Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two Lib Dem defences and one SNP one in tonight’s local by-
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Two Lib Dem defences and one SNP one in tonight’s local by-elections
Huntly, Strathbogie and the Howe of Alford on Aberdeenshire (SNP and Lib Dem defence)
Result of council at last election (2012): Scottish National Party 28, Conservatives 14, Liberal Democrats 12, Independents 11, Labour 2, Green Party 1 (No Overall Control, SNP short by 7)
Result of ward at last election (2012) :
0
Comments
LD wins all round to be the most interesting. Sounds crazy with the Scottish ones, but that previous win was a shock, so who knows.
I actually quite like the idea of former MPs re-treading into local councils.
[edit] - Many thanks Harry for you weekly sterling efforts.
The SNP will win both these wards, the Liberals will be eliminated.
Accuracy and clarity are not traits to be avoided or ones to be ashamed of.
In this case, however, not only was the Conservative the leader the last time (so it 'should' be a C and Unionist win) but we only have one rather than two SNP candidates. How one can compare that with the original multimember election is an interesting question.
Only the Lilywhites can win here...
The shock, for me, is that under any system the LDs kept any vote in Scotland to be able to win a seat, even if it was retention, or perfectly viable, as considering how LD prospects in Scotland for the LDs are frequently described, that they had enough supporters to sign the nomination papers for a candidate or fill a list or whatever would be a shock. You seem inordinately angry(and do not deny again that you are angry - people do not react with such persistent, unceasing passion about a goddamn local election if they are not angry) about that particular election, seeing a conspiracy against the mighty SNP and Scotland in how it is reported, and I knew that you, you specifically, would leap upon any errant phrasing, so considered how I should word it and if I should take another pass at it, but in the end I just couldn't summon up the energy to care about such a technical matter of no consequence, and figured your over the top rage on the subject would keep the thread on topic to the locals for a bit, so being more careful in my own phrasing was unnecessary.
I'm going to bed now to avoid an even more pointless argument, but for the love of god, no-one was putting down the SNP or Scotland, which is self evidently your concern because you seem worried that people are saying, gasp, the SNP did not win something, and so are seizing upon an argument that, in this instance, was not even being made. For me, the LDs winning anything in Scotland is a shock, it isn't a put down to the SNP (again, this is clearly your concern because you worry that it is being reported they lost something they perhaps should have won) because I don't care about that, wasn't making that argument, just noting that the LDs did win a seat. Doesn't matter if it was retention, or from anyone, that they won, given their circumstances, is a personal shock to me, not an analytical shock based upon indepth understanding of voting systems, just a semi-serious 'wow, I thought there were no LDs left in Scotland to be elected, let alone people to vote for one'. Not every turn of phrase needs to be analysed and critiqued for ill motivation.
Gods, you must go crazy when people describe slight wins as landslides, or claim this government has a good majority. You should try to get less worked up by inelegant phrasing sometimes.
So Jim McMahon is the new candidate for #OldhamWest. Couldn't have picked a better choice to champion our labour values!! (@CllrJimMcMahon)
So Labour hold Oldham West.
Has any opposition party *ever* lost a seat where they started in a more commanding position?
Edit - yes. Glasgow Govan, 1988, for one.
Let me rephrase the question: Has any opposition party *ever* lost a by-election in England where they started in a more commanding position?
Edit (2) - yes. Bermondsey, 1983.
OK. I'll give up now.
The only problem is that he is an enemy of Corbyn and a right winger in a very left wing constituency, so there might be leakage to the Greens.
P.S. I don't believe the bomb story since there is no evidence from the wreckage itself of an explosion so far and the Russians, which would profit the most from the bomb story, deny it.
Same for the old people who voted 50% Tory.
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2015/11/cllr-james-daly-selected-to-fight-the-oldham-west-and-royton-by-election.html
Scumbags were on the rampage outside my office earlier. A few Tiggys and Jaspers crying their eyes out in Saville Row nick tonight. Shame.
#immature
Corbyn couldn't have avoided McMahon anyway since he is the local council leader and the new post GE members are not members for long enough (6 months) to vote for the selection, if Meacher had died a month or two later then Corbyn would had a chance of installing an ally in the seat.
Egyptian airport security versus Russian plane maintenance. Its a tough call. I'm dubious about the bomb, but I don't think I would be that dubious if I was a prime minister.
I think politically the Russians are desperate to avoid a bomb story. Crap Russian airlines are always factored in.
As it it the take isn't definitive alone but appears reasonable on the credibility scale
I know they say that no members of the public will suffer, but how many extra patients would you expect to die as a result of any strike action?
Who is doing most damage to NHS patients. Hardworking Doctors or Tory policies - Discuss
The whole point of a strike is to make life difficult for the employer and, consequently, for the customer / end-user. Patients will suffer. Were that not the case the obvious conclusion would have to be that the NHS wouldn't notice if they were all let go.
Its called market forces. You would have thought Tories would understand that! If you want people to work unsocial hours then you have to pay a premium rate.
Edit: a Trotskyist, not a Marxist.
We've been through this before. If junior doctors strike, there will be an impact on patients. My own father died as a consequence of a doctor's strike many years ago.
The counter-argument put forward by Dr Sox is that patients will also suffer if the current grievances aren't resolved.
That may be so but, personally, I dislike the dishonesty of a claim that doctors can go on strike without impacting patients. It's not only not true but if it were true it would render doctors pointless.
Doctors are as capable as any other group of being very hard working and dedicated while also regarding their own interests as paramount and uniquely deserving and rationalising away the harm their strike will cause patients.
His brother was one of my favorite people, sadly taken early
If you want pay to be determined by market forces - and I can see why you might when there are such shortages - then you can't have a state owned, state run system.
So which is it you want? A competitive market system where doctors get paid more but you also get payments by patients, insurance, private providers etc? Or a state run system where market forces are replaced by rationing and queuing and doctors' pay gets screwed down?
Seems to me you want the best of both worlds.
Today I was left scratching my head at why anyone would queue up overnight for the chance to buy a £200k studio flat or £315k for a one bed flat in Hounslow. A truly sorry state of affairs.
They could incentivise people to work antisocial hours or they could use the power of being a monopoly employer to coerce people.
They may get their way, but dont expect support with targets etc.
Hitchens point about Housing benefit/council house sell off was brilliant btw. Give up capital value for an ongoing expenditure stream - makes sense.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/million-mask-march-protesters-set-fire-to-police-car-as-scuffles-break-out-at-anticapitalism-a3108171.html
But it seems to me that doctors want a state run system but then complain when the monopoly employer seeks to coerce them.
So which is more important for doctors: having the state as employer or being paid properly and incentivised as in any market?
LD 1096 - 69.2% plus 39.3%
Con 234 - 14.8% minus 13.7%
UKIP 158 - 10.0% minus 9.7%
Lab 53 - 3.3% minus 9.0%
Green 43 - 2.7% minus 6.8%
They also are not impressed by a health minister who refuses to negotiate for a year, who refuses to put figures to his proposals then comes out with a proposal the day before the strike ballot and presents it to the media rather than our negotiating representatives. We want everything on the table in the negotiations and a DoH that acts in good faith.
People. Stop. Dying.