So what does the South Staffs result mean?
June 24th, 2005
-
Does Cormack’s victory have implications for Cheadle?
The victory by Patrick Cormack in the delayed South Staffordshire election with an increased majority is very much in line with our first call on the contest on May 24th when we urged users to get on SkyBet’s Labour vote share market which was then offering evens at 30% or less.
Fortunately Skybet’s withdrawal from the market at the weekend meant that anybody tempted by my forecast that UKIP would eat into the Tory vote did not lose any money. Thank you SkyBet. UKIP did get into double figures but the party must be very disappointed not to have made greater inroads especially at a time when the EU is very much in the news.
-
What yesterday’s result underlines is that electors will only come out for Labour to stop the Tories returning to power. When you take that element away, as in the Euro elections last year or in South Staffordshire, then Tony Blair’s party does badly.
The Lib Dems have always struggled in South Staffordshire and they continued to do so in the latest contest. The inability to spend money as though this was a Westminster by-election prevented any real band-wagon effect.
The Cheadle contest on July 14th should be totally different because the limit on expenses will be many times more than was available to the parties in South Staffordshire. The one Cheadle betting market has the Lib Dems as 1/10 favourite.
-
Against that there’s little doubt that Tory morale will have been boosted enormously by the Cormack victory and this could make the coming by-election closer than the betting odds suggest.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Why did the BBC insist this morning that Patrick Cormack won with a reduced majority?
1. You either mis-heard or they can’t count.
2 - No, the BBC did say that Cormack won with a reduced majority.
Lord Rennard said a ridiculous thing today:
“”Labour’s vote has fallen considerably. Once again it is clear that disillusioned former Labour voters are turning to the Liberal Democrats and not to the Conservatives.”
umm, Labour vote fell by 16% and the libdems were up by 2-3%, it0s a bit risky to say that disillusioned Labour turned to the libdems.
Andrea [4] - I wonder why Lord R said it?
I spy with my little eye somewhere beginning with C….
Bleary-eyed look at the result . Better Conservative result than expected , Labour a bit worse , Lib Dem as expected in % terms but managed to hang on to 3rd . UKIP up but not quite as well as I expected . On the face of it , the result seems to disprove the common held view that UKIP only takes it’s votes from the Conservatives .
Cheadle will be a better test of Con/Lib Dem standing expect Labour below 5%
Turnout was 37% - working out “who took votes from who” is pointless - it’s perfectly feasible, for example, that UKIP took votes overwhelmingly from the Tories and Labour voters stayed at home.
Mike (and others)
Are you smiling today, as expected? If not, I may have discerned a small trend which might help: seems to me your ‘headline’ tips are remarkably sound and offer excellent value (if one can get money on in time!)- in this case get on Labour < 30% asap. When you are tempted (sometimes by info from the ground) to plunge into a market further, the tips/bets don’t seem such good value. I should make clear this is based purely on perception rather than analysis. But thought I would mention it, as would be very pleased to help you save a few quid in return for all you efforts running this site.
On another matter, you mentioned ‘as much money as the bookmakers would let me’. As very recreational punter all my bets are modest…but I was astonished to be limited by Paddy Power to £21 on David Davis @ 3.0. I was hoping to put on more as I wanted to bet on the odds coming down quite quickly rather than (at that stage) actually back Davis. Is that sort of thing common?
Finally, sorry to have posted little post-election - house move, too much to catch up on. Hope all who can make it enjoy the party.
The big story coming out of the S Staffs election was that skybet was more right than Mike Smithson. I too fancied the tories to achieve less than 50%, and bet as much as I could on it. Fortunately, I was serverely cut back.
Bookies go by stats, and all you expert posters–including MS–go by, well er, you all read it….
I’m surprised that skybet is so nervous that it won’t back itself. Certainly in football betting, the computer models (all based on historical statistics) are loads more accurate in their predictions than the pundits watching any particular game.
Mike (and others)
Are you smiling today, as expected? If not, I may have discerned a small trend which might help: seems to me your ‘headline’ tips are remarkably sound and offer excellent value (if one can get money on in time!)- in this case get on Labour < 30% asap. When you are tempted (sometimes by info from the ground) to plunge into a market further, the tips/bets don’t seem such good value. I should make clear this is based purely on perception rather than analysis. But thought I would mention it, as would be very pleased to help you save a few quid in return for all you efforts running this site.
On another matter, you mentioned ‘as much money as the bookmakers would let me’. As very recreational punter all my bets are modest…but I was astonished to be limited by Paddy Power to £21 on David Davis @ 3.0. I was hoping to put on more as I wanted to bet on the odds coming down quite quickly rather than (at that stage) actually back Davis. Is that sort of thing common?
Finally, sorry to have posted little post-election - house move, too much to catch up on. Hope all who can make it enjoy the party.
“I spy with my little eye somewhere beginning with C….”
Sounds intriguing…….
Mike (and others)
Are you smiling today, as expected? If not, I may have discerned a small trend which might help: seems to me your ‘headline’ tips are remarkably sound and offer excellent value (if one can get money on in time!)- in this case get on Labour less than 30% asap. When you are tempted (sometimes by info from the ground) to plunge into a market further, the tips/bets don’t seem such good value. I should make clear this is based purely on perception rather than analysis. But thought I would mention it, as would be very pleased to help you save a few quid in return for all you efforts running this site.
On another matter, you mentioned ‘as much money as the bookmakers would let me’. As very recreational punter all my bets are modest…but I was astonished to be limited by Paddy Power to £21 on David Davis @ 3.0. I was hoping to put on more as I wanted to bet on the odds coming down quite quickly rather than (at that stage) actually back Davis. Is that sort of thing common?
Finally, sorry to have posted little post-election - house move, too much to catch up on. Hope all who can make it enjoy the party.
There we go, got the whole post up - seems that a less than sign truncated earlier attempts?
Try < if you want a less than sign. Or you might as well just write “less than”
On the party note: anyone who wants to come along tomorrow night but does not have the details, please contact me today at book_value@hotmail.co.uk.
Mr Smithson you must have lost a bit of money, as unlike the GE all your predictions were incorrecta, the Tory vote over 50%, the Lib Dems under 30%, hope it’s only coming out of your Profits!
16 - give the poor chap a break. As I understand it he runs this site from his own pocket at a loss!
17. I was expressing sympathy! We all appreciate the great work of the two Smithsons.
Ps Is your political knowledge mostly LOndon or do you have Contacts outside?
Perhaps if the site added a few sponsorship bars around the articles, may help to defray Costs.
The Labour candidate was new because the one standing at the GE couldn’t take time off work. The Lib Dem candidate was obviously new. Cormack didn’t mention the ‘Conservative Party’ at all in his election literature because he thought it would be a vote loser.
“So what does the South Staffs result mean……?”
Probably no more than that Cormack is personally popular and with nothing to gain for all the other parties the voters decided to give him a generous personal endorsement after 35 years as their MP.
18 - I have extensive contacts outside London, the Thames Valley being my best area. I am on the way to Reading today for political purposes!
21 - I presume you have the day off paid employment?
It makes you sound like a Trot, Rik 
David. I am curious why both you and your father “p” add the letter “a” at the end of arbitrary words? It sounds curiously Italian!
7 - Good morning Alex , you could of course be right but in my experience low turn out tends to be pretty much not biased to any one party . The more important result last night was Swan 4 Brewery Tap 1 second leg at Brewery Tap next month .
21. Sounds like the start of PMQ’s
20 - Roger , the Labour candidate was not new but the one who fought the seat in 2001 . Strangely he was not re-selected to fight the seat in 2005 - probably a story in this .
23.”David. I am curious why both you and your father “p” add the letter “a” at the end of arbitrary words? It sounds curiously Italian! ”
I’m not David/P. Just to clarify if it’s what you were implying.
27 - Andrea, I think Roger was paerhaps wondering whether there was some vague attempt at being “funny” (I use the term only loosely) in an Italian Stylee.
Back to the matter in hand as it were. I for one can’t see that this result telss us much about anything, being, really, the GE in microcosm (Labour down lots, Tories and Lib Dems up a bit, with the Lib Dems up a bit more). UKIP flattering to deceive.
26 - Mark, I’d like to extend my apologies, in person if possible, if you can email me on tabman@thatsaid.co.uk for misidentifying you as a Jack W persona! I have it on trusted authority that you are very much corporeal!
Thanks to everybody for their concern about my finances!
I had three bets - Labour to get less than 30% at evens - a big winner; the LDs to get more than 15% - a loser; the Tories to get less than 50% - a loser. I would have gone down a lot more but Skybet would only let me put £200 on the Tory vote share. All told I’m down but not by very much and my post-General Election betting is still showing a very big profit. This was thanks to a spread bet on Ken Clarke for the Tory leadership placed within seconds of the French referendum result and which I “sold” at a big profits four days later on the basis of the negative comments about his chances by people on the site.
Tabman [22] - you can post all the smileys you like but the Tory Libertarians’ aping of Trotskyist entryist tactics is a very serious matter… or would’ve been if they hadn’t encountered the slight problem of having their cover blown by being the only people under 75 at the Party meetings…
[12] Tiny internet bets only at Paddy Power. Sadly true. You’d probably get on a bit more over the phone—internet betting is only for very small players.
I’m pleased that someone else is noticing how difficult it is to place a bet. This is one area where we should be helping each other. The bookies have very sophisticated methods of identifying who is ‘clever’ on what markets. You may have found they’d be happy to take £2000 on a horse or a football match, and yet have a ‘management meeting’ if you want £100 on a poltical bet.
Sorry Andrea that was not my intention at all. I was just wondering whether the family “p” thought it exotic to give their posts an italian flvour. I know Italians can’t resist a vowel at the end of their words!
33. sorry if I’ve misunderstood your intention. Btw, we have vowels at the end of every words
Epping Forest - Lower Sheering
Con - 208
Lab
Not much to say about the by-election result. The Tories got their vote out (which they are always excellent at doing), many Labour supporters stayed at home and the turnout was derisory. A fair result for UKIP if below some of their overhyped expectations.
As for results elsewhere, my contacts in Barking/Dagenham tell me that the Becontree by-election on July 14th is likely to be more interesting than Goresbrook. To be honest, in the light of all the negative publicity, the BNP vote wasn’t that bad. I am told the BNP believes they will win Becontree.
31 - the musings of some people on here are quite literally incredible!
BNP will win Becontree? Actually being on the ground and knowing the area is better. The Becontree candidate is about as good as Rustem.
We assume that these are the only two qualified to stand who do not have criminal records.
Tabman I adjust my comments and sometimes forget to wholly delete previos words that didn’t appear.
21 Know much abour Wales?
Ps Didn’t we have the Tory PPC for Torbay appearing a while back/ Does he Still Post?
The more I think of the result the more I think how well the Conservatives did,the result(apart from the Tories winning),turnout,order of ranking etc was completely out of line with my logic - could make Cheadle more interesting.
The Tories did very well in this by-election (although you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise with BBC coverage). What suprises me is despite a very high UKIP vote, they still managed to increase their share of the vote. I was not expecting this. The Tories would have lost quite a few voters to UKIP, although I suspect they picked up many voters from Labour. This result is disappointing for the LibDems, especially in a by-election. It looks like Cheadle will be very interesting, if the UKIP vote stays down I think they have every chance of winning.
41 - Do we have anything more than supposition to believe that it’s the Tories that lose votes to UKIP? I have no way of knowing, but it seems to me that UKIP’s base is in small towns (seats like Thanet north, Corby, Erewash, Staffs Moorlands, Stalybridge and Hyde) - seats which might well vote Tory near London but are less likely to the further from London you go. So it seems to me that while UKIP might hurt the Tories in the south-east, they hurt Labour (and maybe the Lib Dems too) as you go further from London. For example, look at the GE result for Staffs Moorlands - if you assume the UKIP vote comes from the Tories, and add Tory and UKIP votes together, they would win clearly, when they failed to do this in 1992 when they won nationally. I wonder if any studies have been done to show who UKIP voters are?
42 - Richard is the expert on Staffs Moorlands, but IIRC a UKIP predecessor, the Anti-Federalist League, got 3% or so there in 1992 - enough to make the difference between a comfortable Tory hold and a close one.
I think I was actually thinking of the notional result. They won the Staffs Moorlands seat in 1992 but would have lost it fought on ‘97 boundaries. Anyway, interesting that there is a history of euroscepticism in the area.
I think you can read too much into the increase in Tory vote share in South Staffs and it doesn’t read over to Cheadle - I would guess that on such a low turn out there are a higher proportion of Con voters that always vote no matter what - a higher proportion of Labour voters didn’t turn out - it wasn’t as if there was any prospect of an upset.
45. But it points to Voter fatigue? The LIbs might vhave done better to hold of until after the Summer to let their voters recover their ardour. All those lAbour tactical Voters who emerged to vote and keep out Day may very well not bother only a matter of weeks after they voted last time for a party that was their second choice and with such nice weather that maybe about in JUly.
Having had time to reflect on the special election I think what it means is that Sir Patrick is back at Westminster doing what he does bests - plotting.
It also means that there will no doubt be a tedious debate on changing the rules when a candidate dies before polling day.
I have to say the idea that fringe organisations will put up suicidal candidates to embarrass the PM is preposterous - probably only made possible by the publicity Sir Patrick has given it. What’s the alternative - the US system where dead people are elected? That’s far more likely to be abused by voters wanting to send a message to the political establishment.
47.”Having had time to reflect on the special election I think what it means is that Sir Patrick is back at Westminster doing what he does bests - plotting.”
who did he support the Duncan Smith/Portillo/Clarke leadership race?
I think Cormack voted for Clarke, although I could be mistaken. He obviously likes experience, this is what he said about the current leadership election: “”I do not believe that anyone who has been in the House of Commons for less than 10 years is really in a position to have the necessary experience to lead a party or a country”
“I have to say the idea that fringe organisations will put up suicidal candidates to embarrass the PM is preposterous - probably only made possible by the publicity Sir Patrick has given it.”
I did hear the idea proposed for Sedgefield this time, before the situation in S Staffs. However I do believe the last time it happened was 1951, so it’s probably not the most pressing issue in the electoral system.
49. so I could suppose he would not support Cameron.
The tory leadership race has already reached its low point with Alan Duncan discussing lingerie with Petronella Wyatt in the Spectator(try to image Duncan as tory leader asking Blair-or Brown- at the Question Time: “Prime Minister what type of underwear do you wear? Voters need to know”)
“Petronella Wyatt in the Spectator”, one of the world’s “journalists” around (and that is saying something), but you don’t have to be Einstein to work out how she got her job.
Sophia @ 49,
IIRC, in the 1997 leadership race Cormack’s first choice was Peter Lilley; he switched to Clarke after Lilley finished a poor fourth only one vote ahead of Howard. He then deserted Clarke for Hague in the final ballot after the former concluded the “instability pact” with Redwood. To me this suggests that he cannot easily be marked down as a doctrinaire left-winger, right-winger, europhile or eurosceptic. He is also markedly at odds with Clarke on the Iraq war.
The Clarke-Redwood pact still really puzzles me, particularly given Clarke’s subsequent posture of not being prepared to compromise to get to the leadership.
(41) The level of LibDem campaigning was influenced by (a) the amount that could be spent, and (b) tired activists.
In Cheadle the spending limit is around £100,000 compared with around £10,000 in SStaffs, and the foot soldiers have been (if not exactly resting) on peacetime duties.
LibDem results are sensitive to level of campaigning, and it seems reasonable to assume that the level of campaigning in Cheadle will be ‘quite’ high.
Re 55 - the Lib Dem share increased by more than the Tory share. There is next to nothing in the S Staffs poll that has any resonance to Cheadle - it’s going to be a tough two way fight between the Lib Dems and the Tories, with the Lib Dems favourites as incumbents and the circumstance of the by-election.
47 - The best thing I think would be a system where the vote carries on, and if the dead candidate is elected, a by-election is automatically called, otherwise the result stands.
There are quite a few people on this board who were going to Glastonbury. I feel at this time, our sympathies should be with them:
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/53143530.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE9A21091711E5AD1E58FAC337FDB7856E7757C85AE85A779B
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/53143523.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE9A21091711E5AD1EFC88FEA146CB6E287757C85AE85A779B
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/53143434.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE9A21091711E5AD1ECF39BDF8918F05D87757C85AE85A779B
http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/53143395.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=E2399169AC85D6DE9A21091711E5AD1ED3C1E08690C7AD837757C85AE85A779B
Mad idea 47.
Unless you believe candidates don’t make a difference at all to the result. Why should the Party whose candidate dies in an election be penalised?
57. How does the dead candidate or party campaign? In a coffin. No that’s surely a non starter
58 - all it needs is a caption saying “They should have come to the pb.com party.”
Pretty grim though, every year I wonder if I should recapture my youth by going (will be 10 years next year since I went to a festival) - fortunately this wasn’t the year I decided I would.
52.”“Petronella Wyatt in the Spectator”, one of the world’s “journalists” around (and that is saying something), but you don’t have to be Einstein to work out how she got her job.”
and Petronella is the only journalist who is willing to talk about underwears with little Duncan (for your information she doens’t wear frilly knickers because “they spoil the line of your clothes”).
60 - I don’t know, Howard picked up a few seats this time round.
I apologise for the rather tired vampire joke but could not resist.
60 - ever remember Harry Enfield’s “Mr Dead”?
61 - my plumber (who is 58) is there; it was a toss-up between that or his mother’s 90th apparently.
Well in that case, we youngsters are doing the up-to-the-minute thing by staying in London
47 - I don’t see why it’s preposterous at all, and the publicity is caused by it happening not Sir Patrick calling for it to be changed. I doubt almost anybody knew that these were the rules before, now they are the perfect vehicle for a pro-Euthanasia organisation to cause chaos.
Sophia at 52. A little sexist against the ghastly Petronella don’t you think?
67 - Oh, come on - the idea that there will be armies of suicide candidates bringing the nation to its knees is pretty far-fetched. I think delaying it for seven weeks was quite excessive - the Lib Dems should have been told to find a stand in at double-quick speed and this should have been done and dusted a few weeks ago - but the only alternative of having dead people on the ballot paper strikes me as the worse option. How quickly could they have got it done in practice? Perhaps there could be a reform to shorten time limits for notice of poll and so on in such circumstances in future but I see no case beyond that.
I have actually never been to Glastonbury (apart from the mud, it goes on for far too long and far too many hippies and performance artists - who should be banned by LAW). I go to Reading most years and have been to V a couple of times (very corporate but relatively good toilets).
68 - Slightly catty maybe Roger but surely we are allowed a little bitchness on a Friday afternoon.
70 - “performance artists - who should be banned by LAW”… I see you lot are taking that ’social liberalism’ one step at a time
I went to Reading in 1995 and was thoroughly annoyed by the rain (much less than those at Glastonbury are contending with today) and Phoenix in 1996. Never been to V, though a friend of mine used to live in Chelmsford, so I wouldn’t even have had to brave the campsite.
Whatever hallucinogenic drugs those Glastobury campers are taking I hope it’s enough….
69 - Quite agree James - it seems to be only Patrick Cormack’s indignation at missing out on the Tory leadership shenanegans that this is being seriously debated.
It’s happened twice at Parliamentary level in 50+ years, so it’s hardly an issue that needs to take up valuable parliamentary time.
I would imagine its more his indignation at losing out at being Father of the House.
I think it’s all been sorted out so he’s still in line for Father of the House. Not sure what the order of swearing in was, so not sure how likely he is actually to reach that exalted rank.
We must thank Mrs T for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the subsequent Unionist resignations which ensure that Ian Paisley will never be FotH.
Another way of looking at South Staffs….
In comparison with 2001
Lib Dems are down 1351 votes
Tories are down 7952 votes
Labour is down 9918 votes
Is this really the marvellous Tory triumph that some people are talking about?
But you could say that the Lib Dems were starting at a much lower point, so say losing 1,000 votes from 4,000 is much the same as losing 5,000 from 20,000
76, with a 37% turnout, it’s almost impossible to increase the total numbers of votes for the tories (and fot others parties too).
69 - not “armies of suicide candidates”, but one candidate wanting to make a point about Euthanasia in the PM’s constituency. How anyone can dismiss the chaos that would be caused by the PM having to wait 7 weeks to be elected is beyond me.
(hell another possibility is that Al Qaeda or other terrorist organisation could assassinate one of the candidates if you don’t like the idea of suicide (or terminally ill) candidates)
It’s extremely unlikely (twice in 50 years) for this to happen by natural causes. That is no comment on how likely it were to happen if it were done deliberately.
The rules should be changed. If a candidate dies after registration, the election should still be held. If the dead candidate then wins, then there should be a by election.
On the subject of the special election in South Staffs it tells us little. However one small point is that labour will not want too many by elections this time round, if there vote continues to stay at home, which by elections have shown it has a propensity to do.
“It’s extremely unlikely (twice in 50 years) for this to happen by natural causes. That is no comment on how likely it were to happen if it were done deliberately.”
I can think of far better and simpler ways of terrorists disrupting a UK election than using an archane process of delaying the poll. They could blow up a polling station or assasinate the PM directly for example. Just how likely is it that anyone would be barking enough to think that this would be a good way of making their point.
Strangely enough it’s not that easy to assassinate the PM
How about a compromise, Dan? We use the “valuable Parliamentary time” otherwise earmarked for ID Cards
81.”I can think of far better and simpler ways of terrorists disrupting a UK election than using an archane process of delaying the poll. They could blow up a polling station or assasinate the PM directly for example”
I think that the PM has more protection than the greens candidate in Sedgefield.
79 - First, I think South Staffs could and should have been held more quickly and that could sensibly be looked at. But having dead candidates standing just makes a mockery of it as nobody can campaign properly and it deprives people of a sensible choice.
Secondly, I am not sure a slight delay in the PM getting elected would cause “chaos”. He would be perfectly entitled to remain as PM, represent Britain at summits and so on. The only thing he couldn’t do is PMQs - his deputy would simply step in for half a dozen post-election (and thus dull and pointless) sessions. It would have been a bit irksome not to be able to present the (non)results of the European summit to the House, but “chaos” is putting it far too strongly.
(81) If we’re into conspiracies: all one has to do is get nominations registered for several terminally ill candidates. There would be no problem getting people to sign a paper for anybody who wants to stand, because the response of the Brit-in-the-street is to say “Fair play; let the voters decide.”
85 - you would have to find people who were not only terminally ill but also (a) sufficiently likely to die detween close of nominations and polling day; and (b) were prepared to do it despite it being a silly idea and them having more important things on their mind than slightly inconveniencing a few people.
You wouldn’t find a lot of people who met both conditions. Actually, I think you’d have trouble finding any. Thankfully, there probably also aren’t a lot of people willing to kill themselves on demand either. The whole thing just strikes me as utterly preposterous.
By “prepared to do it” I mean prepared to sign the forms - it is a bit ambiguous as I wrote it.
I’ve just read Alan Duncan’s recommendation for the future of the Tory Party that they “Rip the piss out of themselves”. Where’s he been for the last twelve years?
84 - “The only thing he couldn’t do is PMQs - his deputy would simply step in for half a dozen post-election (and thus dull and pointless) sessions.”
Sounds like it would be quite entertaining with the Deputy PM to me
Interesting what happened in the US in similar circumstances. Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan was killed in a plane crash whilst contesting the 2001 senate race as a Democrat. Despite this he remained on the ballot and beat no less than John Ashcroft. His widow, Jean was appointed as senator in his place until such time as a special election could be called. In the special election (2002) she lost to the Republican.
32 that is very interesting about bookies identifying ‘clever’ punters. They ought to just take it as a tip and shift their odds a bit. Doesn’t affect betfair or spreadfair of course.
Roger @ 88: What on earth did he mean?
Mike — many thanks for the Labour below 30% tip — another rock solid PB.com headline tip. I didn’t manage to get evens, but 4-5 is still fine.
There were two elections in South Staffs yesterday. The County seat was also won by the Tories, but the Lib Dem vote rose to 27%, up from 20% in 2001. Mark Senior will need this to complete his spreadsheet.
Con 2403 62.5 3477 60.5
Lib 1051 27.4 1159 20.2
Lab 388 10.1 1114 19.4
3842 100 5750 100
92. A good question. I think it was his way of throwing his hat into the ring. He also likened the party to a lingerie department in need of ‘frilly knickers’. I’m not a Conservative myself but I assume with over 10% of the party standing for the leadership this was his way of showing he was different……but does it?
95. He found some bizarre ways to show he’s different. And all these talks about the nude calendar: firstly he said that he shouldn’t have done it and then he continued to talk about it (how much nude he was?).
94 - Many thanks Peter , I would have found it eventually on the Staffs County Council site . Another example where the Lib Dem vote in the County Election was higher than in the GE .
Perhaps the only interesting comment to make about the election in Staffordshire South is regarding UKIP. If UKIP can’t do better than 10% in a seat like Staffordshire South which has a naturally right leaning electorate, they aren’t going to do well anywhere especially when you consider the derisory turnout.
I’d be surprised if UKIP got more than a few percent in Cheadle, given it’s more marginal status.
A curiosity: Joanne Crotty (the libdems candidate) increased the Libdems % of votes by 2.2%. She stood in Eddisbury too and she got a 2.2% increase there too.
Who is going to be the clever person to find a seat where the LDs need 2.1% to win so that Ms Crotty is a shoe in for a seat next time - and net us a nice few quid for the slenderest marginal?
If she stood in Ludlow and increased the LD share by 2.2% entirely at the expense of the Tories, you get a Lib Dem majority of 29. Shall I call the local party?
Roger @ 95: Thanks for the elucidation. This kind of language puts me off; at least Oliver Letwin’s archaic mode of speech produces a meaning (if carefully followed — it’s easier to read than to listen to), but this seems designed to avoid meaning while sounding “cool” (or another adjective). Or is it just me being out of touch?
101. Weston-Super-Mare is another possibility for her.
BV - if we could get odds on a LD maj of exactly 29 in 09/10 in Ludlow now I will be badgering said Ms Crotty for the next 4 years. Surely there would be a fortune in it!
This time in five years we’ll be millionaires!
104 - Graham, was that a typo?
See you tomorrow.
106 - and I should have added that Stephen would be jealous.
Depends what you mean by badgering Tabman - in Somerset….
BV @ 105 - yes and on a mere £5 outlay - it’s what might be called a slow burner
108 - those Somerset types and their strange Northern ways …
Do they wear flat caps and whippets?
It’s where they wear the whippets that is best left unsaid.
82 - Cheers Alex! I’m very happy for more Parliamentary time to be given to ID cards - the more it is debates the stupider the idea will be seen to be. The ICM poll the other week showed that support is sliding for them and the more the government bollocks up it - family tax credits being the latest example - the less likely people are to believe big government can deliver.
Let alone giving the Civil liberties arguments…
Bring it on!
I think this is all from yesterday:
Barking and Dagenham London Borough - Goresbrook:
Lab 1227, BNP 791, Ukip 216, Con 167
(May 2002, three seats: Lab 847, 842, 778, Lib Dem 520, 509;
September 16 2004 byelection: BNP 1072, Lab 602, Ukip 137, Con 111, Lib Dem 85, Green 59)
Lab gain from BNP
Dover District - Walmer:
Con 1031, Lab 449, Lib Dem 211
(May 2003, three seats: Con 774, 770, 754, Lab 500, 487, 467)
C hold
Swing 6% Lab to C
Epping Forest District - Lower Sheering:
Con 208, Lab 64, Lib Dem 22
(June 2004: Con 207, Lib Dem 80)
C hold
Swing 9.5% Lib Dem to Con
North Tyneside Borough - Weetslade:
Con 1177, Lab 998, Lib Dem 347
(June 2004, three seats: Lab 1698, 1659, Con 1630, 1556, Lab 1437, Con 1254, Lib Dem 937)
Con gain from Lab
Swing 5% Lab to Con.
From last week:
Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough - Horton and Wraysbury:
Con 595, Ind 499
(May 2003, two seats: Ind 790, 722, Con 516, 474, Lab 69)
Con gain from Ind
OT, but Sir Reg Empey has been elected as the new UUP leader
The countermanded poll may only have happened twice in 54 years, however the previous two ocaasions were 1950 and 1951, just a year apart.
However it is a regular occurance in local elections. There was another countermanded poll this year in Norfolk as well as Staffs. There were a couple last year, Brent in the 2002 local elections and Bexley in the 1998 London local elections.
As I pointed out on another thread for some reason the rules regarding deaths of Parliamentary canddiates were changed in 1968.
In Manchester Moss Side (1950) the poll was delayed from February 23rd (GE day) to March 9th and in Barnsley (1951) from October 25th (GE Day) to November 8th.
In 1945 Mr Leslie Pym died between close of poll and the count, which took place and the by election followed on after his “election”.
However the fact there has not been a countermanded poll (and attendant publicity) for over half a century does not preclude some bizarre people from having strange ideas next time.
I suggest Parliament alters the rules to what happened prior to 1968 -and soon.
WQhat are the latest odds on Cheadle?
http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/Default.aspx?market=16639689
Re. 43, book value, you’re absolutely right. AFL candidate Mike Howson’s 3.4% of the vote (1,121) was enough to make the difference between Staffs. Moorlands having a safe seat type majority (over 8,000) and having a marginal majority (7,410) even before the boundary changes did so much harm to the Conservative chances of holding the seat in 97. The common thread between that result (which was the AFL’s best in the entire UK - see Butler & Kavanagh’s Nuffield Guide) and the one on May 5th this year was that, in each year, the Eurosceptic minor party had well-known local personalities standing for it, Mike Howson (a well-known local Conservative activist) in 92 and Steve Povey (a Ratepayer councillor and local businessman with a gift for self-publicity - as the terrace song would have it, ‘he’s here, he’s there, he’s everyf*ckingwhere’, certainly in the local papers).
I’m slightly sceptical towards the notional figures for the 92 election. The problem with them is that they’re based on the 91 local election results. This is bound to be flawed when:
a) Nationally, the parties were within a point of each other in those elections, completely unlike the 92 vote shares
b) Staffs. Moorlands saw that year a strong Ratepayer performance (in fact, they won overall control - the only occasion, so far, that any party has won overall control of SMDC since its creation in the early 1970s).
I think that, allowing for those factors, the boundary changes may have reduced the actual Tory majority of 7,410 to a notional one of 1,000 or 2,000, instead of giving Labour an ‘inbuilt’ majority of 1,185 (as Rallings & Thrasher suggested).
As for the next GE (when boundary changes will take Kidsgrove out), I’ve worked out that, had the boundary changes been in effect on May 5th, the Conservatives would have won by 3,300.
If Ms Cotty stands in WSM or Ludlow no doubt she will be a ‘local campaigner’ as she was in S Staffs, and Eddisbury…
Re: 58 - Sophia
Thanks for the sympathy vote after glasto
It was cruel twist after scorching sunshine on Wednesday and Thursday to awake early on Friday morning to torrential rain and an apocalyptic thunder storm after risking contracting trench foot for most of Friday I was forced to stand in line for nearly four hours to get the very last pair of size 10 wellise in Glastonbury.
But the music was still great, Brian Wilson, Maximo Park, Kaiser Chiefs, Coldplay, the Killer… all excellent sets, Interpol was a bit of damp sqid but their not exactly a “festival band” and Kylie not being able to play robbed me of the once chance I might have had to see her live and cling on to some credibility
But If I see another pint of peach cider I’m going to throw up, we decided to stay up till dawn on Sunday night in the scared space which looks out over Glastonbury with nothing but cider and a few biscuits… not a good idea!
Ah well I’d best get back to rediscovering how darn comfortable a sofa can be… Leicester South Labour will be without its “great helmsman” for today it seems…
Hi
As in your guestbook to include support html?
hi
Prompt how to get rid of advertising?
Hi
To write the letter, it is necessary …
Hi
Well here at you, it will be necessary still to return.
Hi! Who knows still sites similar to this?
It is a site, it I understand, have tried.
I want mp3 player. What will advise?
Hi
To write the letter, it is necessary …