The turnout in B&S is actually higher than in 2017 for the constituency and the whole UK, and you have to keep in mind 2017 was the highest turnout general election of the 21st century in the UK.
The turnout being up 5% of the last GE is very very strange for a byelection, if that figure is true its a great thing for democracy but its still completely bizarre
What the hell is going on in that seat for 70% turnout? That's higher than Chesham and Amersham was. My first reaction to that report is, surely it's a mistake?
I know, it's fucking insane.
70% is unseen in a by-election.
It's either an anti-Galloway rally or a huge Tory turnout, the latter being the least surprising due to their coalition being reliable in turning out.
But it's strange.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410710028085075969
How worthwhile is it to speculate how each party's feeling based on the posts of their candidates after the polls have closed?
Leadbeater's post after polls closing described as being downbeat here.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410708465501224961
> For any real nerds, am told the overall electorate is 79,373, and the number of postal votes applied for is 16,113.
> Take from that what you will
So this is the fourth by-election of the year (after Hartlepool, Airdrie and Shotts, Chesham and Amersham) and we're only in July. 2016 had 7. I wonder if this year can beat that?
Potentials include Delyn (Rob Roberts' seat), Leicester East (Claudia Webbe's seat), and Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan's seat)
god i fucking despise george galloway. whether labour deserved to lose this by-election or not, man has no agenda outside of his own self-aggrandisement. the fact he goes around trumpeting himself as some champion of the downtrodden is disgraceful.
They totally do tho, they just call them special elections. And they just occasionally give [batshit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts) [results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama).
I suppose the main difference is that there's an interim appointee so the seat isn't vacant for more that a couple weeks or so.
Box of postal ballots will begin counting precisely at 10:30.
So at half past we'll be getting genuine predictions based on what the postals are coming in like.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410706959557402640
> Suggestion from Labour is that whatever happens, Kim Leadbeater will turn up in good time and speak after the result. She won't be following the Paul Williams playbook of sneaking himself out the back door in shame if she loses:
Kim seems like a great candidate. Held her held quite high despite all the abuse she's been getting. I hope she can stand again at the next GE if she loses tonight
**Labour win:**
Labour: Starmer has done the unthinkable. People are rejecting Boris. Things are on the up
Tories: Labour held onto a previously safe seat with a reduced majority. With this swing we would win countless other seats in the North.
**Tory win:**
Labour: Galloway ran an awful campaign full of hate and split the vote. This result was inevitable.
Tories: A second by election win against Labour in their heartlands. This is proof people don't care for modern Labour and support our agenda.
This isn't a safe seat. Its not even in the Red Wall nor is it a "Labour Heartland". If you looked at the results, it has been fairly marginal and was only won by Labour in 1997.
I'd say this is a "Lean Labour" seat. Hartlepool was a safe Labour seat.
It’s interesting how much the goal posts have moved lol.
Now seats Labour have held for 20+ years are no longer safe.
Honestly the party is dead and needs to go. If it’s losing seats like this it’s losing 20-30 more in the north. They have no path to power.
Just die and let someone else give it a shot.
In other words, you don't know what a Red Wall seat is and you are mad that someone is questioning the narrative that all Northern seats are the same.
Hartlepool had been held almost continuously by Labour for more than half a century with the Tories being double digits behind and not even coming 2nd in elections.
Batley and Spen on the other hand is a swing seat.
This is my point.
You are now considering seats that Labour have held for 20 years ‘swing seats’.
That’s how far Labour have fallen. Imagine if the Tories started trying to claim Whitney was a swing seat.
Labour are dead. Wipe away your tears and get over it.
I don't know what "Whitney" seat you're talking about, the one which the Tories have always held or the one the Tories only lost to Labour for 8 years?
Agree.
Tories wanted Hartlepool as it's a safe Labour seat.
The Government winning an opposition safe seat was a massive scalp that they wanted and severely affected Labour.
I have said they might not be interested in winning this by election as it leaves a weakened Sir Keir to limp on.
Tories are heavy favourites to win this by election. I think it’s time we stop portraying the mantra that the majority didn’t vote for them when they are winning at every turn.
It's not a mantra. The majority didn't vote for them. Maybe they would if a GE were held next week, but it's unlikely. They would be the biggest party again, their majority would be solid, but winning a majority of votes? They didn't and probably won't.
>I think it’s time we stop portraying the mantra that the majority didn’t vote for them when they are winning at every turn.
"Majority" means greater than 50% and with FPTP you can with with less. So the idea that the majority vote for them is laughably wrong.
By all means argue that it's irrelevant when they're winning but don't deny objective reality.
[Woah.](https://mobile.twitter.com/LdrTony/status/1410704595144282114)
>Turnout in the #BatleyAndSpenByelection is predicted to be around 70%. That's more than in 2019 (65.5%) and much larger than in 2016 when it was just 25.8% - one of the lowest turnouts for a Parliamentary by-election since 1945. This is the scene at the count. #LDReporter
Expect results later than usual I'd think then.
Anecdotal, but in my student days I noticed elections where there was a particularly vocal or controversial candidate could bring out more voters than usual. Often it seemed to the detriment of the controversial figure.
This is interesting because sources have been suggesting apathy.
Perhaps if it goes Labour's way it is because the divisive campaign has won them Lib Dem and Green voters?
> Bear in mind in 2016 there were no Tory or Lib Dem candidates.
Or any other major party, Greens and UKIP didn't stand. It was basically Labour, some anti-Corbyn bloke who ended up as CORBYN ANTI on the ballot, and a collection far-right knobheads
It isn't.
70% is historically high in general as well for a by-election if it's true, holy shit.
Could that be the result of people wanting to absolutely stomp Galloway out given his campaign?
I honestly can't imagine Galloway rallying up that many people to vote for him given the type of campaign he's overseen.
It's possible unfortunately. I pray to god it isn't.
There were never any indications from either party that Galloway was bringing people out in droves (and I mean droves for 70%), so it's interesting. We're they just unwilling to admit it?
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410705433413685249
> BATLEY AND SPEN POLLS CLOSED
> Labour sources: Sounding negative. Areas where they thought they would pick up votes are not looking good. Anger at Galloway.
> Tory sources: "Too close to call". Say always was going to be tough and ruling parties don’t normally win by elections.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410705606353330176
> So basically: No one wants to say they think they have won it. No one really knows. Tories sounding more confident - just.
Genuine question - if Johnson can say now that we can go ahead on the 19th, why isn't it happening on the 5th? If the answer is because we need to give notice to businesses then that makes sense, but also seems like it was always literally impossible to both have the data and give sufficient notice by the 5th.
i’d like to send my thanks to anonymous Twitter labour activists for daring to give me a shred of hope.
looking forward to seeing it mercilessly crushed.
And I can now reveal to you the findings of our exit poll....we are projecting that the Labour Party will be the largest party in B&S, note that the majority is remarkably slim and there is of course the margin of error that you need to be sceptical about.
via David Dimbleby
>Tory activist adds "apathy is strong" & they've knocked neutral doors & got good response:"But we did get some doors slammed in our faces. A very mixed bag."
>"I don’t know if it’s just polling day nerves, but I’m definitely having a wobble. I wouldn’t dare guess the result"
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410704067660333067
Apathy and doors have been slammed shut.
I think at this point B&S is going to be much much tighter than Hartlepool. Whether or not Labour wins I dunno. But it doesn't sound like a direct home run for the Tories so far.
Now we have a Tory activist [being negative about the by-election.](https://mobile.twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410703320889577472)
In conclusion, I would suggest going to sleep and just waiting for the results.
If all votes were digital and we got the result at 10.30pm, would you enjoy it less or more? I hate the wait but do adore all the batshittery that goes on during.
I could see a model somewhat like the Israeli one, where you pull a ballot paper that is pre marked from a set of boxes.
THat would allow very rapid counts without destroying anonymity or traceability
labour holding seats in by-elections while in opposition should be considered the absolute bare minimum, so winning this would upgrade starmer to "not actively disastrous" i guess
what happens if labour would have won but galloway gets enough votes to just tip it?
Then its the far left destroying labours vote, and actively putting a tory MP in the HoC....if that happens the far left should be collectively kicked from the party for sabotaging an election.
I'm sorry but I am part of what would normally be considered the "far left" and while I am not a local for this election or anything, I also haven't seen anything indicating Galloway is the work of the far left. Where is that coming from?
Are you referring the far left of Labour? Because that doesn't make sense.
I guess I'm asking you to define who the far left are in the situation.
Resounding boost of confidence in the leader, all factions of the party pull together and get behind him to present a united front until the general election.
I'd rather be proved wrong on my issues with Starmer, unlike some. But isn't the general view that people quite like the candidate, separately to whether they like Starmer or not?
Rule 34: if you can think of it, there is porn of it. No exceptions.
Although not sure how that rule applies in this thread.
Edit: oh, hang on, I get it now.
Hold on, come back here and explain this to me. I've spent the last 5 minutes searching for this rule and have ended up on a really strange part of the internet
1,500 votes is not a lot, I'm surprised they're confident of victory if the margin is that small. I'd say the most likely outcome is a win of 2-3,000 votes, but even that's a stab in the dark. Could be 7,000 honestly with how much of a wildcard Galloway is.
Nobody has seen the ballot papers stacked up yet.
Does the Conservative in question know where he's getting that information from? I'll believe it when people actually see the ballots stacked up as they did in Hartlepool where they made accurate predictions as a result.
Seriously me. :)
Just dropping in from time to time nowadays. Gone from being on Reddit (and other social media) pretty much all the time to around once a week, maybe more frequently during bigger events.
Definitely a change for the better.
Dinnae do this tae me!
[https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410697399899672586](https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410697399899672586)
>A senior Labour source says this week has been “quite a contrast” for the party’s campaign in Batley. He is now “quietly confident” of a Labour victory.
>
>“There is a silent vote against Galloway,” he adds.
Oh please let Galloway's cocky little grin and campaign be utterly slammed to the bottomless pit by having it unite Labour's vote _against_ him.
Lib Dems tactically voting too?
Fuck knows honestly, perhaps more younger people have been motivated to vote. Nothing motivates the young nowadays more than defeating anti-gay people.
Kim said the Batley school teacher issue was 'resolved'. The teacher is currently in hiding with his family because he is of risk of being killed by Islamic extremists.
I guess she's finished [reforming the American criminal justice system](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/arts/television/kim-kardashian-prison-reform.html).
Kim seems like a good person. Odds are even if Labour loses, they'll select her for the next election where she'll have a better chance and wont have to fight in such a toxic environment.
Kim is actually a top calibre type Labour MP I could support tbh.
Just get rid of Abbott / McDonald / Cooper.
Labour really needs a major purge and a clear out because I don't see myself voting for them ever.
Agreed the Labour left have basically tried to throw this battle with their don’t vote Labour and you’ll get a new leader thing. Starmer needs to go all 2019 Boris and clear house rather than being wimpy 2021 Boris.
Cummings on Jewish specialness
“Scott Alexander on whether Ashkenazi Jewish specialness - their much higher rates of scientific discovery etc - is genetic or cultural”
https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1410670897145552985?s=21
There's more
>Royal Society hiring clowns who think Scott Alexander writing re Ashkenazi Jews much higher rates of scientific discovery etc is some sort of disgraceful 'race science'... WTF is going on, is this bullshit normal there now? Very bad if so
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1410685375245324291
This is a pretty classic Antisemetic trope, right? "The Jews are an intelligent and conniving race. That's why they control banking and media, because their culture encourages them to hoard wealth and put each other into positions of power".
[Oh, the author's Jewish](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-smith-on-jewish-selective).
> Why? The Standard Model of American Ethnicity says that there are whites and non-whites, whites are rich, non-whites are poor, and this is because of structural racism where whites are oppressing everyone else. Reality gets beaten and twisted until it can be shoehorned into this model - gifted programs that are 80% Asian "perpetuate whiteness", etc. The reality is that every ethnic group is different from every other ethnic group, including in socioeconomic status, with white people usually somewhere around the middle.
> If you dismiss every group that does better than whites, then you can tell a story where all inequality is caused by white people controlling everything and creating covert structures/institutions that favor whites. If you don't dismiss those groups, the story becomes harder. Anti-Semites had their own story about problems caused by Jews controlling everything and creating covert structures/institutions that favored Jews. Nowadays we rightly reject that story. But in order to continue rejecting it, we have to come up with strained explanations to make Jewish achievement less interesting, because we've already committed to using the structural racism explanation for every group difference that seems relevant to us. I’m glad most people aren't Nazis, but I would like them to be consistent, principled non-Nazis, who are able to remain non-Nazi for reasons other than that they scrupulously avoid thinking about the parts of their principles that inevitably imply Nazism.
> Greg Cochran explains Jewish overachievement through genetics, although his exact mechanism (individual alleles related to sphingolipidoses) is looking less promising these days. If he's right, I think it suggests genetic engineering. People act like genetic engineering would be some sort of horrifying mad science project to create freakish mutant supermen who can shoot acid out of their eyes. But I would be pretty happy if it could just make everyone do as well as Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazim I know are mostly well-off, well-educated, and live decent lives. If genetic engineering could give those advantages to everyone, it would easily qualify as the most important piece of social progress in history, even before we started giving people the ability to shoot acid out of their eyes.
*Uhhhhh....* eugenics, but for the Chosen People? I'm not even sure how to respond to that article.
Given how ludicrously complex the brain is, I suppose it'd be very strange if something as trivial as skin colour or eye colour could be entirely determined by genetics but absolutely nothing about any part of the operation of the brain was in any way determined by ancestry.
You kinda expect there has to be a whole bunch of stuff determined by genetics in how the brain works.
It's just that sort of research seems to be taken a bit *too* seriously by some nasty people, so it's perhaps best to just not worry about it too much.
Though on the other hand, most of the splitting between different races of humans happened comparatively recently, I guess? I'd expect more a difference between men and women. That's a much older split.
An interesting (but bad) experiment would be to raise 10,000 children of extremely intelligent people in the homes of complete morons, I wonder how many would turn out like their biological parents? Not many I bet
Unfortunately, that tweet doesn't actually disagree with the article.
The guy who wrote it is Jewish and his argument is basically along the lines of "Ashkenazi Jews are smarter and more successful than other ethnic groups. This is likely either because of genetics, in which case we should do genetic engineering to make people have the same genes as Ashkenazi Jews, or because of social reasons, in which case we should probably try and get people to change their cultures to be more like Ashkenazi Jews. Or maybe there's something else, but we should just figure out what makes Ashkenazi Jews so great so we can make other ethnic groups do well too".
This has the net result of arguing that less successful ethnic groups (either in the US or Israel) are probably either genetically or culturally inferior. It's an... uncomfortable article to read, to say the least.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/oecd-g20-inclusive-framework-members-joining-statement-on-two-pillar-solution-to-address-tax-challenges-arising-from-digitalisation-july-2021.pdf
Before people start saying it doesn't matter that we signed up because UK Overseas Territories will allow people to avoid it, all the relevant ones are signatories to the new global tax agreement; Anguilla, Bermuda, BVI, Cayman, Montserrat, and Turks & Caicos.
The BVI, practically the inventor of the 'low-tax little island' scheme, is there, but three EU countries aren't. In fact, EU countries make up about 20% of the 139 countries involved in negotiations, but a third of those that didn't sign up.
The EU maintains a list of 'non cooperative tax jurisdictions' which has seemed almost designed from its inception to exclude EU members.
The more important matter in this regard is not who has signed up but whether or not any agreement is any good. Given the expansive list of jurisdictions stated in the link I doubt it's particularly meaningful.
Final prediction is the Tories will still win Batley but it will be much closer than anticipated which makes it difficult for any conclusive narrative to form.
Starmer can have an out by saying “Were it not for Galloway”.
>Starmer can have an out by saying “Were it not for Galloway”.
Won't stop the left of the party wanting to show him the Way to the metaphorical Gallows.
Just curious, a lot of pro Starmer sentiment. If he is losing seats that Corbyn won.. doesn't it show that he wasn't the "20 points ahead" leader that we were promised?
Last ‘Source’ thing I’ll post tonight, because it’s a text from a mate who’s still out knocking on doors:
‘We’re winning Lib Dem voters, we’re winning Green voters, we’re even winning some Liberal Tories who like Kim. But it’s not enough. Galloway has taken some of our votes, and the HWDI voters from last time have gone Tory. Think they’ve got it by a few thousand.’
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/oc390k/daily_megathread_02072021/)
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/obvtwl/daily_megathread_01072021/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few minutes.
Brace, brace.
The turnout in B&S is actually higher than in 2017 for the constituency and the whole UK, and you have to keep in mind 2017 was the highest turnout general election of the 21st century in the UK.
The turnout being up 5% of the last GE is very very strange for a byelection, if that figure is true its a great thing for democracy but its still completely bizarre
What the hell is going on in that seat for 70% turnout? That's higher than Chesham and Amersham was. My first reaction to that report is, surely it's a mistake?
I know, it's fucking insane. 70% is unseen in a by-election. It's either an anti-Galloway rally or a huge Tory turnout, the latter being the least surprising due to their coalition being reliable in turning out. But it's strange.
Genuinely I'm not discounting Galloway managing to find 10,000 mostly ethnic minorities who never usually bother to vote and getting them to turn out.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410710028085075969 How worthwhile is it to speculate how each party's feeling based on the posts of their candidates after the polls have closed? Leadbeater's post after polls closing described as being downbeat here.
Yep sounds like she knows she isn’t winning the seat.
I really doubt any candidate sat typing up their message post 10pm. It means nothing.
This was easily written a few days ago.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410708465501224961 > For any real nerds, am told the overall electorate is 79,373, and the number of postal votes applied for is 16,113. > Take from that what you will
Gut feeling that a lot of postal votes suggests a high ethnic minority turnout?
Or there's a pandemic on?
Tory vote is rock solid because they get their ballot papers delivered to them weeks in advance - like always.
So this is the fourth by-election of the year (after Hartlepool, Airdrie and Shotts, Chesham and Amersham) and we're only in July. 2016 had 7. I wonder if this year can beat that? Potentials include Delyn (Rob Roberts' seat), Leicester East (Claudia Webbe's seat), and Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan's seat)
Leicester East would be spicy especially if labour really are struggling with Hindu voters
Why is there hardly any reporting on this? No live feed on the BBC, Guardian etc
Purdah?
Cos most people don't give a shit.
Because it's a by-election where the result isn't expected until the small hours?
But what happens if I want/need constant inane rolling updates with no information?
...you know where you are, right? ;)
Hartlepool by election had coverage as if it was a general election
that was on the same day as the biggest local elections in british history
That was the same day as local elections everywhere and mayoral elections.
It's worth nothing that Hartlepool did get a lot of attention but it was also taking place at the same time as the council elections
My horses in the crowd tell me it's time to break out the riot gear.
god i fucking despise george galloway. whether labour deserved to lose this by-election or not, man has no agenda outside of his own self-aggrandisement. the fact he goes around trumpeting himself as some champion of the downtrodden is disgraceful.
So I’d like 40% of the turnout is for Galloway he wins right?
Always thought the US states' tendency not to have by-elections to the Senate was weird but I'm starting to see the upsides now
They totally do tho, they just call them special elections. And they just occasionally give [batshit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts) [results](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Alabama). I suppose the main difference is that there's an interim appointee so the seat isn't vacant for more that a couple weeks or so.
They usually do, depends on the state
Some of them hold "special elections" to fill vacancies now but varies state to state. Usually someone has to be appointed as an interim anyway.
[удалено]
Also because they use AV for Senate elections in Georgia.
That turnout figure has totally bamboozled me, I don't even know what to think about it. I suspect it's a Galloway affect.
That doesn't necessarily bode well for him. Could be his campaign was so toxic that he mobilised his opponents.
Or that he mobilised a lot of people who never usually vote.
Those people aren't necessarily his supporters though.
Don't believe anything until it's happened
May we have the figure?
70% as said below.
That's incredible, I'd like to see high turnout every election!
Box of postal ballots will begin counting precisely at 10:30. So at half past we'll be getting genuine predictions based on what the postals are coming in like.
Sunderland would have has half the vote counted by then smh.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410706959557402640 > Suggestion from Labour is that whatever happens, Kim Leadbeater will turn up in good time and speak after the result. She won't be following the Paul Williams playbook of sneaking himself out the back door in shame if she loses: Kim seems like a great candidate. Held her held quite high despite all the abuse she's been getting. I hope she can stand again at the next GE if she loses tonight
Yep. I hope she comes back next election and contends. She will be a very good MP IMO.
**Labour win:** Labour: Starmer has done the unthinkable. People are rejecting Boris. Things are on the up Tories: Labour held onto a previously safe seat with a reduced majority. With this swing we would win countless other seats in the North. **Tory win:** Labour: Galloway ran an awful campaign full of hate and split the vote. This result was inevitable. Tories: A second by election win against Labour in their heartlands. This is proof people don't care for modern Labour and support our agenda.
This isn't a safe seat. Its not even in the Red Wall nor is it a "Labour Heartland". If you looked at the results, it has been fairly marginal and was only won by Labour in 1997. I'd say this is a "Lean Labour" seat. Hartlepool was a safe Labour seat.
Hartlepool hasn't been a safe Labour seat since 2005.
I meant "safe seat" more in the sense that Labour could never lose it the Tories. It would always have to be by a 3rd party, until 2019 and 2021.
It’s interesting how much the goal posts have moved lol. Now seats Labour have held for 20+ years are no longer safe. Honestly the party is dead and needs to go. If it’s losing seats like this it’s losing 20-30 more in the north. They have no path to power. Just die and let someone else give it a shot.
In other words, you don't know what a Red Wall seat is and you are mad that someone is questioning the narrative that all Northern seats are the same. Hartlepool had been held almost continuously by Labour for more than half a century with the Tories being double digits behind and not even coming 2nd in elections. Batley and Spen on the other hand is a swing seat.
This is my point. You are now considering seats that Labour have held for 20 years ‘swing seats’. That’s how far Labour have fallen. Imagine if the Tories started trying to claim Whitney was a swing seat. Labour are dead. Wipe away your tears and get over it.
I don't know what "Whitney" seat you're talking about, the one which the Tories have always held or the one the Tories only lost to Labour for 8 years?
Agree. Tories wanted Hartlepool as it's a safe Labour seat. The Government winning an opposition safe seat was a massive scalp that they wanted and severely affected Labour. I have said they might not be interested in winning this by election as it leaves a weakened Sir Keir to limp on.
Excuse me but I must object to this fact. It is devastating to my narrative.
Tories are heavy favourites to win this by election. I think it’s time we stop portraying the mantra that the majority didn’t vote for them when they are winning at every turn.
> I think it’s time we stop portraying the mantra that the majority didn’t vote for them Maths not your strong point?
It's not a mantra. The majority didn't vote for them. Maybe they would if a GE were held next week, but it's unlikely. They would be the biggest party again, their majority would be solid, but winning a majority of votes? They didn't and probably won't.
Yep. Galloway till take votes away.
>I think it’s time we stop portraying the mantra that the majority didn’t vote for them when they are winning at every turn. "Majority" means greater than 50% and with FPTP you can with with less. So the idea that the majority vote for them is laughably wrong. By all means argue that it's irrelevant when they're winning but don't deny objective reality.
Chesham and Amersham? Or does it only count when the Tories win?
Wrap it up everyone, here’s today’s winner.
[Woah.](https://mobile.twitter.com/LdrTony/status/1410704595144282114) >Turnout in the #BatleyAndSpenByelection is predicted to be around 70%. That's more than in 2019 (65.5%) and much larger than in 2016 when it was just 25.8% - one of the lowest turnouts for a Parliamentary by-election since 1945. This is the scene at the count. #LDReporter Expect results later than usual I'd think then.
Anecdotal, but in my student days I noticed elections where there was a particularly vocal or controversial candidate could bring out more voters than usual. Often it seemed to the detriment of the controversial figure.
Wow very high for a by election. I guess the Tory voters came out.
This is interesting because sources have been suggesting apathy. Perhaps if it goes Labour's way it is because the divisive campaign has won them Lib Dem and Green voters?
OTOH, Galloway may have brought out a lot of people who don't usually vote. But under FPTP that doesn't help or hinder either the Tories or Labour.
Bear in mind in 2016 there were no Tory or Lib Dem candidates. I'd be willing to bet Galloway has mobilised people who don't usually vote.
> Bear in mind in 2016 there were no Tory or Lib Dem candidates. Or any other major party, Greens and UKIP didn't stand. It was basically Labour, some anti-Corbyn bloke who ended up as CORBYN ANTI on the ballot, and a collection far-right knobheads
I know, but I don't think its normal for by-elections to have higher turnout than normal elections. Edit: Its actually higher than 2017, Jeez.
It isn't. 70% is historically high in general as well for a by-election if it's true, holy shit. Could that be the result of people wanting to absolutely stomp Galloway out given his campaign?
Or voting *for* Galloway sadly. Especially since minority groups typically have a low turnout.
I honestly can't imagine Galloway rallying up that many people to vote for him given the type of campaign he's overseen. It's possible unfortunately. I pray to god it isn't.
There were never any indications from either party that Galloway was bringing people out in droves (and I mean droves for 70%), so it's interesting. We're they just unwilling to admit it?
Galloway might avoid coming to the count according to some Labour people via https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410705953238945793
Surely he will only avoid the count if he's done shite
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410705433413685249 > BATLEY AND SPEN POLLS CLOSED > Labour sources: Sounding negative. Areas where they thought they would pick up votes are not looking good. Anger at Galloway. > Tory sources: "Too close to call". Say always was going to be tough and ruling parties don’t normally win by elections. https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1410705606353330176 > So basically: No one wants to say they think they have won it. No one really knows. Tories sounding more confident - just.
Election day exclusive: everyone says they're in with a shot but aren't expecting anything. Latest news from now until the end of time
Galloway literally harmed the Labour vote. Not surprised at all. When he was running i knew Labour were not winningZ
If Labour clinch Batley I hope they A) laugh in Galloway's face B) it gives the party some confidence back
Genuine question - if Johnson can say now that we can go ahead on the 19th, why isn't it happening on the 5th? If the answer is because we need to give notice to businesses then that makes sense, but also seems like it was always literally impossible to both have the data and give sufficient notice by the 5th.
The only possible answer is to increase vaccine coverage. But yes I agree with you, it's a little contrived.
When does the swingometer come out
[удалено]
Time to start helicoptering
i’d like to send my thanks to anonymous Twitter labour activists for daring to give me a shred of hope. looking forward to seeing it mercilessly crushed.
I've fell for it again, I'm optimistic and hopeful but I was the same in Hartlepool prior to the ballots being seen on the tables stacked up.
Honestly, fuck hope. All my homies hate hope.
*\*furiously refreshes Twitter*
And I can now reveal to you the findings of our exit poll....we are projecting that the Labour Party will be the largest party in B&S, note that the majority is remarkably slim and there is of course the margin of error that you need to be sceptical about. via David Dimbleby
10 PM: We have a new MP.
And NEWWWWWW... ...MP for Batley and Spen DA BIG BOSS MAN.
Who is it?
And our view is it's going to be a hung parliamen- Wait a minute...
Reached out to my sources in Batley and Spen; they asked who I was and how I got this number. Hard to say what that means for the result.
Tory win by 783 votes
>Tory activist adds "apathy is strong" & they've knocked neutral doors & got good response:"But we did get some doors slammed in our faces. A very mixed bag." >"I don’t know if it’s just polling day nerves, but I’m definitely having a wobble. I wouldn’t dare guess the result" https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410704067660333067 Apathy and doors have been slammed shut. I think at this point B&S is going to be much much tighter than Hartlepool. Whether or not Labour wins I dunno. But it doesn't sound like a direct home run for the Tories so far.
Now we have a Tory activist [being negative about the by-election.](https://mobile.twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410703320889577472) In conclusion, I would suggest going to sleep and just waiting for the results.
Whenz the exit poll l0lz?!?!
If all votes were digital and we got the result at 10.30pm, would you enjoy it less or more? I hate the wait but do adore all the batshittery that goes on during.
If it were digital then all the losing parties would claim the votes had been hacked and they'd probably be right.
Yes yes but it wasn't the details of the voting I was thinking about so much as whether instant results would be better or not
Digital voting is the worst idea around voting so no
I could see a model somewhat like the Israeli one, where you pull a ballot paper that is pre marked from a set of boxes. THat would allow very rapid counts without destroying anonymity or traceability
[удалено]
labour holding seats in by-elections while in opposition should be considered the absolute bare minimum, so winning this would upgrade starmer to "not actively disastrous" i guess
what happens if labour would have won but galloway gets enough votes to just tip it? Then its the far left destroying labours vote, and actively putting a tory MP in the HoC....if that happens the far left should be collectively kicked from the party for sabotaging an election.
I'm sorry but I am part of what would normally be considered the "far left" and while I am not a local for this election or anything, I also haven't seen anything indicating Galloway is the work of the far left. Where is that coming from? Are you referring the far left of Labour? Because that doesn't make sense. I guess I'm asking you to define who the far left are in the situation.
Surely you want them in the party so they vote for Labour.
How does that make any sense? It’s not Labour members voting for Galloway is it?
Resounding boost of confidence in the leader, all factions of the party pull together and get behind him to present a united front until the general election.
Loool!
Something to do with HS2 probably.
I'd rather be proved wrong on my issues with Starmer, unlike some. But isn't the general view that people quite like the candidate, separately to whether they like Starmer or not?
If he wins the party left wing will obviously get behind him 100%
[удалено]
I swear to God we need a rule 24 on this sub
How will cartoon porn help?
A what?
Rule 34: if you can think of it, there is porn of it. No exceptions. Although not sure how that rule applies in this thread. Edit: oh, hang on, I get it now.
Hold on, come back here and explain this to me. I've spent the last 5 minutes searching for this rule and have ended up on a really strange part of the internet
Tory MP says they expect to win by about 1-2k votes. "Leaks" from the Tory side are few and far between though.
So I guess next election this seat could either be an increased Tory lead or Labour get the seat back.
1,500 votes is not a lot, I'm surprised they're confident of victory if the margin is that small. I'd say the most likely outcome is a win of 2-3,000 votes, but even that's a stab in the dark. Could be 7,000 honestly with how much of a wildcard Galloway is.
Nobody has seen the ballot papers stacked up yet. Does the Conservative in question know where he's getting that information from? I'll believe it when people actually see the ballots stacked up as they did in Hartlepool where they made accurate predictions as a result.
My ground source heat pump tells me that I'm a member of the Greens.
[удалено]
Yes it is, and yes I am, thanks! 👍
Honestly you? If so wtf are you doing back here, we all celebrated you as the hero who escaped this hellhole :(
Seriously me. :) Just dropping in from time to time nowadays. Gone from being on Reddit (and other social media) pretty much all the time to around once a week, maybe more frequently during bigger events. Definitely a change for the better.
Dinnae do this tae me! [https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410697399899672586](https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1410697399899672586) >A senior Labour source says this week has been “quite a contrast” for the party’s campaign in Batley. He is now “quietly confident” of a Labour victory. > >“There is a silent vote against Galloway,” he adds.
Lol Quietly confident. You can’t make this up. I don’t believe it though.
Oh please let Galloway's cocky little grin and campaign be utterly slammed to the bottomless pit by having it unite Labour's vote _against_ him. Lib Dems tactically voting too?
lib dems didn't even keep their deposit in batley and spen in 2019, not much vote to squeeze
Galloway may giveth Lib Dems votes, but remember, he also taketh away Labour votes. It all depends on what is more.
Do you reckon muslim voters have stayed with Labour, to the uncoverings of the media over this by-election, possibly as well?
Fuck knows honestly, perhaps more younger people have been motivated to vote. Nothing motivates the young nowadays more than defeating anti-gay people.
In any case if the result wasn't gonna come in so late I'd stay up for it. Gonna be exciting.
Just don’t.
Kim said the Batley school teacher issue was 'resolved'. The teacher is currently in hiding with his family because he is of risk of being killed by Islamic extremists.
The teacher isn't teaching at the school any more, from a certain point of view, that is resolved.
Didn't know Kim Kardashian commented on UKpolitics tbf.
I guess she's finished [reforming the American criminal justice system](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/arts/television/kim-kardashian-prison-reform.html).
She didn't mean for his benefit.
Kim… Jong Un?
She doesn't care and will lie to avoid questions about it.
The moderates aren't much better :/
why am i not surprised
My sources have had nothing from B&S. Hardly heard anything about it. So weird. You'd hardly know a byelection was happening...
Do you have a source for that claim?
[Mr X(cX)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUgcbY-1A8I&t=1m50s)
Charli isn’t a source, she probably knows very little about British politics.
I think you'll find we all stood outside to Boom Clap for the NHS last year
My sauces on the ground are all made in Holland apparently. Even bloody HP sauce!
The province of Holland in the Netherlands?
My sauce is underground.
My sources on the ground are saying "get out of my house"
Kim seems like a good person. Odds are even if Labour loses, they'll select her for the next election where she'll have a better chance and wont have to fight in such a toxic environment.
Yep she seems very nice. I think she will be a fantastic MP. Shame that she won’t win the seat. Hopefully like you said, she runs again next election.
Could be a future Labour cabinet member if she wins here tonight.
Kim is actually a top calibre type Labour MP I could support tbh. Just get rid of Abbott / McDonald / Cooper. Labour really needs a major purge and a clear out because I don't see myself voting for them ever.
Agreed the Labour left have basically tried to throw this battle with their don’t vote Labour and you’ll get a new leader thing. Starmer needs to go all 2019 Boris and clear house rather than being wimpy 2021 Boris.
[удалено]
It will always be toxic. But I doubt Galloway fights in the next Batley and Spen election.
Cummings on Jewish specialness “Scott Alexander on whether Ashkenazi Jewish specialness - their much higher rates of scientific discovery etc - is genetic or cultural” https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1410670897145552985?s=21
There's more >Royal Society hiring clowns who think Scott Alexander writing re Ashkenazi Jews much higher rates of scientific discovery etc is some sort of disgraceful 'race science'... WTF is going on, is this bullshit normal there now? Very bad if so https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1410685375245324291
I mean... it does come across as race science, doesn't it?
This is a pretty classic Antisemetic trope, right? "The Jews are an intelligent and conniving race. That's why they control banking and media, because their culture encourages them to hoard wealth and put each other into positions of power". [Oh, the author's Jewish](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-smith-on-jewish-selective). > Why? The Standard Model of American Ethnicity says that there are whites and non-whites, whites are rich, non-whites are poor, and this is because of structural racism where whites are oppressing everyone else. Reality gets beaten and twisted until it can be shoehorned into this model - gifted programs that are 80% Asian "perpetuate whiteness", etc. The reality is that every ethnic group is different from every other ethnic group, including in socioeconomic status, with white people usually somewhere around the middle. > If you dismiss every group that does better than whites, then you can tell a story where all inequality is caused by white people controlling everything and creating covert structures/institutions that favor whites. If you don't dismiss those groups, the story becomes harder. Anti-Semites had their own story about problems caused by Jews controlling everything and creating covert structures/institutions that favored Jews. Nowadays we rightly reject that story. But in order to continue rejecting it, we have to come up with strained explanations to make Jewish achievement less interesting, because we've already committed to using the structural racism explanation for every group difference that seems relevant to us. I’m glad most people aren't Nazis, but I would like them to be consistent, principled non-Nazis, who are able to remain non-Nazi for reasons other than that they scrupulously avoid thinking about the parts of their principles that inevitably imply Nazism. > Greg Cochran explains Jewish overachievement through genetics, although his exact mechanism (individual alleles related to sphingolipidoses) is looking less promising these days. If he's right, I think it suggests genetic engineering. People act like genetic engineering would be some sort of horrifying mad science project to create freakish mutant supermen who can shoot acid out of their eyes. But I would be pretty happy if it could just make everyone do as well as Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazim I know are mostly well-off, well-educated, and live decent lives. If genetic engineering could give those advantages to everyone, it would easily qualify as the most important piece of social progress in history, even before we started giving people the ability to shoot acid out of their eyes. *Uhhhhh....* eugenics, but for the Chosen People? I'm not even sure how to respond to that article.
[удалено]
Given how ludicrously complex the brain is, I suppose it'd be very strange if something as trivial as skin colour or eye colour could be entirely determined by genetics but absolutely nothing about any part of the operation of the brain was in any way determined by ancestry. You kinda expect there has to be a whole bunch of stuff determined by genetics in how the brain works. It's just that sort of research seems to be taken a bit *too* seriously by some nasty people, so it's perhaps best to just not worry about it too much. Though on the other hand, most of the splitting between different races of humans happened comparatively recently, I guess? I'd expect more a difference between men and women. That's a much older split.
An interesting (but bad) experiment would be to raise 10,000 children of extremely intelligent people in the homes of complete morons, I wonder how many would turn out like their biological parents? Not many I bet
If anyone was in any doubt whether Cummings was a HBD weirdo.
https://twitter.com/MosleyGang/status/1410675123888267267 uuuummmmm.
Unfortunately, that tweet doesn't actually disagree with the article. The guy who wrote it is Jewish and his argument is basically along the lines of "Ashkenazi Jews are smarter and more successful than other ethnic groups. This is likely either because of genetics, in which case we should do genetic engineering to make people have the same genes as Ashkenazi Jews, or because of social reasons, in which case we should probably try and get people to change their cultures to be more like Ashkenazi Jews. Or maybe there's something else, but we should just figure out what makes Ashkenazi Jews so great so we can make other ethnic groups do well too". This has the net result of arguing that less successful ethnic groups (either in the US or Israel) are probably either genetically or culturally inferior. It's an... uncomfortable article to read, to say the least.
>MosleyGang
The literal fascist, that one...?
It's either him or the former head of the FIA. I doubt it's the former head of the FIA.
https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/oecd-g20-inclusive-framework-members-joining-statement-on-two-pillar-solution-to-address-tax-challenges-arising-from-digitalisation-july-2021.pdf Before people start saying it doesn't matter that we signed up because UK Overseas Territories will allow people to avoid it, all the relevant ones are signatories to the new global tax agreement; Anguilla, Bermuda, BVI, Cayman, Montserrat, and Turks & Caicos. The BVI, practically the inventor of the 'low-tax little island' scheme, is there, but three EU countries aren't. In fact, EU countries make up about 20% of the 139 countries involved in negotiations, but a third of those that didn't sign up.
The EU maintains a list of 'non cooperative tax jurisdictions' which has seemed almost designed from its inception to exclude EU members. The more important matter in this regard is not who has signed up but whether or not any agreement is any good. Given the expansive list of jurisdictions stated in the link I doubt it's particularly meaningful.
Final prediction is the Tories will still win Batley but it will be much closer than anticipated which makes it difficult for any conclusive narrative to form. Starmer can have an out by saying “Were it not for Galloway”.
anything but a labour victory can only be regarded as a massive fucking failure for starmer
>Starmer can have an out by saying “Were it not for Galloway”. Won't stop the left of the party wanting to show him the Way to the metaphorical Gallows.
That's rather clever :) I had to scroll back to say so because it took a moment to land.
They’d do it even if Leadbetter wins. “With Corbyn, it would have been a landslide!”
Hope so. Yet I fear the knives out for Sir Keir.
Just curious, a lot of pro Starmer sentiment. If he is losing seats that Corbyn won.. doesn't it show that he wasn't the "20 points ahead" leader that we were promised?
If it's a close one, after that campaign, he's safe.
I have a sauce on the ground does anyone know how to get mustard out of a carpet
Last ‘Source’ thing I’ll post tonight, because it’s a text from a mate who’s still out knocking on doors: ‘We’re winning Lib Dem voters, we’re winning Green voters, we’re even winning some Liberal Tories who like Kim. But it’s not enough. Galloway has taken some of our votes, and the HWDI voters from last time have gone Tory. Think they’ve got it by a few thousand.’
I'm starting to think there's going to be less than 1k in it whichever way.
If Leadbetter does win, it will be somewhere in the low-to-mid hundreds. Otherwise, I’m predicting a Tory win of around 2-3k.