General Election 8th June

[BuddieinEK]

I voted today - local elections. Voted for the Green Party candidate, marking my '1' in his box. Having received all the main party candidate literature through my door, I voted for the Greens based on the fact he didn't appear to be a complete knobcheese.
Roll on the big one in five weeks time. 

Well in my area it was easy.

Long serving local labour candidate was not put forward after 20 years service... all to allow a knobcheese the chance to represent the party.

As long as said knobcheese is associated with them I cannot vote for them. I know too much about him from personal past dealings.

Deselected councillor stood as an independent! Sorted.

GIRFUY protest vote to local Labour who still can't seem to listen.

Number 2 to Greens... Do I get a recipe too? A veggie currie would be a lovely accompaniment to some lamb steaks!

[BuddieinEK]

I voted tactically. I gave everyone a number - well, everyone who wasn't Labour or Conservative.

Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.

[pozbaird]

12 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.

 

 

As we walked into the local primary school to vote, the independent candidate, a young guy wearing a white independent rosette, held the door open for us as we entered. Mrs Poz voted for him because he was polite and held the door open.

I voted Green, as I reckoned, by reading his bio' on his leaflet, he wasn't an utter knobcheese.

I remember the days when Mrs Poz and I voted on political beliefs, deeply-held views, and a sense of what the parties stood for. Here we are in 2017 voting because a young chap held a door open and I didn't want to vote for a knobcheese.

FFS.

[El Gingero]

I voted SNP for the first time in my life as the local Grangemouth candidate is a member of my church and also helps at the Breakfast club my kids attend.

[Drew]

Seemingly it was better to rank all the candidates - including the f**king bastarding shitehawks. Not ranking the foul, despicable candidates effectively acts as an abstention, and apparently they can gain from that. I'm not entirely sure how it works, but other, more knowledgeable folks, seem to promote that approach.

 

 

 

[stlucifer]

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 0:53 PM, mcdowell76 said:

Scottish, Tory and proud!

Tories on track for their most successful election in Scotland since the early 70s!

Brilliant!

'mon the Ruth!

 

[saintnextlifetime]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.

 

So , would that be tactical voting then . .

[BuddieinEK]

Can't see it. If you don't put a number against someone you don't want then they can never get any vote (or "partial" vote) from you. If you give them a number, no matter how high, then there is always a chance (albeit very small) that they could gain an advantage from that.

It is to do with how excess votes are distributed once a candidate reaches the required amount to be elected.

Apparantly they are then redistributed.

When the National advises you to include the Tories in your voting you know there must be something in it!

[oaksoft]

11 hours ago, Drew said:

What d'ye reckon to the Rape Clause, Andy? In favour of it, aye?

 

I think the Tories would have been better off not having this clause at all and either sticking to a cap of 2 kids, 3 kids or removed the cap altogether. They have allowed lefties to comtrol the debate and wrongly make this about rape when in actual fact it was always about capping benefits.

Addition of that clause really was a schoolchild error because the Tories should have known that lefties will always hijack any cause for political gain.

All this vocal concern which appeared overnight for victims of rape after so many centuries of not apparently giving two f**ks about it absolutely reeks of fakery. Certainly I dont recall such outrage across the nation after that footballer was jailed. This is just all disgustingly and depressingly fake. I wish it wasnt. I wish the outrage was genuine but it isnt though.

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, DougJamie said:

Offer retracted........

I tore up your offer, burnt it, added some petrol to make sure it fully combusted, ground the remains to a fine powdery dust, gathered the dust into a mortar and pestle, added some acid to dissolve what was left, neutralised the resulting liquid, diluted it in water and poured it down the sink before flushing for 35 minutes.

Under these circumstances, if you were somehow able to sufficiently reconstruct the original offer to make the phrase "Offer retracted" have any meaning whatsoever then I have seriously misjudged your talents. Otherwise I have to tell you, my dear fellow, you simply cannot retract what I have already disposed of.

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I voted tactically. I gave everyone a number - well, everyone who wasn't Labour or Conservative.

 

4 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

Apparantly it is better to give them all a number as 7 against your cheeseknobs might count against them.

 

 

3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

Can't see it. If you don't put a number against someone you don't want then they can never get any vote (or "partial" vote) from you. If you give them a number, no matter how high, then there is always a chance (albeit very small) that they could gain an advantage from that.

 

 

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

I was reading up earlier on how it works (funnily enough, after I voted) and I can't see how that would be correct. It's very complicated so I won't even start to try and explain how it works (or at least how I think it works), it would be like going back to the bad old days with wotsisface and page long posts.

 

If you buggers think you are going to use these subversive tactics to trick me into getting involved in a discussion over the range of probabilities you can forget it. Nice try though. Nice try.

Edited May 5, 2017 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Anyway, on the election front, this is turnin out to be a bloodbath.

Tories are winning everywhere, Labour are hemorrr....hameorrr....bleeding votes in all areas and UKIP appear to be dead.

The Scottish vote will be fascinating.

[Drew]

5 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I think the Tories would have been better off not having this clause at all and either sticking to a cap of 2 kids, 3 kids or removed the cap altogether. They have allowed lefties to comtrol the debate and wrongly make this about rape when in actual fact it was always about capping benefits.

Addition of that clause really was a schoolchild error because the Tories should have known that lefties will always hijack any cause for political gain.

All this vocal concern which appeared overnight for victims of rape after so many centuries of not apparently giving two f**ks about it absolutely reeks of fakery. Certainly I dont recall such outrage across the nation after that footballer was jailed. This is just all disgustingly and depressingly fake. I wish it wasnt. I wish the outrage was genuine but it isnt though.

Do you know what you've just done? Perhaps you aren't fully aware of it, but you've twisted this to suit your argument - exactly what you are accusing the 'vocal/fake' objectors to the rape clause of doing.

If you cannot grasp the fact that many, many people find the idea of obliging women to divulge that their child was conceived as a result of rape for £13 a week is abhorrent, then you are beyond debate. Suggesting that this strength if feeling is based on 'lefties' hijacking the issue is tawdry at best.

The Tories are being called out, and that is entirely appropriate. It seems you cannot find empathy for the women who are directly affected by this, and prefer to use it as an opportunity to advance your argument. That's pretty lacking on your part, I'm afraid.

 

[saintnextlifetime]

The counting in Scotland will be underway in about 1and a half hours . .

[Thorizaar]

6 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

It is to do with how excess votes are distributed once a candidate reaches the required amount to be elected.

Apparantly they are then redistributed.

When the National advises you to include the Tories in your voting you know there must be something in it!

 

I can't fathom out this advice. If your first choice can't win, then your second choice is counted and so on. Theoretically, if you rank a tory 7th it could eventually count as a vote. 

If you only rank three, for example, and none of them can win, then your vote is non-transferable and that's the end of it.

[shull]

10 candidates on my form.

Gave a 1 to my first choice.

Gave a 2 to my second choice.

That was it, never gave any of the remaining 8 a number. 

Hope I done it correctly

[Drew]

21 minutes ago, Thorizaar said:

I can't fathom out this advice. If your first choice can't win, then your second choice is counted and so on. Theoretically, if you rank a tory 7th it could eventually count as a vote. 

If you only rank three, for example, and none of them can win, then your vote is non-transferable and that's the end of it.

The argument is that non rankings count as abstensions (to all intents and purposes) and the ghost ranking is distributed to others - though I'm  of sure how that is worked out.

Seemingly, there is therefore more cbance of non-ranking 'votes' passing  on to your least favoured option than if you had ranked them as low as possible.

As I said earlier, folk who understand this better seem to have put forward this analysis.

[Drew]

There is a danger that people will try to extrapolate too much from the results today in terms of the overall political/constitutional picture.

Turnout is likely to be low, and the style of campaigning will be very different.

It seems to me that the SNP have gone all out to target the prize of Glasgow in order to get the big scalp and lay down a marker. They've certainly been quiet in my local authority area - given their profile in the last GE and Scot Parliament elections. This could yet backfire on them.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Drew

[Thorizaar]

24 minutes ago, Drew said:

The argument is that non rankings count as abstensions (to all intents and purposes) and the ghost ranking is distributed to others - though I'm  of sure how that is worked out.

Seemingly, there is therefore more cbance of non-ranking 'votes' passing  on to your least favoured option than if you had ranked them as low as possible.

As I said earlier, folk who understand this better seem to have put forward this analysis.

Only your ranking choices will ever count. A candidate you don't rank will never get a vote from you.

There was also mention of a "partial" vote earlier. Any preference you put can become your actual vote. There aren't partial votes.

[Drew]

31 minutes ago, Thorizaar said:

Only your ranking choices will ever count. A candidate you don't rank will never get a vote from you.

There was also mention of a "partial" vote earlier. Any preference you put can become your actual vote. There aren't partial votes.

I appreciate that, but it is similar in some ways to the list system for Scot Parliament elections. In the list scenario, it isn't simply about how many votes a candidate receives, it is also a case of an 'excess' of votes (ie - in addition to the requirement to gain a seat) getting distributed among the remaining candidates.

In STV, I think there is a similar scenario with non-ranked (abstention) options.

That probably doesn't make sense, but it the only way I can come close to describing how I think it works.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Drew

[saintnextlifetime]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

There is a danger that people will try to extrapolate too much from the results today in terms of the overall political/constitutional picture.

Turnout is likely to be low, and the style of campaigning will be very different.

It seems to me that the SNP have gone all out to target the prize of Glasgow in order to get the big scalp and lay down a marker. They've certainly been quiet in my local authority area - given their profile in the last GE and Scot Parliament elections. This could yet backfire on them.

Very little campaigning in my area from any Party .. They must be saving themselves as there was very little representation at the polls too . .not even a cop. .

[smcc]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

The argument is that non rankings count as abstensions (to all intents and purposes) and the ghost ranking is distributed to others - though I'm  of sure how that is worked out.

Seemingly, there is therefore more cbance of non-ranking 'votes' passing  on to your least favoured option than if you had ranked them as low as possible.

As I said earlier, folk who understand this better seem to have put forward this analysis.

Tell me how you can count votes that were never made.

[Bud the Baker]

UKIP looking likely to be wiped out in England & Wales with most of the votes going to the Tories.

Just seen Stephen Kinnock stick the knife in Corbyn on TV.

Oh and apparently Theresa May is a strong leader. 

**************

Initial speculation is that the Tories are going to increase their share of the vote & number of councillors but my interpretation is that is based on 2012 results, we'll see how it unfolds.

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Bud the Baker

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

9 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

UKIP looking likely to be wiped out in England & Wales with most of the votes going to the Tories.

Just seen Stephen Kinnock stick the knife in Corbyn on TV.

Oh and apparently Theresa May is a strong leader. ( and stable )

 

 

[Bud the Baker]

UKIP Paul Nuttall leader on yesterday's results..............

Quote

Our electoral success over recent years was a key driver in forcing the Conservatives to embrace our cause under a new prime minister who was campaigning for a Remain vote in the referendum a year ago.

Mrs May's public dispute with the EU in recent days – which led to her speaking about standing up to Brussels in an eve-of-poll statement in Downing Street – was particularly fortuitously timed for the Conservatives.

And county council seats that were in natural Tory territory have gone back to the Tories.

If the price of Britain leaving the EU is a Tory advance after taking up this patriotic cause then it is a price UKIP is prepared to pay.

............he certainly seems to think that the Tories have stolen their clothes.