politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The early money goes on the LDs in Lewisham East
The GE17 result from Lewisham East where there's to be a by-election. Looks like a LAB hold on reduced majority on low turnout pic.twitter.com/spDRfIkIyg
Comments
-
Was the 25th anniversary of the Newbury by election the other day.
0 -
Primus inter pares0
-
Will depend on who the Labour candidate is.0
-
Correction:
Repmain => Remain in title
EDIT: and
"That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"
are you sure?0 -
Yeah, I don't see Lab losing this. Big question is how far backwards the Tories go...0
-
No, it's 1/25. Pity, 25/1 would be fantastic value!MarkHopkins said:Correction:
Repmain => Remain in title
EDIT: and
"That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"
are you sure?0 -
I
If someone wants to give me 25/1 on Labour then I'll take that!MarkHopkins said:Correction:
Repmain => Remain in title
EDIT: and
"That’s subsequently moved to LAB 25/1"
are you sure?0 -
Brilliantly named Green candidate at the last GE.
LD vote can only go up from those levels but I can't see them going from lost deposit to actually winning in a year.
The referendum wasn't on 23rd of May 2016 it was 23rd of June.0 -
I demand a judge-led independent inquiry into how TSE keeps bagging all these firsts.TheScreamingEagles said:Was the 25th anniversary of the Newbury by election the other day.
0 -
Until the LD disaster of 2015, they and the Tories scrapped for second place. Heidi A wasn’t THAT far in front of the LD when she was first elected. (17966 vs 11750)0
-
My first in ages.RobD said:
I demand a judge-led independent inquiry into how TSE keeps bagging all these firsts.TheScreamingEagles said:Was the 25th anniversary of the Newbury by election the other day.
0 -
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
0 -
deleted - already said-1
-
Ken?TheScreamingEagles said:Will depend on who the Labour candidate is.
0 -
Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.OldKingCole said:Until the LD disaster of 2015, they and the Tories scrapped for second place. Heidi A wasn’t THAT far in front of the LD when she was first elected. (17966 vs 11750)
0 -
-
Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...
0 -
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??RobD said:
Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...0 -
On topic: Off remortgaging the house to take the Lab 25-1.0
-
Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.logical_song said:
... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??RobD said:
Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...0 -
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
0 -
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/993805304000405504williamglenn said:Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.
0 -
Tories surely want to keep Corbyn until the 2022 General Election, a new Prime Minister and a much better Tory campaign should see Corbyn comfortably beaten and after that he'll be too old.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
0 -
It's unlikely in a seat that was 64.5% Remain, but you believe what you want.RobD said:
Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.logical_song said:
... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??RobD said:
Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...0 -
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.0 -
In any case i was querying why the LDs would want to lend their vote to the Tories, as that would be interpreted as being in support of the Tory Brexit position. Makes no sense at all.logical_song said:
It's unlikely in a seat that was 64.5% Remain, but you believe what you want.RobD said:
Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.logical_song said:
... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??RobD said:
Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...0 -
I like it when by elections are caused by resignations. I don't have to feel ghoulish looking up the majority.0
-
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?0 -
Now that's a threesome you don't see together very often...Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/993805304000405504williamglenn said:Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.
0 -
After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson0 -
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson0 -
Fair enough, not all Tories votes leave, but I suspect a significant number did. Similarly, it makes no sense for those to vote LD.logical_song said:
In any case i was querying why the LDs would want to lend their vote to the Tories, as that would be interpreted as being in support of the Tory Brexit position. Makes no sense at all.logical_song said:
It's unlikely in a seat that was 64.5% Remain, but you believe what you want.RobD said:
Who says the 23% who voted Tory aren't Leavers. Why would they want to vote Lib Dem to make Brexit even harder.logical_song said:
... in order to hasten a hard Brexit ??RobD said:
Perhaps the LDs could lend their votes to the Tories?Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
No, thought not...0 -
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
0 -
You could call them a trio of famous losers, if you wanted to be cruel.GIN1138 said:
Now that's a threesome you don't see together very often...Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/PipsFunFacts/status/993805304000405504williamglenn said:Looking back a bit further I see that Polly Toynbee stood in 1983 and got 22% of the vote for the SDP.
0 -
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
0 -
They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.GIN1138 said:
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
I always wonder that.logical_song said:
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?0 -
That BC (before coalition) though.TheScreamingEagles said:
They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.GIN1138 said:
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
Helped somewhat by their grubby deal with the Greens.TheScreamingEagles said:
They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.GIN1138 said:
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
Nah. That was Anno Coalition.GIN1138 said:
That BC (before coalition) though.TheScreamingEagles said:
They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.GIN1138 said:
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
Haccording Ytothe Ulatest Fconhome DpollPulpstar said:
I always wonder that.logical_song said:
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?0 -
Good old working class lad Zac won back the seat at the GE though.TheScreamingEagles said:
They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.GIN1138 said:
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.0 -
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.0 -
It really is amazing how much they can write about someone that supposedly has nothing to offer. Sounds like they want him uninvited because they don’t agree with what he says.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.0 -
-
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.0 -
The EU might have something to say about that. Jeez.Scott_P said:0 -
-
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!0 -
Yep, salt of the earth Zac "my favourite shop is Londis" Goldsmith.Pulpstar said:
Good old working class lad Zac won back the seat at the GE though.TheScreamingEagles said:
They were 23,000 votes behind Bollywood’s biggest fan and still took the seat by nearly 2,000 votes.GIN1138 said:
The Lib-Dems were 30,000 votes behind Labour last year... I think this might, just might, be a bit beyond their reach...Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.0 -
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.0 -
HYUFD was unsuccessful unfortunately. I didn’t catch Sandy Rentoul’s result.OldKingCole said:
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.0 -
The article is basically a listicle of his top lies/distortions.RobD said:
It really is amazing how much they can write about someone that supposedly has nothing to offer. Sounds like they want him uninvited because they don’t agree with what he says.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
Thus there's a direct correlation between length and him not being worth listening to.0 -
If only there was a forum through which people could be questioned, and the veracity of their statements debated. I’m not a fan of one person deciding they are not worthy of appearing simply because they think/claim they are a liar.rkrkrk said:
The article is basically a listicle of his top lies/distortions.RobD said:
It really is amazing how much they can write about someone that supposedly has nothing to offer. Sounds like they want him uninvited because they don’t agree with what he says.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
Thus there's a direct correlation between length and him not being worth listening to.0 -
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.0 -
-
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.0 -
They both lost, but achieved positive swings.OldKingCole said:
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.0 -
red ken has been invited since his Hitler Hitler Hitler outbursts....As I say the bar is very low these days.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.0 -
Thank you. Must try and deal witrh my FFS.Sean_F said:
They both lost, but achieved positive swings.OldKingCole said:
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.0 -
Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?RobD said:
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.0 -
-
“Hell Yes!” unveiled for debatePulpstar said:
I always wonder that.logical_song said:
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?0 -
I don’t see any criticism of the panel members, just a rant about the invited speaker.rkrkrk said:
Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?RobD said:
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.0 -
And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.FrancisUrquhart said:
red ken has been invited since his Hitler Hitler Hitler outbursts....As I say the bar is very low these days.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.0 -
Well, of course. That isn’t Boris’ department.Scott_P said:0 -
The title of the article is "The Union should not welcome Jordan Peterson".RobD said:
I don’t see any criticism of the panel members, just a rant about the invited speaker.rkrkrk said:
Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?RobD said:
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
The sub-header is : "Different opinions are one thing, but Peterson is unworthy of an invitation"
It's quite clear that the article is a criticism of the decision to invite him, and therefore obviously of those who made that decision.0 -
I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid about ken Livingstone getting an invite.rkrkrk said:
And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.FrancisUrquhart said:
red ken has been invited since his Hitler Hitler Hitler outbursts....As I say the bar is very low these days.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.0 -
So, the suggested Lib Dem strategy is to rally voters to send a message to Labour so that Labour sends a stronger message to the government? Could work, I suppose. Seems a bit protesty but then that's often what local elections are about.
That said, I'm still doubtful that Brexit is *that* big a driver of votes and there is a lot of positive support for Corbyn, particularly in London. Without those votes, and without tactical Tory/Leave votes, are there enough others left over? Only on very differential turnouts - and most elections don't have disparities of that scale.0 -
Here's Your Ultimate Floppy.... Disc ?Pulpstar said:
I always wonder that.logical_song said:
Does HYUFD stand for something?TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.
No offence meant, perhaps I should rephrase that - Is HYUFD an acronym?
Helping You Understand Fuzzy Duck ?0 -
If I were the Lib Dems I'd be digging through any prominent London Momentumer's social media for the inevitable bonkers stuff before it gets deleted.0
-
Well they are different people so he might well have different views on their suitability to be invited!FrancisUrquhart said:
I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid ken Livingstone.rkrkrk said:
And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.
Doubtless had Livingstone been uninvited - you would have been decrying the ban on a former mayor of London speaking at the Oxford Union?0 -
Panel?!RobD said:
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
The Union is a good old fashioned autocracy.
They are invited by the President (although one day each term the Librarian gets to invite people)0 -
Panel?!RobD said:
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
The Union is a good old fashioned autocracy.
They are invited by the President (although one day each term the Librarian gets to invite people)0 -
The title maybe, but the body of text is just a litany of reasons the writer doesn’t agree with the invited speaker. There’s no mention of how he was invited, and how that procedure should be changed.rkrkrk said:
The title of the article is "The Union should not welcome Jordan Peterson".RobD said:
I don’t see any criticism of the panel members, just a rant about the invited speaker.rkrkrk said:
Perhaps they disagree with whoever made the decision... should they not then be allowed to write an article criticising said decision?RobD said:
If they want a say in who is invited, perhaps they should try to be elected to the panel that does the invitations.
As I said originally - I don't see anything worrying at all in people disagreeing on who should be invited to their club.
The sub-header is : "Different opinions are one thing, but Peterson is unworthy of an invitation"
It's quite clear that the article is a criticism of the decision to invite him, and therefore obviously of those who made that decision.
At least the people commenting appear sensible... mostly.0 -
It is about consistency....Peterson has become this weird hate figure among some that has to be silenced. If you are going to complain on the grounds of intellectual honesty of invitees you better be complaining about all that display those traits.rkrkrk said:
Well they are different people so he might well have different views on their suitability to be invited!FrancisUrquhart said:
I bet you chumley-warner who is getting angry about Peterson didn't bat an eyelid ken Livingstone.rkrkrk said:
And I don't doubt that some people disagreed with that decision.
And I think they were perfectly entitled to do so, without being accused of banning free speech.
Doubtless had Livingstone been uninvited - you would have been decrying the ban on a former mayor of London speaking at the Oxford Union?
I would actually welcome the opportunity to watch red ken try and explain his views under proper challenge.0 -
Happy Yet Unhinged Factless Declamations0
-
-
The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.Scott_P said:
But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)
I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.0 -
or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakersrcs1000 said:
The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.Scott_P said:
But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)
I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
you mean the guys who have falsified all their performance data and are causing thousands of premature deaths in this country ?
0 -
Or the factories will closercs1000 said:I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
0 -
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.0 -
Momentum: winning here!!!Sean_F said:
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.0 -
Wimbledon (My figures)Sean_F said:
There has been some speculation that Labour could gain Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These were Thursday's results (lead candidate only):-RobD said:
So much for going after IDS’ seat.Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
BTW- thanks for the analysis!
Con 17,529, 60.5%,
Lab 8,672, 30.0%,
Lib Dem 519, 1.9%,
Others 2,220, 7.6%.
That's a swing of 9% to the Conservatives since the general election.
Con 14584
Lab 9174
Lib Dem 7797
3.4% swing to the Tories since GE2017.0 -
Eh, in my time we let Irving and Griffin speak at the same meeting.rkrkrk said:
Lead singer of slipknot could be interesting I think!FrancisUrquhart said:
Uninviting is the same as banning.rkrkrk said:
banning =/= not inviting in the first place or uninviting.FrancisUrquhart said:
It is in all seriousness rather troubling. I actually think Peterson is a bit of a weird individual and far from convinced about a lot of things he says, but if you also think so (or worse that he is a total charlatan) go and debate him...Isn't that the whole point of the union...TheScreamingEagles said:
Oxford must fall.FrancisUrquhart said:After oxford uni getting rid of Kim jong mays from the wall of women, the campaign is onto banning Jordan Peterson from the union....We can't be having people we disagree with speaking now can we.
http://cherwell.org/2018/05/07/the-union-should-not-welcome-jordan-peterson
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that paying Oxford Union members should have a say in
who gets invited to speak at their club. And again perfectly reasonable that some people should think this guy has nothing to offer and so shouldn't be invited.
As an aside - Elliott Gulliver-Needham (if a real name) is impressively posh sounding.
And the bar for invitees is pretty low these days eg lead singer of slipknot. Not exactly only Nobel prize winners and world leaders.
But if others disagreed and he was uninvited - that wouldn't mean he was banned.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/27/highereducation.studentpoliticseducation0 -
Lewisham East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country and should be a solid Labour hold.
The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.0 -
TELL US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HYUFD said:Lewisham East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country and should be a solid Labour hold.
The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.0 -
Reading your views on Brexit from an apparently sensible person is an increasingly surreal experience.rcs1000 said:
The difficulty that the government has is that Theresa May, Greg Clark and (even) David Cameron went on an intensive love in with the automakers in the wake of the Brexit vote. And it was undoubtedly a success.Scott_P said:
But it involved giving assurances that may not be deliverable, in terms of the impact on EU-UK trade, and on the ability of the UK to continue to benefit from some of the EU's trade agreements. (These in particular relate to Rules of Origin: i.e. the percentage of a product's production that happens in a customs area.)
I don't know how this resolves itself: either we'll end up giving state aid that may not be legal under WTO rules, or we'll be seen as untrustworthy by automakers, or we'll end up with a (probably short term) fudge that infuriates the Brexit purists.
There is no majority in parliament or the country for anything which disrupts cross-border trade with our neighbours, and in the case of Northern Ireland we have a political and moral obligation to ensure it does not happen. These practical realities will determine where we end up far more than anyone's notions about protecting the 'cause of Brexit'.0 -
I did not win but got 554 votes, a bit up from the 420 votes the Tories got in my ward when the seat was last up in 2014.OldKingCole said:
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
Not sure how Sandy did?0 -
Well I hope the Tories hold second place obviously but we will see how the campaign progressesTOPPING said:
TELL US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HYUFD said:Lewisham East is one of the safest Labour seats in the country and should be a solid Labour hold.
The more interesting question might be whether the Tories will hold second place or the LDs or Greens will emerge as the main challengers to Labour in the by election.0 -
A good effort, drawing a bit of enemy fireHYUFD said:
I did not win but got 554 votes, a bit up from the 420 votes the Tories got in my ward when the seat was last up in 2014.OldKingCole said:
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
Not sure how Sandy did? 0 -
-
Did a bit of campaigning in Waltham Forest for the Tory candidates in Chingford so pleased the Tories won most votes in Chingford and Woodford Green, though it does seem Ilford and Redbridge will now be Labour for the foreseeable future short of a Tory landslideSean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.0 -
Thanks, my ward is one that can go Tory at the general election when more Tories come out but tends to go LD otherwiseTissue_Price said:
A good effort, drawing a bit of enemy fireHYUFD said:
I did not win but got 554 votes, a bit up from the 420 votes the Tories got in my ward when the seat was last up in 2014.OldKingCole said:
Missed due to be being otherwise engaged over the weekend but how did HUFYD and Sandt tentoul get on in their elections?Sean_F said:
There is however, better news for the Conservatives in the wards making up Chingford & Wood Green (six from Waltham Forest, two from Redbridge, albeit, boundaries slightly altered from 2014). Lead candidate only:-Sean_F said:
O/T, the result from Redbridge is almost identical to Enfield.
Lead candidate only, Con 35.5%, Lab 55.2%, Lib Dem 4.2%, Others 5.1%. Since 2010, that's a 10% swing to Labour.
Con 15,910 49.5%,
Lab 10,940 34.1%
Lib Dem 2,931 9.1%,
Other 2,304 7.2%..
That represents a swing of 5% to the Conservatives since the general election. The Conservatives won 18 seats, to 5 for Labour.
Not sure how Sandy did?0 -
I await with baited breath...TheScreamingEagles said:
You’re making a persuasive case for AV.Tissue_Price said:
Maybe they should agree before the Lab selection? If Lab go Momentum, LD stand; if Lab go moderate, Greens can have itFoxy said:
A joint LD/Green candidate would be good too.Gardenwalker said:Tories in Lewisham East should lend their vote to the Lib Dems.
A shock LD victory would put pressure on Corbyn, perhaps leading to his defenestration.
As an aside one of Sunday’s threads will be about AV though it will trigger HYUFD.0
