The Batley election looks very tight and there’s talk of a recount – politicalbetting.com
Looking at the piles of votes on the tables … it's *ridiculously close* Someone from the Tory camp just used the words "recount territory". https://t.co/7UoSHhsJkK
Looks like my bet on Labour stands a chance of paying off. Plus the excellent tip from Nick, backing Labour to beat Galloway for relatively free money.
I don't know what the point of the news channels are....Sky News still saying "Tories odds on with the bookies"...erhhhh.....can't anybody in their production team use the Betfair website?
Seems clear that Lab would have won easily without Galloway.
Which is surprising.
It will no doubt be lost in bruhaha but many of us more traditional Tories said from day 1 this would be a narrowish Labour hold. The Jo Cox factor, nature of the seat, etc. The Hancock debacle will not have helped. So disappointed but not at all surprised.
Seems clear that Lab would have won easily without Galloway.
Which is surprising.
It will no doubt be lost in bruhaha but many of us more traditional Tories said from day 1 this would be a narrowish Labour hold. The Jo Cox factor, nature of the seat, etc. The Hancock debacle will not have helped. So disappointed but not at all surprised.
If we’re talking a majority of hundreds, it quite possibly was Hancock wot won it for Labour.
Tom ItsComingHomewood @tomhfh · 53s Checking bundles are accurately placed against the candidates names. Hearing the victory margin is less than 1000 votes.
Seems clear that Lab would have won easily without Galloway.
Which is surprising.
It will no doubt be lost in bruhaha but many of us more traditional Tories said from day 1 this would be a narrowish Labour hold. The Jo Cox factor, nature of the seat, etc. The Hancock debacle will not have helped. So disappointed but not at all surprised.
If we’re talking a majority of hundreds, it quite possibly was Hancock wot won it for Labour.
Keir Starmer just texted to say it was his PMQs wot won it (unless the Tories have won).
The far left cause Labour to lose, they need removing from the party
This is a by-election Labour should be winning LD style with a massively increased majority. It represents a stay of execution which may or may not in the longer term be a good thing.
This from Hartlepool illustrates the point rather well.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley · 8 Apr If Labour hold Hartlepool by 5, 50 or 500 votes, the political lesson and significance should essentially be the same as if they lose it by 5, 50 or 500 - yet it won't be.
If Labour have held this then whatever gloss is put on it by the tories, and they have every right to do so, there will still be a large dollop of doubt creeping in about Boris. I don't think his manifestly lying about Hancock's resignation has gone down well. Once you realise someone is a born liar it's very difficult to un-do.
It's perfectly possible that at the next General Election the tories could lose both north and south.
There really ought to be a full recount for such an important by-election.
The RO should consider solely the likelihood that the result is wrong. With bundles of fifty voters that have been checked for gross error, a full recount isn’t going to shift the result by ten bundles and the right decision would be to refuse a recount request. Most full recounts typically shift the result by a small handful of votes.
This from Hartlepool illustrates the point rather well.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley · 8 Apr If Labour hold Hartlepool by 5, 50 or 500 votes, the political lesson and significance should essentially be the same as if they lose it by 5, 50 or 500 - yet it won't be.
A win is a win, but Labour were winnning this seat by 6,000 to 9,000 throughout the 2010's up till the last election. It's like the Tories holding Beckenham in 1997.
This from Hartlepool illustrates the point rather well.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley · 8 Apr If Labour hold Hartlepool by 5, 50 or 500 votes, the political lesson and significance should essentially be the same as if they lose it by 5, 50 or 500 - yet it won't be.
I think if Galloway ends up with ~2,500-3000 votes, that's roughly the difference between the Labour majority at GE2019 and a majority of 300-500 today.
You wonder if actually better for Con to lose by whisker than win by whisker.
Lab win guarantees Starmer stays - and it looks as if Starmer is just not strong enough to win a GE - Lab should be winning this seat by a landslide if they were on course to win GE.
This from Hartlepool illustrates the point rather well.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley · 8 Apr If Labour hold Hartlepool by 5, 50 or 500 votes, the political lesson and significance should essentially be the same as if they lose it by 5, 50 or 500 - yet it won't be.
Very true.
Galloway's bravado ringing a bit hollow now.
It would be odd if he's taken almost as many votes from the Tories as from Labour.
Labour probably has about 300 bundles, so (on average) every one of them would have to have been undercounted by one for a recount to change the result. Or the Tory bundles over counted, obvs. They’ve all been double counted already so Labour’s win looks secure, unless the bundle check finds a whole batch that have been misplaced.
A win is a win, but Labour were winnning this seat by 6,000 to 9,000 throughout the 2010's up till the last election. It's like the Tories holding Beckenham in 1997.
These sorts of comments would normally be true but they pay no regard to the change in British politics.
Boris Johnson, led by Cummings, has gone all out to redraw the political landscape: pitching (some would say bribing) for votes in the north. The levelling up is a massive attempt to win the northern working class aka. Labour red wall vote.
This seat was definitely there for the taking but the Conservatives have passed their peak. Six weeks ago they would have won this but the lustre has come off.
The real question is whether the loss to the LibDems down south and to Labour up north is cause for tory concern. I suggest it is.
I know of one case where a recount changed the result: Sittingbourne & Sheppey in 2005.
Originally the Tories were 130 vptes ahead, but a bundle of votes was found on the floor that hadn't been counted. The final result was a Labour hold by 79 votes.
A win is a win, but Labour were winnning this seat by 6,000 to 9,000 throughout the 2010's up till the last election. It's like the Tories holding Beckenham in 1997.
These sorts of comments would normally be true but they pay no regard to the change in British politics.
Boris Johnson, led by Cummings, has gone all out to redraw the political landscape: pitching (some would say bribing) for votes in the north. The levelling up is a massive attempt to win the northern working class aka. Labour red wall vote.
This seat was definitely there for the taking but the Conservatives have passed their peak. Six weeks ago they would have won this but the lustre has come off.
The real question is whether the loss to the LibDems down south and to Labour up north is cause for tory concern. I suggest it is.
How often have I heard, over the past thirty five years, that the government is past its peak and inevitably doomed, only for it to win the next election.
You wonder if actually better for Con to lose by whisker than win by whisker.
Lab win guarantees Starmer stays - and it looks as if Starmer is just not strong enough to win a GE - Lab should be winning this seat by a landslide if they were on course to win GE.
That would be true only if they had anyone better available. They probably do but no-one can quite think who it is.
A win is a win, but Labour were winnning this seat by 6,000 to 9,000 throughout the 2010's up till the last election. It's like the Tories holding Beckenham in 1997.
These sorts of comments would normally be true but they pay no regard to the change in British politics.
Boris Johnson, led by Cummings, has gone all out to redraw the political landscape: pitching (some would say bribing) for votes in the north. The levelling up is a massive attempt to win the northern working class aka. Labour red wall vote.
This seat was definitely there for the taking but the Conservatives have passed their peak. Six weeks ago they would have won this but the lustre has come off.
The real question is whether the loss to the LibDems down south and to Labour up north is cause for tory concern. I suggest it is.
How often have I heard, over the past thirty five years, that the government is past its peak and inevitably doomed, only for it to win the next election.
How many times have I heard party faithful refuse to read the writing on the wall?
I've never heard of there not being a full recount when the margin is that small, although this returning officer may have different ideas.
The Tories have the right to ask, and the RO has the right to refuse if S/he thinks the request is unreasonable.
What normally happens is that the party asks, and if the case for a recount isn’t clear the RO offers a bundle check in the hope that this persuades the losing side to accept the inevitable.
Electoral Commission guidance suggests that if a returning officer refuses a request for a re-count, they could allow candidates and agents to inspect bundles of ballot papers to satisfy themselves that the count is accurate.
Labour also made a very good choice of candidate, unlike Hartlepool, which suggests to me that they're getting their arses in gear about tackling the tory northern attack.
As for Keir Starmer, it's vaguely possible that a steady eddie may start to appeal after the flamboyant liar. A similar sort of phenomenon of John Major to Margaret Thatcher. Sometimes the country likes to draw breath and settle. If Johnson's bluff, bluster and blague continues to be exposed, which I think it will, then something opposite may be appealing. It's a straw clutch, I admit.
There's been a swing of about 3% to 4% from Labour to the Conservatives since the general election in this seat.
Misleading if the real switch was Labour to Galloway, Tho.
It'll be clever if Labour manage to spin a reduction in their majority from 3,500 to 300 as a good result.
Under the circumstances of the tories all-out hope to win this seat with their northern levelling up, a Labour win here would be a stunningly good result.
The Tory vote dropped by 1.6%. If it had stayed the same as before at 36% they would have won.
On the other hand, in an election where Tories had every incentive to vote and where they were being widely tipped to win, their vote share actually fell.
Fantastic result. Another small nail in the ghastly Johnson's coffin.
How is the Labour majority being reduced from 3,500 to 300 after 11 years of Tory government a good result for the opposition?
Come on, please leave the party spin stuff to other sites.
You know as well as I do and everyone else on this board that, under the circumstances, this is a stunning result for Labour. As Sky News are reporting it.
Given the Red Wall issues, George Galloway's involvement, the attacks on Sir Keir Starmer, the Conservatives should have won this and probably would have done so six weeks ago.
I do wish people would stop applying the politics of twenty years ago to those of today. Normal rules up north don't apply anymore. But as Chesham & Amersham showed, they may also not apply down south.
Comments
Tom ItsComingHomewood
@tomhfh
·
39s
“I’m not going to say the R word”
Says Labour’s point man - referencing the dreaded recount that is suddenly on everyone’s lips.
UFOs in ‘dogfights with military jets above France’ in 600 sightings, shock report says
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/ufos-dogfights-military-jets-above-24442061
Lab 1.5
Con 2
1983: Con maj = 870
1987: Con maj = 1,362
1992: Con maj = 1,408
@tomhfh
·
6m
I think Labour may have held this.
David Herdson
@DavidHerdson
This means no recount in #BatleyAndSpen.
Majority (for whoever) at least 500 then.
Quote Tweet
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
· 7m
Declaration expected "soon"
Tom ItsComingHomewood
@tomhfh
·
53s
Checking bundles are accurately placed against the candidates names. Hearing the victory margin is less than 1000 votes.
The long slide is underway.
The far left cause Labour to lose, they need removing from the party
Philip Cowley
@philipjcowley
· 8 Apr
If Labour hold Hartlepool by 5, 50 or 500 votes, the political lesson and significance should essentially be the same as if they lose it by 5, 50 or 500 - yet it won't be.
It's perfectly possible that at the next General Election the tories could lose both north and south.
Galloway's bravado ringing a bit hollow now.
Lab win guarantees Starmer stays - and it looks as if Starmer is just not strong enough to win a GE - Lab should be winning this seat by a landslide if they were on course to win GE.
Boris Johnson, led by Cummings, has gone all out to redraw the political landscape: pitching (some would say bribing) for votes in the north. The levelling up is a massive attempt to win the northern working class aka. Labour red wall vote.
This seat was definitely there for the taking but the Conservatives have passed their peak. Six weeks ago they would have won this but the lustre has come off.
The real question is whether the loss to the LibDems down south and to Labour up north is cause for tory concern. I suggest it is.
Originally the Tories were 130 vptes ahead, but a bundle of votes was found on the floor that hadn't been counted. The final result was a Labour hold by 79 votes.
The Sky News canteen clearly does good trade.
This isn't a nasty comment. It's just very noticeable. He looks rather puffy.
Rather a lot is the answer.
What normally happens is that the party asks, and if the case for a recount isn’t clear the RO offers a bundle check in the hope that this persuades the losing side to accept the inevitable.
Electoral Commission guidance suggests that if a returning officer refuses a request for a re-count, they could allow candidates and agents to inspect bundles of ballot papers to satisfy themselves that the count is accurate.
There's been a swing of about 3% to 4% from Labour to the Conservatives since the general election in this seat.
As for Keir Starmer, it's vaguely possible that a steady eddie may start to appeal after the flamboyant liar. A similar sort of phenomenon of John Major to Margaret Thatcher. Sometimes the country likes to draw breath and settle. If Johnson's bluff, bluster and blague continues to be exposed, which I think it will, then something opposite may be appealing. It's a straw clutch, I admit.
Green Soc 104 (0.3%)
Fransen 50 (0.1%)
Galloway 8,264 (21.9%)
LD 1,254 (3.3%)
Loony 107 (0.3%)
Heritage 33 (0.1%)
Lab 13,296 (35.3%)
Eng Dem 207 (0.5%)
Soc Dem 66 (0.2%)
Yorkshire Party 816 (2.2%)
Rejoin EU 75 (0.2%)
Con 12,973 (34.4%)
UKIP 151 (0.4%)
Freedom Alliance 100 (0.3%)
For Britain 97 (0.3%)
Lab maj 323 (0.9%)
Tory - 12,973
Galloway - 8,264
LD - 1,254
Loony - 107
ETA all gone now.
Lab 13,296 (35.3%)
Con 12,973 (34.4%)
Galloway 8,264 (21.9%)
LD 1,254 (3.3%)
Yorkshire Party 816 (2.2%)
Eng Dem 207 (0.5%)
UKIP 151 (0.4%)
Loony 107 (0.3%)
Green Soc 104 (0.3%)
CPA 102 (0.3%)
Freedom Alliance 100 (0.3%)
For Britain 97 (0.3%)
Rejoin EU 75 (0.2%)
Soc Dem 66 (0.2%)
Fransen 50 (0.1%)
Heritage 33 (0.1%)
Lab maj 323 (0.9%)
(Referred to example of Phil Woolas).
You're a would be alpha male, like Trump.
You know as well as I do and everyone else on this board that, under the circumstances, this is a stunning result for Labour. As Sky News are reporting it.
Given the Red Wall issues, George Galloway's involvement, the attacks on Sir Keir Starmer, the Conservatives should have won this and probably would have done so six weeks ago.
I do wish people would stop applying the politics of twenty years ago to those of today. Normal rules up north don't apply anymore. But as Chesham & Amersham showed, they may also not apply down south.
We all know that the political map has been torn up. This type of seat is the new tory heartland and they failed to win it.
We're also in the middle of a pandemic with all manner of attendant issues, including but not limited to a vaccine bounce.