• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!

mbp said:
Why do some constituencies take so much longer to produce a result than others? Don't they all have roughly the same number of votes to count?
Click to expand...
Some started counting late, some didn't start counting till today, and some places are having recounts. Rural constituencies generally take longer as the ballot boxes have further to travel to get to the count.
 
mbp said:
Why do some constituencies take so much longer to produce a result than others? Don't they all have roughly the same number of votes to count?
Click to expand...

The large rural constituencies always take longer to count. It takes longer to get the ballot boxes to the count-room and there are more votes to count. Constituencies in which the result is close take the longest as it is much more important that the count is accurate. If a recount is needed, this delays the declaration further.

Constituencies like Sunderland South, who declare in under an hour, are geographically small, densely populated and the result is never in doubt (So no-one really cares if the count is off by a couple of hundred votes)

ETA. What Agatha said. Curse my slow typing.
 
Last edited:
Yippie, London stays Labour. Anne Keen and Tony McNulty lost, but the Labour party are better off without them.

I liked 'Yes we Khan! Yes we Khan!' when Sadiq Khan got re-elected.
 
Last edited:
Interested in what happens at Eton when one of their chaps gets in. Do they have a half-holiday, extra helpings of spotted dick, or does Matron come round with special treats?
 
Evilgiraffe said:
The large rural constituencies always take longer to count. It takes longer to get the ballot boxes to the count-room and there are more votes to count. Constituencies in which the result is close take the longest as it is much more important that the count is accurate. If a recount is needed, this delays the declaration further.

Constituencies like Sunderland South, who declare in under an hour, are geographically small, densely populated and the result is never in doubt (So no-one really cares if the count is off by a couple of hundred votes)

ETA. What Agatha said. Curse my slow typing.
Click to expand...

It also depends on the number of staff used. Sunderland (which announced first) had something like 200 counters. Our area is not only rural, but had about 25% more votes to count and only had around 60 counters, so it obviously took much longer to get a result. We were also not running around like blue-arsed flies and employing child labour :)

The last ballot boxes were just arriving at our count centre when Sunderland announced their result.
 
Last edited:
commandlinegamer said:
Given Nick Clegg's comments about the Tories, I can't see Lib-Lab coalition unless Gordy offers him the premiership.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read between the lines with Cleggs statement. Its a soundbite for the electorate IMO. I would be very surprised if the Libs can do anything with Cameron.

I think Browns overtures about electoral reform earlier were a sign something can be worked with the Libs.
 
Ah, so all the votes in each constituency are moved to one place before the counting starts. Yes, then some time difference does make sense.
I had assumed they'd just do a count at each polling station and then phone in the result.
 
So if Nick Clegg decides to form a coalition with labour but doesn't want Gordon Brown... we could end up with a situation where we watched all the leaders dabtes, yet the Prime Minister might end up being none of them, someone not elected by us, and not even a member of the party most people voted for.

Very interesting times. :)
 
It seems to me that the 'Labour, but not Gordon Brown' option is rather a difficult one. At the moment, Brown is the PM, and if he feels that he can continue as such then he isn't required to resign. What happens if his party wants to continue in government, but he personally has to resign as PM? Does that mean that the party currently in government gets first crack at forming a new government, or are all bets off from the moment Brown resigns?

Dave
 
The first past the post system really is insane. With 641/650 seats declared, the results so far are Conservative - 302, Labour - 256, Lib Dem - 56. However, the proportion of actual votes is 36.2%, 29.1%, 23.0%. The Lib Dems should have 40 seats less than Labour, instead they have 200 less. Seems pretty clear that the whole electoral system needs some serious sorting out. At the moment who the public vote for has very little to do with who actually ends up in power. Those of the public who are actually allowed to vote rather than being sent home by the police.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It seems to me that the 'Labour, but not Gordon Brown' option is rather a difficult one. At the moment, Brown is the PM, and if he feels that he can continue as such then he isn't required to resign. What happens if his party wants to continue in government, but he personally has to resign as PM? Does that mean that the party currently in government gets first crack at forming a new government, or are all bets off from the moment Brown resigns?
Click to expand...


I think they're making it up as they go now.

I thought the Conservative offer to Nick Clegg was a bit lame. "We are not going to compromise on important stuff like immigration or defence, but we're happy to compromise on tiny stuff that we don't give a toss about."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom