Portillo agrees with me re Cameron's 'terrorist sympathiser' comment
All is well
A few days ago I said to you it was true and shameless but would be successful both by getting it out there and across the media and by not costing the vote. You said we'd see soon enough if it was successful.
Given the line has been repeated who knows how many times (thanks faux outrage in Parliament) and the vote wasn't just carried anyway but carried with a stoning majority do you now consider it to have been successful?
Not at all. I put too much faith in UKIP. A lesson learned. They still seem to be a long way off their fabled Northern breakthrough. But a good Labour win tonight puts off the time when Labour might be electable again. This looks like being a fantastic result for the Tories.
Portillo agrees with me re Cameron's 'terrorist sympathiser' comment
All is well
A few days ago I said to you it was true and shameless but would be successful both by getting it out there and across the media and by not costing the vote. You said we'd see soon enough if it was successful.
Given the line has been repeated who knows how many times (thanks faux outrage in Parliament) and the vote wasn't just carried anyway but carried with a stoning majority do you now consider it to have been successful?
Even if you find it true and morally repugnant.
I shouldn't think it made much difference to anyone with half a brain
joncraigSKYVerified account @joncraig Turnout in Oldham by-election officially declared by returning officer as 40.26%, higher than some predictions & not bad for December poll.
Well, it's looking like I've called this pretty wrong. Big questions for UKIP if it really is a 7k+ majority, though - I thought they'd hit on the right strategy. I suspect they still have, given the state of the Labour Party, but they've got a fair way further to go than I expected.
The media/political analysts have got it totally wrong the last few weeks, if the result is as the 'Lib Dem sources' say. Like Heywood and Middleton reversed.
Postal voting needs to be looked at. Coupled with the boundary review and Labour could be out of power for a long time.
Gerrymandering rules OK.
It's not gerrymandering, it's Labour voting fraud. "Gerrymandering" is when you choose the shape of the constituencies to maximise the success of your chosen party. "Labour voting fraud" is when husbands, landlords or community leaders fill out en masse postal ballots intended for other people without their consent/knowledge. See also "pope, catholic" and "bear, woods, shit".
We still don't know the outcome but if it is true that Labour have done very well, it shows all the gossip is worthless. As I have said, many times before, find out the canvass returns from more than one party. The parties leak like a sieve at election time. Then estimate turnout to recalibrate share.
Kippers were never ahead on anyone's canvass returns, not even within 5%.
Not at all. I put too much faith in UKIP. A lesson learned. They still seem to be a long way off their fabled Northern breakthrough. But a good Labour win tonight puts off the time when Labour might be electable again. This looks like being a fantastic result for the Tories.
Postal voting needs to be looked at. Coupled with the boundary review and Labour could be out of power for a long time.
Gerrymandering rules OK.
It's not gerrymandering, it's Labour voting fraud. "Gerrymandering" is when you choose the shape of the constituencies to maximise the success of your chosen party. "Labour voting fraud" is when husbands, landlords or community leaders fill out en masse postal ballots intended for other people without their consent/knowledge. See also "pope, catholic" and "bear, woods, shit".
Clearly you have never seen the Conservative postal vote operation in practice in nursing homes in towns like Brighton and Worthing
Not at all. I put too much faith in UKIP. A lesson learned. They still seem to be a long way off their fabled Northern breakthrough. But a good Labour win tonight puts off the time when Labour might be electable again. This looks like being a fantastic result for the Tories.
On the contrary, I would say the result might be the right balance between mediocre-but-not-party-destroying-disastrous, enough to ensure a leadership change before 2020.
The danger of Labour getting really poor results would be that people would lose heart so much that they'd think there was no point changing leader since the party was screwed anyway so what would be the point.
Portillo agrees with me re Cameron's 'terrorist sympathiser' comment
All is well
A few days ago I said to you it was true and shameless but would be successful both by getting it out there and across the media and by not costing the vote. You said we'd see soon enough if it was successful.
Given the line has been repeated who knows how many times (thanks faux outrage in Parliament) and the vote wasn't just carried anyway but carried with a stoning majority do you now consider it to have been successful?
Even if you find it true and morally repugnant.
I shouldn't think it made much difference to anyone with half a brain
I'll switch your words around. I think it shouldn't make much difference. But not everyone currently knows that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser as the don't follow politics as deeply as you or I. Getting labels onto your opponents can be brutal but can work. The fact that Labour are clinging more and more to the terrorist sympathiser makes it win win.
Jennifer Williams @JenWilliamsMEN 20 min20 minuti fa Burning question. If Labour win tonight, where in Greater Manchester will John Bickley stand next?
Piers Corbyn, Jeremy's crazy brother, now on This Week denouncing climate change as bogus
Not only is Jezza better dressed, he is actually more sensible. Scary stuff!
Piers knows his onions - he's made a packet over the years betting on weather predictions. I'm sure he's right that the natural trend is for the earth to be cooling, but I'm not sure I trust him on man-made climate change.
Well, it's looking like I've called this pretty wrong. Big questions for UKIP if it really is a 7k+ majority, though - I thought they'd hit on the right strategy. I suspect they still have, given the state of the Labour Party, but they've got a fair way further to go than I expected.
It will tell Corbyn that he is doing the right thing and not to change.
Portillo agrees with me re Cameron's 'terrorist sympathiser' comment
All is well
A few days ago I said to you it was true and shameless but would be successful both by getting it out there and across the media and by not costing the vote. You said we'd see soon enough if it was successful.
Given the line has been repeated who knows how many times (thanks faux outrage in Parliament) and the vote wasn't just carried anyway but carried with a stoning majority do you now consider it to have been successful?
Even if you find it true and morally repugnant.
I shouldn't think it made much difference to anyone with half a brain
I'll switch your words around. I think it shouldn't make much difference. But not everyone currently knows that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser as the don't follow politics as deeply as you or I. Getting labels onto your opponents can be brutal but can work. The fact that Labour are clinging more and more to the terrorist sympathiser makes it win win.
I never said Corbyn or McDonnell were not terrorist sympathisers, I thought it poor form from Cameron to imply that people that voted against his motion would be aligning themselves with terrorist sympathisers
Enough Philip, it's too late for petty squabbling. You and I disagree on almost everything, it's fine by me I don't want to convince you
Well, it's looking like I've called this pretty wrong. Big questions for UKIP if it really is a 7k+ majority, though - I thought they'd hit on the right strategy. I suspect they still have, given the state of the Labour Party, but they've got a fair way further to go than I expected.
It will tell Corbyn that he is doing the right thing and not to change.
Portillo agrees with me re Cameron's 'terrorist sympathiser' comment
All is well
A few days ago I said to you it was true and shameless but would be successful both by getting it out there and across the media and by not costing the vote. You said we'd see soon enough if it was successful.
Given the line has been repeated who knows how many times (thanks faux outrage in Parliament) and the vote wasn't just carried anyway but carried with a stoning majority do you now consider it to have been successful?
Even if you find it true and morally repugnant.
I shouldn't think it made much difference to anyone with half a brain
It was bullying. It wasn't Labour that he needed to apologise to, it was the Tory back benchers he was trying (perhaps with some success) to intimidate. When the Prime Minister of Britain, the First lord of the admiralty, who launches drone strikes against terrorists, threatens to classify people as terrorist sympathisers, the implication is very clear and ominous.
Postal voting needs to be looked at. Coupled with the boundary review and Labour could be out of power for a long time.
Gerrymandering rules OK.
It's not gerrymandering, it's Labour voting fraud. "Gerrymandering" is when you choose the shape of the constituencies to maximise the success of your chosen party. "Labour voting fraud" is when husbands, landlords or community leaders fill out en masse postal ballots intended for other people without their consent/knowledge. See also "pope, catholic" and "bear, woods, shit".
Clearly you have never seen the Conservative postal vote operation in practice in nursing homes in towns like Brighton and Worthing
Well, it's looking like I've called this pretty wrong. Big questions for UKIP if it really is a 7k+ majority, though - I thought they'd hit on the right strategy. I suspect they still have, given the state of the Labour Party, but they've got a fair way further to go than I expected.
It will tell Corbyn that he is doing the right thing and not to change.
Which is great for the Tories.
It suggests what most polls are suggesting, other than Comres, that Labour is on 30% or so nationally and have made no progress since May under Corbyn but have not collapsed either as the most pessimistic forecasts had predicted, Corbyn has not won over any Tories or UKIP voters but he has held onto the vast majority of those who voted for Ed Miliband
Was Labour 54.8% UKIP 20.6% in May so that suggests UKIP up a bit, Labour virtually unchanged
That would have to be regarded as pretty poor from UKIP.
Indeed but it looks like the Muslim vote came out for Labour UKIP did not make big enough inroads into white working class
Apparently the constituency is 56,000 white British and 14,000 Asian British. At the very least it looks like UKIP failed to inspire the WWC vote, some of which - at least - stuck with Labour. A good night for Jezza, a poir one for UKIP and those eho want an electable Labour party, and a great one for the Tories.
We still don't know the outcome but if it is true that Labour have done very well, it shows all the gossip is worthless. As I have said, many times before, find out the canvass returns from more than one party. The parties leak like a sieve at election time. Then estimate turnout to recalibrate share.
OK, I'll bite.
a) How does one find out the canvass returns? b) how does one estimate turnout? c) how does one use the turnout estimates to recalibrate share?
Labour had a very good candidate. UKIP? Not so much.
The Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities love Corbyn - and will have voted en masse for him. Labour seats that don't have such a solid block of south Asian votes to rely on should still be of much more concern.
Well, it's looking like I've called this pretty wrong. Big questions for UKIP if it really is a 7k+ majority, though - I thought they'd hit on the right strategy. I suspect they still have, given the state of the Labour Party, but they've got a fair way further to go than I expected.
It will tell Corbyn that he is doing the right thing and not to change.
Which is great for the Tories.
It suggests what most polls are suggesting, other than Comres, that Labour is on 30% or so nationally and have made no progress since May under Corbyn but have not collapsed either as the most pessimistic forecasts had predicted, Corbyn has not won over any Tories or UKIP voters but he has held onto the vast majority of those who voted for Ed Miliband
Which is precisely what I said in the summer, that Corbyn is a low risk low reward candidate, he won't lose or gain many votes despite the screaming from the right or the left.
Comments
Colin Baker's Doctor dresses that family.
It's possible Labour might hit 60% of the vote in Oldham West & Royton by-election I'm hearing.
CON: 43.2% (-3.3)
LDEM: 22.9% (+4.7)
UKIP: 12.2% (+12.2)
GGG: 11.6% (-8.6)
LAB: 10.0% (-5.1)
And he's bashing Climate Change on national TV.
It's like american TV.
Let me just check with my LD source to confirm.
Meole (Shropshire) result:
CON: 43.1% (-11.8)
LAB: 26.7% (-11.0)
LDEM: 19.6% (+12.3)
UKIP: 5.6% (+5.6)
GRN: 4.9% (+4.9)
I can confirm that what you see is what you get.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM
Given the line has been repeated who knows how many times (thanks faux outrage in Parliament) and the vote wasn't just carried anyway but carried with a stoning majority do you now consider it to have been successful?
Even if you find it true and morally repugnant.
LAB: 72.1% (+7.9)
LDEM: 9.1% (+9.1)
CON: 8.6% (-12.4)
GRN: 5.9% (+5.9)
UKIP: 3.9% (+3.9)
IND: 0.5% (+0.5)
Kippers were never ahead on anyone's canvass returns, not even within 5%.
Famous last words? Probably not.
Backwards in Guildford, Shropshire, Lincoln etc.
Everybodys happy then.
The danger of Labour getting really poor results would be that people would lose heart so much that they'd think there was no point changing leader since the party was screwed anyway so what would be the point.
Burning question. If Labour win tonight, where in Greater Manchester will John Bickley stand next?
Lib Dem source says Labour heading for 10,000+ majority in Oldham.
Which is great for the Tories.
Lib Dem source says Labour heading for 10,000+ majority in Oldham.
That would be a 36% lead over UKIP based on the turnout figures.
Enough Philip, it's too late for petty squabbling. You and I disagree on almost everything, it's fine by me I don't want to convince you
The "LD source" could just be looking at a selection of boxes & multiplying up, or something.
Or they might be spot on.
Who knows.
Lib Dem vs Tory match bet the big sweater.
Labour briefing comfortable majority, although not into double figures (of thousands, not actual double figures)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/dec/03/oldham-byelection-labour-corbyn-ukip-challenge-in-first-test-of-corbyns-popularity-live
I back-pedalled on the swing-back model after it didn't do too well in 2010, and it did indeed perform even worse in 2015...
I stuck my colours to my own new local election model, and to L&N (who stupidly got cold feet about their model in the run-up to 2015)
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/05/27/guest-slot-rod-crosby-the-bell-tolls-for-labour-and-miliband/
If latest % numbers from Oldham right, Lab majority will be nearer 11,000
That's why Galloway has stood, and won, in Bethnal Green and Bradford.
Corbyn can use it as a weapon to clear the shadow cabinet from his enemies, Benn especially.
https://twitter.com/HeartNWNews/status/672568998266060802
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/dec/03/oldham-byelection-labour-corbyn-ukip-challenge-in-first-test-of-corbyns-popularity-live
a) How does one find out the canvass returns?
b) how does one estimate turnout?
c) how does one use the turnout estimates to recalibrate share?
The Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities love Corbyn - and will have voted en masse for him. Labour seats that don't have such a solid block of south Asian votes to rely on should still be of much more concern.
I was surprised Shadsy held that price for so long.