Glasgow East by-election

[Harry Hayfield]

Assuming that we have 26,217 votes cast and an SNP majority of 1,000 (according to BBC Scotland) that works out as a Lab to SNP swing of 26.03%.

[afleitch]

John Mason has arrived at the count and is being applauded and looks to be celebrating.

[afleitch]

STV report - 'SNP majority of 1500'

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Deal with most of this later but...

Loose David Marshall, someone who maintained these links and the fall I think is harder.

Ah, the old informal, unofficial links in an area with very low levels of party membership and formal organisation. Certainly true that trouble results when they break down (thinking of certain areas in the '99 Assembly elections here).

[afleitch]

John Swinney v Jim Murphy on STV. Classic rammy

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Result soon

[Хahar 🤔]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

And they were only 5% behind the SNP in 2005. Odd.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

And they were only 5% behind the SNP in 2005. Odd.

Two plus two equals four, Xahar, two plus two equals four...

[afleitch]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

And they were only 5% behind the SNP in 2005. Odd.

They were very strong on '05. On the whole in Glasgow they performed better than the Alliance in '83 (Hillhead excluded)

[Verily]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

And they were only 5% behind the SNP in 2005. Odd.

Not odd at all. The LD vote was probably the most inclined to be squeezed by the SNP. And, while loyal Labour voters I can sort of see taking up Scottish pride against Labour, I can't see them doing the same to switch to the LDs (which is why the LDs didn't seriously contest the seat).

[Хahar 🤔]

LibDems may have come fifth, may have lost their deposit.

And they were only 5% behind the SNP in 2005. Odd.

Two plus two equals four, Xahar, two plus two equals four...

Who would they possibly finish behind? Labour and the SNP (of course) and then who? The Tories and SSP?
Front page of BBC UK politics right now:

Cannot play media. Sorry, this media is not available in your territory.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A bad, bad word for all of us who have to go to Birmingham early in the morning has been mentioned. Recount.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A bad, bad word for all of us who have to go to Birmingham early in the morning has been mentioned. Recount.

God. It gets worse. FULL RECOUNT...

[Хahar 🤔]

A bad, bad word for all of us who have to go to Birmingham early in the morning has been mentioned. Recount.

God. It gets worse. FULL RECOUNT...

My condolences. But I'm overjoyed.

[afleitch]

A bad, bad word for all of us who have to go to Birmingham early in the morning has been mentioned. Recount.

God. It gets worse. FULL RECOUNT...

Possible options regarding this.

1. Deposits. Could be a three way tussle for lost deposits.
2. The two Currans. Has a bundle been..misbundled?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

2. The two Currans. Has a bundle been..misbundled?

That would be almost beyond parody.

[Verily]

SNP majority of 354 before the recount.

[Dan the Roman]

Forgive me for asking, but what are the requirements for a recount. While close, 354 seems unlikely to be overturned given the number of voters?

[Verily]

Forgive me for asking, but what are the requirements for a recount. While close, 354 seems unlikely to be overturned given the number of voters?

Candidates request recounts for various reasons, and they are confirmed or denies basically just on merit. The recount might be because of the two Currans (to check to make sure no Margaret votes were put in with the Frances votes or vice versa), or because one or more candidates were very close to retaining their deposits (i.e. getting 5% of the vote). Or the returning officer might have decided that 354 was close enough to allow a recount.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

he recount might be because of the two Currans (to check to make sure no Margaret votes were put in with the Frances votes or vice versa), . Or the returning officer might have decided that 354 was close enough to allow a recount.

Seems to have been those two

[Verily]

SNP wins. Recount increased their majority.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Recount increased their majority.

Heh. Often happens with recounts.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

10912
11277

[Verily]

J Mason (SNP): 11,277
M Curran (Lab): 10,912
D Rankin (Con): 1,639
I Robertson (LD): 915
F Curran (SSP): 555
T McLeish (Sol): 512
E Duke (Grn): 232
C Creighton (Ind): 67
H Howitt (F4C): 65

So it could well have been Curran confusion.

Congrats to the SNP, and a good result, even if the squeeze on the LDs and the lost deposit are unfortunate (especially given what a good candidate Robertson was; hopefully he gets involved in Glasgow North, where the LDs can actually win things).