

    Happily Spurs have already lost to both at home this season.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    amazing how I do it
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,538
    I wasn't the winner. I went for UKIP, by four votes. Had thought we would at least have got into second preferences. Must have been taken in by Farage's hubris about how they were going to win.

    If it had gone to second preferences, would have been intriguing.


  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited November 2014
    Bradford East Labour: Imran Hussain selected.
    He's the one who lost Bradford West
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,984
    Looking at the change in Labour vote since 2012:

    Barnsely -5%
    Doncaster -4%
    Rotherham -9%
    Sheffield +6%

    And the Labour to UKIP swing:

    Barnsley 12.5%
    Doncaster 14%
    Rotherham 17.5%
    Sheffield 4%

    Clearly shows Labour continuing to do well in urban areas but losing ground in wwc industrial towns.

    There's complicating factors such as no LibDem candidate and UKIP becoming established as the main anti-Labour party but the trends are clear.

    The UKIP odds in Stocksbridge & Penistone are worth looking at.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    F1: 25 minutes or so until P3 kicks off. Weird seeing only 18 cars have times for the first two sessions.

    Pre-qualifying should be up around half four, give or take. Pre-race may be up this evening or tomorrow morning.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited November 2014
    So I predicted Labour at around 14%.

    Then I considered all the Kipper frothing and reduced it to 7.45%.

    The sound you can hear is me kicking myself.

    Do your own research! Trust your own judgement!

    As it happens I wouldn't have won anyway, but still.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,984
    Regarding where UKIP support is coming from its worth considering the loss of economic and political power of the C1C2s.

    Throughout the 20th century the C1C2s were the main beneficiaries of increasing affluence and increasing economic equality.

    Likewise they became the demographic which decided elections and were consequently pandered to by politicians. The triumph of the C1C2s reached its most prominent expression with all those party leaders which arose from their ranks - Heath and Wilson, Thatcher and Callaghan, Major and Kinnock.

    But since the millenium the C1C2s have been losing ground both economically and politically.

    Globalisation has caused the former egg shaped economic society to be increasingly egg timer shaped - a shift in wealth from those in the middle to those at either end of the scale.

    Meanwhile politics has become increasingly a 'closed shop' where access through privilege becomes ever more important - the PPEocrachy. This new generation of politicians have had very different personal experiences and see the world through very different eyes to the proceeding generation.

  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    another_richard said:

    Regarding where UKIP support is coming from its worth considering the loss of economic and political power of the C1C2s.

    Throughout the 20th century the C1C2s were the main beneficiaries of increasing affluence and increasing economic equality.

    Likewise they became the demographic which decided elections and were consequently pandered to by politicians. The triumph of the C1C2s reached its most prominent expression with all those party leaders which arose from their ranks - Heath and Wilson, Thatcher and Callaghan, Major and Kinnock.

    But since the millenium the C1C2s have been losing ground both economically and politically.

    Globalisation has caused the former egg shaped economic society to be increasingly egg timer shaped - a shift in wealth from those in the middle to those at either end of the scale.

    Meanwhile politics has become increasingly a 'closed shop' where access through privilege becomes ever more important - the PPEocrachy. This new generation of politicians have had very different personal experiences and see the world through very different eyes to the proceeding generation.

    In other words society has gone backwards in recent years.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Bradford East Labour: Imran Hussain selected.
    He's the one who lost Bradford West

    My goodness, what a horribly poor selection by Labour.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited November 2014
    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    Recounts don't always go your way, there was no advantage to asking for a recount as they would have lost anyway. The assumptions as to how the 2nd preferences, if the voters had used them, are just that - assumptions.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,199
    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    It would have been interesting to see how many blue-red switchers there were, desperate to keep the Kippers out.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Christina Rees has won Neath Labour selection.

    She's a Cllr in Bridgend. She fought Arfon at 2011 Welsh Assembly elections and was 4th on Labour list in 2014 Euros. She has been married to Ron Davies
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    F1: both tyres (medium/soft) degrade a bit, so multiple stops likely, unlike the past two outings.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    AndyJS said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.
    It's the candidate or agent that has to request a recount:
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/151795/Electoral-Administration-Bulletin-26.pdf

    "Once the LRO has counted all of the first preferences,
    or votes in an election with only two candidates, and
    adjudicated any doubtful ballot papers, the provisional
    local totals should be shared informally with the
    candidates, agents and designated counting agents
    present. It is at this stage that recounts can be
    requested by candidates, (sub) agents and the
    designated counting agents. Requests for recounts
    must be considered, but may be refused if, in the LRO’s
    opinion, the request is unreasonable."
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    AndyJS, logical_song.

    All I meant was that the presiding officer presumably decided that there was no point in a recount since (by any reasonable measure) it would never change the outcome of the winner.

  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    Considering Labour hadn't lost an election for South Yorkshire in 75 years, why bother with the election at all?

    Also, considering the abysmal record Labour has in postal vote fraud, it doesn't like UKIP being bad losers after all.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    SandyRentool said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    It would have been interesting to see how many blue-red switchers there were, desperate to keep the Kippers out.
    Agreed. It's a pity we didn't learn that.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

    I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    OblitusSumMe said:

    Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

    I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

    I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

    I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

    I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.
    Nabavi was 0.04% the wrong side of DavidL, and SimonStClare was 0.01% the wrong side of me. Blofelds_Cat was 9.01% too low on the Labour winning margin. bigjohnowls was too mdoest about Labour's chances by 6.45%. Shiney2 by 8.36%
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,384
    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.
    Surely whether there's a recount depends on whether one or more of the agents ask for one. UKIP was sufficiently far behind, I would have thought for it to be highly unlikely that there enough second preferences. In any event, UKIP's counting agents should have been keeping an eye open for the proportion of Tory/EDem votes with UKIP second preferences on them. Doesn't need to be accurate; a reasonable impression will do!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,089
    Afternoon all,

    Just a thought but current polling could be completely changed by May 2015 if the economic situation deteriorates rapidly. Today's finance pages are full of deflation talk, Japan's QE experiment, an Asian currency war, Martin Sorell's warnings about geo-political economic situation. It's grim stuff.

    I'm thinking this is likely to benefit Tories.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited November 2014
    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

    I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

    I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.
    Nabavi was 0.04% the wrong side of DavidL, and SimonStClare was 0.01% the wrong side of me. Blofelds_Cat was 9.01% too low on the Labour winning margin. bigjohnowls was too mdoest about Labour's chances by 6.45%. Shiney2 by 8.36%

    Look for kle4.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Me wants book.

    meh.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    another_richard said:

    Looking at the change in Labour vote since 2012:

    Barnsely -5%
    Doncaster -4%
    Rotherham -9%
    Sheffield +6%

    And the Labour to UKIP swing:

    Barnsley 12.5%
    Doncaster 14%
    Rotherham 17.5%
    Sheffield 4%

    Clearly shows Labour continuing to do well in urban areas but losing ground in wwc industrial towns.

    There's complicating factors such as no LibDem candidate and UKIP becoming established as the main anti-Labour party but the trends are clear.

    The UKIP odds in Stocksbridge & Penistone are worth looking at.

    Presumably the "core cities" urban areas have large populations of ethnic minorities. That might be covering similar losses among the white working class in places like Sheffield. This is the reason Labour don't want to do anything about mass immigration. The white working class dislike Labour's contempt for traditional English culture, so Labour would prefer to dilute their democratic power by bringing in more people from the world's trouble spots. It "makes the Right's arguments out of date", in the words of Andrew Neather.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,384
    rottenborough said:

    Afternoon all,

    Just a thought but current polling could be completely changed by May 2015 if the economic situation deteriorates rapidly. Today's finance pages are full of deflation talk, Japan's QE experiment, an Asian currency war, Martin Sorell's warnings about geo-political economic situation. It's grim stuff.

    I'm thinking this is likely to benefit Tories.

    Doubt. It will among those who (profess to) know all about high finance, but otherwise will be seen as the Tories being incompetent in an area where they've not only claimed competence, but put heavy burdens on potential swing voters.

    Note. Yes, I know about income tax!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Important reality check for the GE.

    Like the LDs before them, UKIP are good at by-elections.
    But multi-constituency elections are a completely different ball game.

    Also,

    PB has a positive feedback loop that tends to hype right leaning candidates. For those of us remember Tony Lit.
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    rottenborough said:

    Afternoon all,

    Just a thought but current polling could be completely changed by May 2015 if the economic situation deteriorates rapidly. Today's finance pages are full of deflation talk, Japan's QE experiment, an Asian currency war, Martin Sorell's warnings about geo-political economic situation. It's grim stuff.

    I'm thinking this is likely to benefit Tories.

    I doubt it. They've tantamount claimed to have fixed the economy but now need to work all the kinks out. If it were to go sideways again it would be they who would now be blamed. They've been in power too long now to blame Labour and remember whilst some people said Labour would benefit in the short term from the last financial downturn they ended up in 2010 with their 2nd worst electoral performance since WWII.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,277
    Jonathan said:

    Important reality check for the GE.

    Like the LDs before them, UKIP are good at by-elections.
    But multi-constituency elections are a completely different ball game.

    Also,

    PB has a positive feedback loop that tends to hype right leaning candidates. For those of us remember Tony Lit.

    Is that the latest rehash of

    "UKIP are good at Euro elections/getting good seconds, but Westminster/getting a first place is a completely different ball game" etc ?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

    I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

    I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.
    Nabavi was 0.04% the wrong side of DavidL, and SimonStClare was 0.01% the wrong side of me. Blofelds_Cat was 9.01% too low on the Labour winning margin. bigjohnowls was too mdoest about Labour's chances by 6.45%. Shiney2 by 8.36%
    JosiasJessop -7.25%
    state_go_away -9.85%
    John Renotoul -34.36%
    skybluepastie -9.61%
    MarkSenior -5.74%
    Millsy +1.64%
    Quincel -4.00%
    slade -8.82%
    Barnesian -8.24%
    SirNorfolkPassmore -8.03%
    kle4 +0.96%

    kle4 is the winner. I'll put these in order in a sec.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,487
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT: Mr. Freggles, why is a devolved Parliament sound for Scotland but silly for England? I don't care that there are 50 million of us.

    Regionalisation is bullshit that cannot deliver fairness. The reasoning is thus:
    Scotland's either about to get lots more power, or it isn't. If it isn't, it'll break away.

    If that happens, I'd agree the case for an English Parliament will likely end (contingent on what happens with Wales).

    If Scotland does get much more power then justice for England demands we have the same powers. Leaving aside your strange desire to needlessly carve England up, the power cannot be delivered regionally unless you want varying taxation rates within England. Can you imagine how complicated and divisive it would be to have varying income tax and VAT rates between (for example) Yorkshire and Lincolnshire it would be?

    It would institutionalise division and foster bitterness. Poorer parts would complain that London gets more spending per head. Londoners would complain that they effectively export money to poorer parts and get complaints rather than gratitude. Both would have valid points but now they'd have regionalised bullshit parliaments which would enable narrow-minded demagogues exacerbating tensions by blaming 'the other' side.

    England has no divine right to exist and creating a political structure that would be inherently divisive is madness. Have you not seen that devolution almost destroyed the UK this very year, and may yet do so?

    I do not want to fritter England away on a foolish, ill-considered, and short-sighted programme to balkanise a kingdom over a thousand years old to suit the petty political ambitions of the empty-headed pygmies wallowing in Westminster.


    Your arguments about inter-regionality are much better than a SeanT-esque ode to Englishness as a defense.

    If you want equality with Scotland I presume you are in favour of using a proportional electoral system to an English parliament?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Afternoon all.

    Mentioned in dispatches I see, but looks like I’ll be buying my own copy – well done kle4 ?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Mr. Freggles, I'd prefer FPTP. If copying the Scottish approach on voting were a necessary compromise for an English Parliament I'd accept it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,698
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    FPT: Mr. Freggles, why is a devolved Parliament sound for Scotland but silly for England? I don't care that there are 50 million of us.

    Regionalisation is bullshit that cannot deliver fairness. The reasoning is thus:
    Scotland's either about to get lots more power, or it isn't. If it isn't, it'll break away.

    If that happens, I'd agree the case for an English Parliament will likely end (contingent on what happens with Wales).

    If Scotland does get much more power then justice for England demands we have the same powers. Leaving aside your strange desire to needlessly carve England up, the power cannot be delivered regionally unless you want varying taxation rates within England. Can you imagine how complicated and divisive it would be to have varying income tax and VAT rates between (for example) Yorkshire and Lincolnshire it would be?

    It would institutionalise division and foster bitterness. Poorer parts would complain that London gets more spending per head. Londoners would complain that they effectively export money to poorer parts and get complaints rather than gratitude. Both would have valid points but now they'd have regionalised bullshit parliaments which would enable narrow-minded demagogues exacerbating tensions by blaming 'the other' side.

    England has no divine right to exist and creating a political structure that would be inherently divisive is madness. Have you not seen that devolution almost destroyed the UK this very year, and may yet do so?

    I do not want to fritter England away on a foolish, ill-considered, and short-sighted programme to balkanise a kingdom over a thousand years old to suit the petty political ambitions of the empty-headed pygmies wallowing in Westminster.

    You might be interested to know that the recent polling has just over 2/3 of SCOTS in favour of EV4EL in the event of more devo according to Wings over Scotland twitter feed - haven't had time to investigate the original polls though (visitors).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Mr. Carnyx, thanks. It doesn't surprise me too much. There's a wide convergence of opinion between the right in England and Scots (including Yes voters). It's the left in England who wants to avoid giving Scots more power, and wants to shaft England instead of giving us equality.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Congratulations to kle4.
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    Jonathan said:

    Important reality check for the GE.

    Like the LDs before them, UKIP are good at by-elections.
    But multi-constituency elections are a completely different ball game.

    Also,

    PB has a positive feedback loop that tends to hype right leaning candidates. For those of us remember Tony Lit.

    Yep the Libdems really were terrible at winning seats at General Elections:
    .
    1979 11
    1983 23
    1987 22
    1992 20
    1997 46
    2001 52
    2005 62
    2010 57

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    logical_song said:

    AndyJS said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.
    It's the candidate or agent that has to request a recount:
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/151795/Electoral-Administration-Bulletin-26.pdf

    "Once the LRO has counted all of the first preferences,
    or votes in an election with only two candidates, and
    adjudicated any doubtful ballot papers, the provisional
    local totals should be shared informally with the
    candidates, agents and designated counting agents
    present. It is at this stage that recounts can be
    requested by candidates, (sub) agents and the
    designated counting agents. Requests for recounts
    must be considered, but may be refused if, in the LRO’s
    opinion, the request is unreasonable."
    My understanding was that the returning officer can ask for a recount even if none of the candidates or agents want to have one. Maybe that's for parliamentary elections only. JohnLoony said the same thing yesterday.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,487
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Freggles, I'd prefer FPTP. If copying the Scottish approach on voting were a necessary compromise for an English Parliament I'd accept it.

    Astonishing as it may sound, you have actually convinced me away from regionalism. I think it seemed attractive as a proxy for getting PR - i.e. I don't want to continue to live in a one party Labour state with no room for political diversity.

    I hope that the next election will sound the death knell for FPTP. It's good for electing governments but terrible for electing parliaments.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    another_richard said:


    The UKIP odds in Stocksbridge & Penistone are worth looking at.

    I don't think I would fancy being the right honourable er..member for that constituency.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Mr. Freggles, huzzah!

    It does sound somewhat astonishing, but I'm glad I changed your mind. I'm convinced regionalisation would be a disaster, whereas an English Parliament would work.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited November 2014 
    [Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
    [1]   kle4               (+0.96)
    [2]   Millsy             (+1.64)
    [3]   Quincel            (-4.00)
    [4]   DavidL             (-5.60)
    [5]   RichardNabavi      (-5.64)
    [6]   MarkSenior         (-5.74)
    [7]   BigJohnOwls        (-6.45)
    [8]   JosiasJessop       (-7.25)
    [9]   SirNorfolkPassmore (-8.03)
    [10]  Barnesian          (-8.24)
    [11=] Pong               (+8.36)
    [11=] Shiney2            (-8.36)
    [13]  Slade              (-8.82)
    [14]  Blofelds_Cat       (-9.01)
    [15]  SkyBluePastie      (-9.61)
    [16]  State_Go_Away      (-9.85)
    [17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)
    [18]  SimonStClare       (-10.21)
    ...
    [??]  John_Rentoul       (-34.36)
    ...
    [N/A] SeanT              (Did Not Enter)
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

    I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

    I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.
    Nabavi was 0.04% the wrong side of DavidL, and SimonStClare was 0.01% the wrong side of me. Blofelds_Cat was 9.01% too low on the Labour winning margin. bigjohnowls was too mdoest about Labour's chances by 6.45%. Shiney2 by 8.36%
    JosiasJessop -7.25%
    state_go_away -9.85%
    John Renotoul -34.36%
    skybluepastie -9.61%
    MarkSenior -5.74%
    Millsy +1.64%
    Quincel -4.00%
    slade -8.82%
    Barnesian -8.24%
    SirNorfolkPassmore -8.03%
    kle4 +0.96%

    kle4 is the winner. I'll put these in order in a sec.
    Mine was Labour by 6.1%, so I guess that's -12.26%
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    OblitusSumMe said:

    [Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
    [1]   kle4               (+0.96)
    ....
    [17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)

    Do you know how many entries in total?

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,384
    AndyJS said:

    logical_song said:

    AndyJS said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.
    It's the candidate or agent that has to request a recount:
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/151795/Electoral-Administration-Bulletin-26.pdf

    "Once the LRO has counted all of the first preferences,
    or votes in an election with only two candidates, and
    adjudicated any doubtful ballot papers, the provisional
    local totals should be shared informally with the
    candidates, agents and designated counting agents
    present. It is at this stage that recounts can be
    requested by candidates, (sub) agents and the
    designated counting agents. Requests for recounts
    must be considered, but may be refused if, in the LRO’s
    opinion, the request is unreasonable."
    My understanding was that the returning officer can ask for a recount even if none of the candidates or agents want to have one. Maybe that's for parliamentary elections only. JohnLoony said the same thing yesterday.
    I've no doubt the returning officer can, but if the candidates and agents are satisfied why do so?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Wow, did I actually get a prediction pretty much correct? The last time I came within a bare hundred votes or so of getting one right, someone else was still closer.

    Given I was out by a long way on my IndyRef prediction, I don't think Tories need to be worried about my longstanding Lab majority prediction (The latest Scots polls have me worried on that one as well), though with any luck my prediction of a max of 5 MPs for UKIP will still pan out.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Congrats, Mr. kle4.

    I think I may be the furthest wrong (over 40%, I think).
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Only three posters over-estimated the winning margin, but this would have been very different if there had been a second round, which was so close to being the case.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,384
    kle4 said:

    Wow, did I actually get a prediction pretty much correct? The last time I came within a bare hundred votes or so of getting one right, someone else was still closer.

    Given I was out by a long way on my IndyRef prediction, I don't think Tories need to be worried about my longstanding Lab majority prediction (The latest Scots polls have me worried on that one as well), though with any luck my prediction of a max of 5 MPs for UKIP will still pan out.

    Congrats.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,199
    kle4 said:

    Wow, did I actually get a prediction pretty much correct? The last time I came within a bare hundred votes or so of getting one right, someone else was still closer.

    Given I was out by a long way on my IndyRef prediction, I don't think Tories need to be worried about my longstanding Lab majority prediction (The latest Scots polls have me worried on that one as well), though with any luck my prediction of a max of 5 MPs for UKIP will still pan out.

    Well done! You weren't the returning officer by any chance? :-)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,698
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    another_richard said:


    The UKIP odds in Stocksbridge & Penistone are worth looking at.

    I don't think I would fancy being the right honourable er..member for that constituency.
    I once read an article by a local chap from the second town complaining about the problems of spelling out the town name when making orders over the telephone - almost always had the phone put down on him after 5 letters.

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    MarkHopkins said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    [Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
    [1]   kle4               (+0.96)
    ....
    [17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)
    Do you know how many entries in total?
    No, sorry, I'm afraid I was selfishly only interested in those who were closer to the result than I was, so I could work out my placing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    SandyRentool said:

    kle4 said:

    Wow, did I actually get a prediction pretty much correct? The last time I came within a bare hundred votes or so of getting one right, someone else was still closer.

    Given I was out by a long way on my IndyRef prediction, I don't think Tories need to be worried about my longstanding Lab majority prediction (The latest Scots polls have me worried on that one as well), though with any luck my prediction of a max of 5 MPs for UKIP will still pan out.

    Well done! You weren't the returning officer by any chance? :-)
    No no, I rarely venture into the grim north, alas, and I don't think they let you do that job entirely by phone.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited November 2014
    OblitusSumMe said:

    This would have been very different if there had been a second round, which was so close to being the case.

    Hehe.

    If only Mrs White at No. 73 Coronation Street hadn't put her cross in the nasty old Labour box then UKIP would have … blah blah blah.
    Jonathan said:

    Important reality check for the GE.

    Like the LDs before them, UKIP are good at by-elections.
    But multi-constituency elections are a completely different ball game.

    Also,

    PB has a positive feedback loop that tends to hype right leaning candidates. For those of us remember Tony Lit.

    I agree with you about UKIP, although not sure that's a very good insight on the LibDems who are pretty smart at General Elections: stacking their votes where they are most effective to win seats. The opposite, in fact, from how UKIP are likely to perform.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    F1: looks like it's Hammer Time in P3.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Freggles, I'd prefer FPTP. If copying the Scottish approach on voting were a necessary compromise for an English Parliament I'd accept it.

    I've just realised that the same Labour party who resist EVfEL entirely on the basis of not wanting "two types of MP" designed both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to explicitly have two types of MP. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
  • isamisam Posts: 42,277
    edited November 2014
    audreyanne said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    Only three posters over-estimated the winning margin, but this would have been very different if there had been a second round, which was so close to being the case.

    Jonathan said:

    Important reality check for the GE.

    Like the LDs before them, UKIP are good at by-elections.
    But multi-constituency elections are a completely different ball game.

    Also,

    PB has a positive feedback loop that tends to hype right leaning candidates. For those of us remember Tony Lit.

    I agree with you about UKIP, although not sure that's a very good insight on the LibDems who are pretty smart at General Elections: stacking their votes where they are most effective to win seats. The opposite, in fact, from how UKIP are likely to perform.
    Probably going to get no seats...

    or a handful #neckontheline
  • isamisam Posts: 42,277
    Any evidence of this pre SYPCC election hubris from UKIP by the way?

    I was at a UKIP drink on Thursday night in London, and no one even mentioned it
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    OblitusSumMe said:

    [Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
    [1]   kle4               (+0.96)
    [2]   Millsy             (+1.64)
    [3]   Quincel            (-4.00)
    [4]   DavidL             (-5.60)
    [5]   RichardNabavi      (-5.64)
    [6]   MarkSenior         (-5.74)
    [7]   BigJohnOwls        (-6.45)
    [8]   JosiasJessop       (-7.25)
    [9]   SirNorfolkPassmore (-8.03)
    [10]  Barnesian          (-8.24)
    [11=] Pong               (+8.36)
    [11=] Shiney2            (-8.36)
    [13]  Slade              (-8.82)
    [14]  Blofelds_Cat       (-9.01)
    [15]  SkyBluePastie      (-9.61)
    [16]  State_Go_Away      (-9.85)
    [17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)
    [18]  SimonStClare       (-10.21)
    ...
    [??]  John_Rentoul       (-34.36)
    ...
    [N/A] SeanT              (Did Not Enter)
    I demand a recount!

    But seriously, you've missed SirNorfolkPassmore (Lab 10.33%) and Ninoinoz (Lab 12.51%).
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Socrates said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Freggles, I'd prefer FPTP. If copying the Scottish approach on voting were a necessary compromise for an English Parliament I'd accept it.

    I've just realised that the same Labour party who resist EVfEL entirely on the basis of not wanting "two types of MP" designed both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to explicitly have two types of MP. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
    And the Greater London Assembly.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Socrates said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Freggles, I'd prefer FPTP. If copying the Scottish approach on voting were a necessary compromise for an English Parliament I'd accept it.

    I've just realised that the same Labour party who resist EVfEL entirely on the basis of not wanting "two types of MP" designed both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to explicitly have two types of MP. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
    The difference between the two "types" of MP in Scotland/Wales is solely to do with their method of election. Once they are in the chamber they have the same status, so I don't think your charge of hypocrisy is fair.

    The top-up system does have some strange effects, though. At the 2011 Holyrood election the SNP lost regional top-up seats, even though they had a large increase in vote share, because they were so successful at winning the constituency seats. The opposite was the case for Labour, because they lost constituency seats.

    That behaviour is undesirable in my opinion, which is one of the reasons why I dislike the top-up system.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,984
    AndyJS said:

    another_richard said:

    Regarding where UKIP support is coming from its worth considering the loss of economic and political power of the C1C2s.

    Throughout the 20th century the C1C2s were the main beneficiaries of increasing affluence and increasing economic equality.

    Likewise they became the demographic which decided elections and were consequently pandered to by politicians. The triumph of the C1C2s reached its most prominent expression with all those party leaders which arose from their ranks - Heath and Wilson, Thatcher and Callaghan, Major and Kinnock.

    But since the millenium the C1C2s have been losing ground both economically and politically.

    Globalisation has caused the former egg shaped economic society to be increasingly egg timer shaped - a shift in wealth from those in the middle to those at either end of the scale.

    Meanwhile politics has become increasingly a 'closed shop' where access through privilege becomes ever more important - the PPEocrachy. This new generation of politicians have had very different personal experiences and see the world through very different eyes to the proceeding generation.

    In other words society has gone backwards in recent years.
    Well economic and political power has certainly become more concentrated after a century in which it became more equal.

    I suspect that the people who are gaining from this concentration of economic and political power would describe the process with words such as 'progressive', 'advanced', 'modern' or 'global'.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Ninoinoz said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    Considering Labour hadn't lost an election for South Yorkshire in 75 years, why bother with the election at all?

    ...
    There is all the difference in the world between holding an election you know the likely result of, and ordering a recount where you are certain of the result. Any appraisal of the Con, UKIP and ED votes would have been clear that the winner was beyond question even if miscounting had resulted in Labour being marginally over rather than under 50%.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Ninoinoz said:

    OblitusSumMe said:

    [Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
    [1]   kle4               (+0.96)
    [2]   Millsy             (+1.64)
    [3]   Quincel            (-4.00)
    [4]   DavidL             (-5.60)
    [5]   RichardNabavi      (-5.64)
    [6]   MarkSenior         (-5.74)
    [7]   BigJohnOwls        (-6.45)
    [8]   JosiasJessop       (-7.25)
    [9]   SirNorfolkPassmore (-8.03)
    [10]  Barnesian          (-8.24)
    [11=] Pong               (+8.36)
    [11=] Shiney2            (-8.36)
    [13]  Slade              (-8.82)
    [14]  Blofelds_Cat       (-9.01)
    [15]  SkyBluePastie      (-9.61)
    [16]  State_Go_Away      (-9.85)
    [17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)
    [18]  SimonStClare       (-10.21)
    ...
    [??]  John_Rentoul       (-34.36)
    ...
    [N/A] SeanT              (Did Not Enter)
    I demand a recount!

    But seriously, you've missed SirNorfolkPassmore (Lab 10.33%) and Ninoinoz (Lab 12.51%).
    I have SirNorfolkPassmore [9th] and I judged your entry on the second round score (UKIP by 4.1%) as it was on the basis of the final result that people were making their entries.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Does anyone think the threats of Cameron having a leadership challenge mounted if tories lose Rochester are serious or just hot air?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    AndyJS said:

    logical_song said:

    AndyJS said:

    MarkHopkins said:

    AndyJS said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    david_herdson said:

    Fat_Steve said:

    The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

    The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.
    I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.
    There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

    But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

    If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.
    It's the candidate or agent that has to request a recount:
    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/151795/Electoral-Administration-Bulletin-26.pdf

    "Once the LRO has counted all of the first preferences,
    or votes in an election with only two candidates, and
    adjudicated any doubtful ballot papers, the provisional
    local totals should be shared informally with the
    candidates, agents and designated counting agents
    present. It is at this stage that recounts can be
    requested by candidates, (sub) agents and the
    designated counting agents. Requests for recounts
    must be considered, but may be refused if, in the LRO’s
    opinion, the request is unreasonable."
    My understanding was that the returning officer can ask for a recount even if none of the candidates or agents want to have one. Maybe that's for parliamentary elections only. JohnLoony said the same thing yesterday.
    The returning officer can instruct a recount even if no candidate or agent requests one but in a situation like S Yorks, why would you bother?

    The only realistic reason you might order a recount without the parties being involved would be in a very close election where the party in second wasn't represented at the count. Otherwise, if the candidate or agent is there and isn't interested in asking for one, I don't see that it's the role of the ERO to countermand what amounts to a concession.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,001
    I think 4th is the best I have done in any competition and even then I fell foul of over estimating UKIP. Another lesson learned.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited November 2014
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Congrats, Mr. kle4.

    I think I may be the furthest wrong (over 40%, I think).

    I didn't think anyone had done worse than **Mr Rentoul! You were 41.48% away from the winning margin.

    ** Except for JohnOisam (and anyone else), who tipped the Conservatives to win.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Got two potential bets in mind. Waiting for Ladbrokes to get into gear.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,778
    Mr. Me, you underestimate me, sir!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    DavidL said:

    I think 4th is the best I have done in any competition and even then I fell foul of over estimating UKIP. Another lesson learned.

    For a self-confessed guess it puts the efforts of the rest of us in their proper context - not good at all!
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025