Annesley and Felley PC, Annesley
LD 168 (72.7), Ind 63 (27.3)
Majority 105  Turnout 24.2%  LD gain from Ind

Camborne TC, Camborne South
Con 304 (29.9), Mebyon Kernow 289 (28.4), LD 263 (25.9), Lab 161 (15.8)
Majority 15  Turnout 19.4%  Con gain from LD

Crewkerne TC, ward not stated
LD 1317 (59.7%), Con 814 (36.9%), Labour 75 (3.4%)
Majority 503  Turnout: 38.62%

Rotherham MBC, Wickersley
Lab 871 (31.1;-4.8), Con 824 (29.5;-9.4), BNP 538 (19.2;+19.2), 
UKIP 373 (13.3;-11.9), LD 191 (6.8; +6.8)
Majority 47  Turnout 30.0%  Lab hold  Percentage change is since May 2008

Shrewsbury and Atcham BC, PimHill
Con 341 (45.6;-34.9), LD 331 (44.3;+44.3), BNP 59 (7.9;+7.9)
Independent Anti Incinerator Candidate 16 (2.1;+2.1)
[Lab (0.0;-19.4)]
Majority 10  Turnout 46.5%  Con hold  Percentage change is since May 2007


Information courtesy of the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors
www: http://www.aldc.org. 
Also available at http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/
-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

> Camborne TC, Camborne South
> Con 304 (29.9), Mebyon Kernow 289 (28.4), LD 263 (25.9), Lab 161 (15.8)
> Majority 15  Turnout 19.4%  Con gain from LD
> 
>

Mmmmm nice showing by MK - who seem to be doing rather well

-- 
\/ Lyn David Thomas

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 at 00:23:00, Colin Rosenstiel  
wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>
>Camborne TC, Camborne South
>Con 304 (29.9), Mebyon Kernow 289 (28.4), LD 263 (25.9), Lab 161 (15.8)
>Majority 15  Turnout 19.4%  Con gain from LD

Good mandate - under 6% of the electorate...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

[ ... ]

> Shrewsbury and Atcham BC, PimHill
> Con 341 (45.6;-34.9), LD 331 (44.3;+44.3), BNP 59 (7.9;+7.9)
> Independent Anti Incinerator Candidate 16 (2.1;+2.1)
> [Lab (0.0;-19.4)]
> Majority 10  Turnout 46.5%  Con hold  Percentage change is since May 2007

<low whistle>

OK, so the LDs and the BNP weren't standing last time (hence the reduced 
Conservative share of the vote, as they appear to have only been opposed by 
Labour last time).

But this time, did Labour stand and get zero votes, or is that a way of 
indicating  that they didn't stand?

Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 at 00:23:00, Colin Rosenstiel  
> wrote in uk.politics.electoral :
>>
>> Camborne TC, Camborne South
>> Con 304 (29.9), Mebyon Kernow 289 (28.4), LD 263 (25.9), Lab 161 (15.8)
>> Majority 15  Turnout 19.4%  Con gain from LD
> 
> Good mandate - under 6% of the electorate...

Town Council (a parish that's got a bank, a take-away shop and a public 
toilet, presumably). Does it matter all that much?

JNugent wrote:

>> [Lab (0.0;-19.4)]

> But this time, did Labour stand and get zero votes, or is that a way of 
> indicating  that they didn't stand?

The latter. Colin uses square brackets to show parties that didn't stand to 
give a better indication of what vote shares were up for grabs.

On 30 Aug, 16:14, JNugent  wrote:
> <low whistle>

What on earth does "<low whistle>" mean?

JohnLoony wrote:

> JNugent  wrote:

>> <low whistle>

> What on earth does "<low whistle>" mean?

Are you really not very well read?

Don't tell me you spent your childhood reading the Communist Manifesto 
instead of Biggles, etc...

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
> 
>>> [Lab (0.0;-19.4)]
> 
>> But this time, did Labour stand and get zero votes, or is that a way of 
>> indicating  that they didn't stand?
> 
> The latter. Colin uses square brackets to show parties that didn't stand to 
> give a better indication of what vote shares were up for grabs. 

Thanks.

On 31 Aug, 11:00, JNugent  wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > JNugent  wrote:
> >> <low whistle>
> > What on earth does "<low whistle>" mean?
>
> Are you really not very well read?
>
> Don't tell me you spent your childhood reading the Communist Manifesto
> instead of Biggles, etc...

I have never read Biggles, and I only recently read the Communist
Manifesto.
Perhaps you might have the courtesy to answer the question?  What does
"low whistle" mean?  And how does it relate to the election results
listed above?  It would help if you wrote clear English in the first
place instead of cryptic mysteriousisms.

What does "<low whistle>" mean?

JohnLoony wrote:

> What does "<low whistle>" mean?

It isn't my job to try to make amends for your failure to read reasonably 
widely as a youth. But I'll proffer this much advice...

Go to the library (when we were young, we never used the phrase "public 
library" - we only knew of one sort, and it was a great resource for working 
class children).

Look up fiction by author's name under "J" for "Johns". Capt. W E Johns, the 
author of the *Biggles* series. While you're at it, you could wander over to 
the "R" section and serch under "Frank Richards" (real name: Charles 
Hamilton), who wrote the *Greyfriars* and *Rookwood School* series. I assume 
that even you have heard of Billy Bunter of Greyfriars School.

I suppose in these benighted times you may have to order them up specially - 
but be clear: the library will have copies available. They might even have 
Shakespeare and Shaw - but let's not try to run before we can walk.

Now comes the hard part: read them. Even if you don't find "low whistle" 
directly used in whichever of the books you can find, you will, after a few 
of them, start to understand what the general style is about (not that the 
use of such literary "FX" is limited to those authors or even those genres, 
of course).

On 4 Sep, 22:58, JNugent  wrote:
> JohnLoony wrote:
> > What does "<low whistle>" mean?
>
> It isn't my job to try to make amends for your failure to read reasonably
> widely as a youth. But I'll proffer this much advice...
>
> Go to the library (when we were young, we never used the phrase "public
> library" - we only knew of one sort, and it was a great resource for working
> class children).
>
> Look up fiction by author's name under "J" for "Johns". Capt. W E Johns, the
> author of the *Biggles* series. While you're at it, you could wander over to
> the "R" section and serch under "Frank Richards" (real name: Charles
> Hamilton), who wrote the *Greyfriars* and *Rookwood School* series. I assume
> that even you have heard of Billy Bunter of Greyfriars School.
>
> I suppose in these benighted times you may have to order them up specially -
> but be clear: the library will have copies available. They might even have
> Shakespeare and Shaw - but let's not try to run before we can walk.
>
> Now comes the hard part: read them. Even if you don't find "low whistle"
> directly used in whichever of the books you can find, you will, after a few
> of them, start to understand what the general style is about (not that the
> use of such literary "FX" is limited to those authors or even those genres,
> of course).

I have always found it very difficult to read almost all types of
fiction (with only a few exceptions) for one very straightforward
reason: it is extremely boring and tedious.  I much prefer to expand
my mind and knowledge by reading, and referring to, factual and
reference books which are full of useful information on politics,
history, geography, etc.

I have never heard of Captain Johns or Frank Richards, and I have only
a vague basic idea of Biggles and Billy Bunter.  I have only ever read
one Shakespeare play - because it was forced down my throat when I was
15 - which confirmed my unshakeable belief that William Shakespeare
was one of the most skankerous booliaks who ever existed, that he
should have been strangled at birth, and that it would have saved
countless generations of innocent schoolchildren from hideous tortures
if he had been.

Even if I were to force myself to read any of those books you mention,
it would probably take me about 3 or 4 times to read them in order to
overcome their inherently suffocatingly tedious and mind-dumbingly
boring content.  It only takes about a millisecond of logical thought
to realise that it would be much easier and quicker for you to answer
the question, and explain what the froth you meant in the first place,
instead bamboozling the rest of us with gobbledygook, and instead of
sending me on a long and tedious wild-goose-chase to the library.

If you don't answer the question, then perhaps someone else might have
the courtesy to enlighten me.

P.S.

I have just googled "Biggles + low whistle" and found (for example)
this:


(QUOTE)
"So what the hell happened to you then?" "Jimbo" Reid demanded.

"Don't know, sir," Rat answered not entirely untruthfully. He knew
what had happened, he just couldn't remember it, but, he reassured his
somewhat flexible conscience, it wasn't exactly lying outright to his
commanding officer.

"You were seen leaving the 'O' Club on the Sicily pissed out of your
skull. The barman said you were staggering in zig-zags. He nearly
called the MPs. Fall over then, did you?"

"If that's what the Flight Surgeon's report says, sir."

"Riiight..." Jimbo sounded less than thoroughly convinced, "'injuries
possibly consistent with a fall due presumably to a blood alcohol
level of...'" Jimbo looked Rat up and down, raised an eyebrow and let
out a low whistle, skipping on, "'resulting in the patient's face
impacting on a piece of machinery such as may be found as corridor-
clutter in the lower decks of a warship.'"

"That theory would seem to fit the facts, sir. I honestly don't
remember what happened."
(END QUOTE)


and I googled "Bunter + low whistle" and found this:


(QUOTE)
In the midst of all this feverish activity a lonely figure sat hunched
on a broken chair which had been left in the corridor in the forlorn
hope that someone might take it away and mend it. (Strange that such
superstitions, analogous to the tooth fairy, persist most tenaciously
in what one might otherwise consider to be enlightened environments.)
He was poring over an exercise book whose pages were covered with
scribbles, squiggles and hieroglyphs that would not have disgraced the
walls of a Pharaoh's lavatory, and every now and then his lips, which
were pursed with concentration, emitted a low whistle of astonishment
and incredulity, that Lucy, the dog sleeping at his feet, had the
perspicacity to ignore, as she did the majority of such summonses when
the scent was strong and the rat-hole was deep.

"Hallo, there, Bunter, you oik! What are you up to, you super-
saturated sausage?"
(END QUOTE)


Quite apart from the fact that the style of writing is dull and
difficult, the use of the phrase "low whistle" in both of these
examples is completely different from the context in which you used it
in responding to the result of one of the by-elections.  Specifically,
the examples quoted have the characters doing a low-pitched whistle,
apparently as an indication of surprise at something unusual.  Yet
there is nothing surprising about the result of the by-election to
which you were referring (due to the disappearance and intervention of
various parties which did/did not stand previously/this time).  Pray
tell what did *you* mean by "low whistle" in the context which *you*
wrote it, i.e. regardless of any dribble which may or may not have
been written by whoever it was that wrote Biggles or Bunter?