|
|
|
Local Authority Byelection Results 29 May 2008
Sat, 31 May 2008 12:51 +0100 (BST)
Mendip DC, Shepton East
Con 435 (50.3;+4.1), LD 307 (35.5;-3.0), Lab 122 (14.1;-1.1)
Con hold. Turnout unknown. Percentage changes are from May 2007.
Mendip DC, Street North
LD 347 (47.9;-19.8), Con 297 (41.0;+8.6), Ind 81 (11.2 +11.2)
LD hold. Turnout unknown. Percentage changes are from May 2007.
Offerto ...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Sat, 31 May 2008 07:20:26 GMT
On Fri, 30 May 2008 at 18:56:10, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in
uk.politics.electoral :
>>>
>> Fair enough - but who appointed him to that post, someone who wanted
>>him out so Tatchell could fight the by-election?
>
>Not very likely. We had a Consevative government at the time.
And what better way for th ...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Sat, 31 May 2008 00:06 +0100 (BST)
In article <Wf6dnfttXqUpot3VnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@pipex.net>, JN@NPPTG.com
(JNugent) wrote:
> Paul Hyett wrote:
> > On Fri, 30 May 2008 at 10:16:00, Colin Rosenstiel
> > <rosenstiel@cix.co.uk> wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> >>>
> >>> But why, if Mellish was already the MP, would they want to replace
> >>> him ...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Fri, 30 May 2008 17:14:38 GMT
On Fri, 30 May 2008 at 10:16:00, Colin Rosenstiel <rosenstiel@cix.co.uk>
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>
>> But why, if Mellish was already the MP, would they want to replace
>> him with someone else?
>
>He had been appointed as Deputy Chairman of the London Docklands
>Development Corporation which meant h ...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Fri, 30 May 2008 17:41 +0100 (BST)
In article <alpine.LRH.1.10.0805301008260.12266@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) wrote:
> Mellish had already announced that he would not stand again in the
> next general election. This was due to having taken up a post with the
> London Docklands Development Corporation, and because ...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Fri, 30 May 2008 10:16 +0100 (BST)
In article <ExqtXFPFz6PIFwgx@blueyonder.co.uk>, pah@invalid.invalid (Paul
Hyett) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 May 2008 at 14:27:56, Alex Macfie
> <cgcenet@googlemail.com> wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
> >>
> >> >Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of the Lib Dems
> >> >starting a by-election campaign in a ...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Sun, 25 May 2008 12:08 +0100 (BST)
In article
<aca01911-7f72-48e6-8c6e-6d2674d30834@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
cgcenet@googlemail.com (Alex Macfie) wrote:
> On 24 May, 23:05, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> > Resignation of the sitting MP (as in Liverpool Edhe Hill in 1979)
> > is a different matter.
>
> Actually that by-election was ...
|
Just think about it!
Sun, 25 May 2008 02:58:17 +0100
MILLIONS of your potential children died on your sister's face last
night!
...
|
Re: Crewe and Nantwich result
Sat, 24 May 2008 14:23 +0100 (BST)
In article <1z7BHpEJ56NIFw2+@blueyonder.co.uk>, pah@invalid.invalid (Paul
Hyett) wrote:
> But even so, 291 missing votes sounds quite a lot.
>
> What if one of the minor candidates was on 4.99%, where a recount
> might save them their ¡ê500 deposit?
The largest share by a fringe candidate was 2.2%, less tha ...
|
Tamsin Dunwoody
Fri, 23 May 2008 18:32:23 +0100
But honestly, did the Crewe and Nantwich Labour Party really expect their
supporters to vote for someone called 'Tasmin'? I know she can't help it.
BTW has anyone ever done an analysis of candidates' first names by party?
Nick Russell
Herefordshire
...
|
|
|
