Scottish local government elections May 4th 2017

[danny la rouge]

The Tories have a councillor in the Calton (in Glasgow)! FFS!

That's gobsmacking.

 

[danny la rouge]

Greens have 8 seats in Edinburgh.

SNP - 19
Con - 18
Lab - 12
Green - 8
Lib Dem - 6

 

[danny la rouge]

Potentially a pro-Indy coalition there.

 

[danny la rouge]

So, as one commentator has said, No Overall Control has swept the board.

 

[danny la rouge]

This is where the BBC will upload the results:

Scotland local elections 2017 - BBC News

 

[cathal marcs]

I don't understand this sentence. You are saying Labour should ditch hostilty towards independence, because they need to stop losing unionist voters?

No, they should ditch their hostility to coalitions with parties that support independence as their strategy to keep unionist voters onside has failed miserably with so many defecting to the Tories. Will Scottish Labour unite with Tories over unionism, or will they form coalition based on social justice with groups that support independence?

 

[danny la rouge]

I have to admit that the intricacies of the STV counting system elude me, beyond the basics. So, although I read Wee Ginger Dug and Lesley Riddoch, and watched Stephen Paton's video, and so on, I always felt a step was missing from the explanation when it came to the claim that ranking the Tories last was tactically better than not ranking them. It seemed to me that no reason was being given, just an assertion.

So was I misled? (I did in fact rank the Tories last. Should I have left them off my ballot? In the past on STV ballots, I'd only voted for the candidates I wanted to).

redsquirrel: you seem to be up on this. What's the actual maths here?

 

[DexterTCN]

View attachment 106009

What's that, danny?

SNP took 425 last time and took 431 this time, how's that -7?

 

[danny la rouge]

What's that, danny?

SNP took 425 last time and took 431 this time, how's that -7?

It's the BBC's graphic. I didn't make it. Since I posted it I have seen the case put that the BBC (and the National, incidentally) are counting the number of Councillors the SNP had the day before the election, rather than at the last election. So it's either up 6 or down 7, depending on your baseline.

 

[danny la rouge]

I see the National updated their graphic. (I know they'd gone with the -7 before, because I retweeted them. But that tweet has now been deleted and replaced with the above).

ETA. Actually that's wrong too: the Greens are undercounted there.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ah, it's an earlier tweet than the now deleted one.

 

[N_igma]

View attachment 106021
View attachment 106022

I have to admit that the intricacies of the STV counting system elude me, beyond the basics. So, although I read Wee Ginger Dug and Lesley Riddoch, and watched Stephen Paton's video, and so on, I always felt a step was missing from the explanation when it came to the claim that ranking the Tories last was tactically better than not ranking them. It seemed to me that no reason was being given, just an assertion.

So was I misled? (I did in fact rank the Tories last. Should I have left them off my ballot? In the past on STV ballots, I'd only voted for the candidates I wanted to).

redsquirrel: you seem to be up on this. What's the actual maths here?

Voting for every candidate on the ballot raises the quota needed to get elected making it harder for that person at the bottom of the list to reach it. Of course you need a load of like minded people as yourself doing the same thing for it to have an effect. Hence the idea of voting till you boak and telling you who to put last.

 

[teuchter]

So do these results put a stop to the "Scotland is inherently more socialist than the rest of the UK" claims that I've always regarded as highly suspect?

 

[DexterTCN]

So do these results put a stop to the "Scotland is inherently more socialist than the rest of the UK" claims that I've always regarded as highly suspect?

No it's basically now just pro and anti-Indy. It was never about left and right and centre, even less so now. The left are largely running to the tories.

 

[danny la rouge]

The left are largely running to the tories.

What?

 

[DexterTCN]

What?

 

[redsquirrel]

I have to admit that the intricacies of the STV counting system elude me, beyond the basics. So, although I read Wee Ginger Dug and Lesley Riddoch, and watched Stephen Paton's video, and so on, I always felt a step was missing from the explanation when it came to the claim that ranking the Tories last was tactically better than not ranking them. It seemed to me that no reason was being given, just an assertion.

So was I misled? (I did in fact rank the Tories last. Should I have left them off my ballot? In the past on STV ballots, I'd only voted for the candidates I wanted to).

redsquirrel: you seem to be up on this. What's the actual maths here?

I don't understand how not ranking the Tories at all is any different to ranking them last.

I agree that if you want to block the Tories you want to rank all non-Tory parties, even those that you dislike, above them but once you get to the end I don't see how it makes any difference. So I don't think your ranking them last "worked for" the Tories, but just leaving them blank wouldn't have been better.

 

[butchersapron]

What?

Crazy - which makes independence a right wing movement that is attracting support on that basis - because it's right wing.

 

[danny la rouge]

View attachment 106034

That explains your allegation, does it? All the left are running to the Tories. All the left were Labour supporters and now they've gone to the Tories. You're talking nonsense.

You've also just said that the SNP doesn't have any left support.

 

[DexterTCN]

I don't understand how not ranking the Tories at all is any different to ranking them last.

I agree that if you want to block the Tories you want to rank all non-Tory parties, even those that you dislike, above them but once you get to the end I don't see how it makes any difference. So I don't think your ranking them last "worked for" the Tories, but just leaving them blank wouldn't have been better.

Have you considered that it was an election with people on both sides who studied the voting system and worked out the best way to vote?

Think about it yourself...if you had some people you wanted to win, some you didn't give a shit about and some you seriously did not want to win...and you could rank them 1-8....what would you do?

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't understand how not ranking the Tories at all is any different to ranking them last.

I agree that if you want to block the Tories you want to rank all non-Tory parties, even those that you dislike, above them but once you get to the end I don't see how it makes any difference. So I don't think your ranking them last "worked for" the Tories, but just leaving them blank wouldn't have been better.

The "vote til you boak" strategy was supposed to mean a 7th (i.e. last) preference vote for a Tory would work against the Tory. But I wasn't clear how.

 

[danny la rouge]

Think about it yourself...if you had some people you wanted to win, some you didn't give a shit about and some you seriously did not want to win...and you could rank them 1-8....what would you do?

Until this time, I ranked the ones I wanted to win and left the others blank.

 

[redsquirrel]

What? As I say in the post you quoted (do you actually ever read peoples posts) if you want to vote against the Tories you should rank all non-Tory parties above them, the point under discussion is whether it makes any difference between ranking the Tories last and not ranking them at all. I don't think it does if you disagree perhaps you could supply some evidence.

EDIT: at Dexter

 

[DexterTCN]

Until this time, I ranked the ones I wanted to win and left the others blank.

And what happened where you stay?

 

[redsquirrel]

The "vote til you boak" strategy was supposed to mean a 7th (i.e. last) preference vote for a Tory would work against the Tory. But I wasn't clear how.

The way I understand it, is from this part of the link weepiper gave

As long as you rank all the other candidates, you don’t actually need to rank Tory Tom, just ensure that he’s pushed to the bottom. But you do need to rank the other candidates to ensure the Tory is at the bottom of the pile. It’s just easier, and safer, to explain to people to list all the candidates on the ballot in order of gorgeous to god-awful. This is why you need to use your second third fourth etc preferences, and vote until you boak to keep the Tories out.

(my emphasis) So it's a message thing rather than actual difference to the end result.

 

[danny la rouge]

And what happened where you stay?

It's in the thread, but in my ward there used to be one Tory, one SNP, one Labour, one Green. Now it's two Tories, one SNP and one Green.

In the Council (Stirling), there's 9 SNP (down 1), 9 Tories (up 5), 5 Labour (down 4), 1 Green (no change).

 

[DexterTCN]

It's in the thread, but in my ward there used to be one Tory, one SNP, one Labour, one Green. Now it's two Tories, one SNP and one Green.

In the Council (Stirling), there's 9 SNP (down 1), 9 Tories (up 5), 5 Labour (down 4), 1 Green (no change).

So the labour vote went to the tories?

It's a reasonable inference.

 

[danny la rouge]

The way I understand it, is from this part of the link weepiper gave

(my emphasis) So it's a message thing rather than actual difference to the end result.

OK, that's clear. But if your first preference was out or elected, your 7th preference might end up being added to the Tory pile? (Which is what Tom Holyrood is suggesting).

 

[danny la rouge]

So the labour vote went to the tories?

It's a reasonable inference.

Of course, but that's another (parallel) conversation. I was discussing STV in the post you quoted.

If you're still defending your "left went to the Tories" nonsense, you need to explain a) why you think those voters were "left", b) why you think no left voters voted SNP or Green, c) why you seem to be equating left with Unionist (and therefore right wing with pro Indy) and so on. You're just all over the place there. It's best you drop that one.

 

[DexterTCN]

Of course, but that's another (parallel) conversation. I was discussing STV in the post you quoted.

If you're still defending your "left went to the Tories" nonsense, you need to explain a) why you think those voters were "left", b) why you think no left voters voted SNP or Green, c) why you seem to be equating left with Unionist (and therefore right wing with pro Indy) and so on. You're just all over the place there. It's best you drop that one.

Fuck off danny...everyone knows the majority of (what's left of the) the labour vote has gone to the tories.