An excellent result for Corbyn, desperate reality check for moderate Labour MPs. No sleep loss for the Conservatives as it continues the trend of the GE. Labour does well in their heartlands but I doubt if they'd get a similar result in any seat that matters. I'd expect the deselection momentum (sic) to accelerate. Many on the left will assume this justifies everything - NPXPM already sounding almost orgasmic earlier. The delusion continues.
An excellent result for Corbyn, desperate reality check for moderate Labour MPs. No sleep loss for the Conservatives as it continues the trend of the GE. Labour does well in their heartlands but I doubt if they'd get a similar result in any seat that matters. I'd expect the deselection momentum (sic) to accelerate. Many on the left will assume this justifies everything - NPXPM already sounding almost orgasmic earlier. The delusion continues.
On the point about postal ballots. I thought the inner envelope remained sealed until polling day? I'm probably wrong though, as I do recall several incidents of people reporting on postal returns...
An excellent result for Corbyn, desperate reality check for moderate Labour MPs. No sleep loss for the Conservatives as it continues the trend of the GE. Labour does well in their heartlands but I doubt if they'd get a similar result in any seat that matters. I'd expect the deselection momentum (sic) to accelerate. Many on the left will assume this justifies everything - NPXPM already sounding almost orgasmic earlier. The delusion continues.
A very drawn out way of saying "first"!
(I jest!)
Being first is a kind of default for me so no big deal
An excellent result for Corbyn, desperate reality check for moderate Labour MPs.
Yes - he's a clear winner tonight - though how well Maomentum will take to a Tory scum Kendallite MP may be another matter
I suspect he will be fine as he said he'd vote against bombing. I also recall that most on here thought NPXMP was a centre moderate until he discovered his inner 'Corbyn' following his second monstering in Broxtowe. With Labour MPs wysiNwyg!
The default assumption when parties talk about “internal polling” should be that they are lying
I suspect sometimes they are not - for example, I think the Nats genuinely thought they would win SINDYRef- and UKIP's intemperate reaction to last night's result suggests there was more to their 'closing gap' narrative than spin and lies - but as Lord Ashcroft famously observes, a poll is 'a snapshot, not a prediction'.
I think Labour were both genuinely worried about the result and genuinely surprised by the size of their win - and UKIP, were shocked by their poor showing.
Congratulations to Jim McMahon. He's young and he's certainly made an impact in local politics: it'll be interesting to follow him on the national stage.
So we can take three stories out of OW&R:
1) Labour is doing well in its heartlands (despite / because) of Corbyn and Labour's new leftist slant.
2) UKIP have lost it, both monetarily, electorally and mentally.
3) With my prediction of a 20% turnout, people should treat my polling advice as if I was the psephological old woman in a cave:
“It's the story of my life. You see, the quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead. Now, as you look through this document you'll see that I've underlined all the major decisions I ever made to make the stand out. They're all indexed and cross-referenced. See? All I can suggest is that if you take decisions that are exactly opposite to the sort of decisions that I've taken, then maybe you won't finish up at the end of your life" --she paused, and filled her lungs for a good should--"in a smelly old cave like this!”
I'd like to expand on my second comment below. Farage's comments about the postal votes are utterly stupid and damage UKIP more than Labour.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result. In which case, it would be best to be gracious: congratulate the new MP, but add a rider that you think the PV situation was odd and might need investigating.
Secondly, it just makes you look like a sore loser. If you have specific allegations, say them and/or report them to the police. Saying 'impeccable sources' as he did in his tweet is a rather odd appeal to authority. And what would an 'impeccable source' be? Someone manipulating the postal votes?
UKIP need to get rid of Farage. He's unelectable and unprofessional. If his allegations about 'impeccable sources' turn out to be a lie or exaggeration, he should resign.
Mr McMahon, the leader of Oldham Council, dismissed Mr Farage's accusations of a "bent" contest, saying: "There is nothing wrong with people making a democratic decision not to support Ukip."
The media narrative around the byelection was set up to skewer Corbyn.
It was going to be tight because it had to be tight, because Corbyn's hopeless, right?
That narrative suited Labour, on the ground, as it motivated their supporters & got their committed vote out.
It suited the tories.
It suited the Labour MPs hostile to corbyn.
It suited UKIP, or at least they thought it suited them.
One post-paris yougov would have calibrated the narrative and sucked the value out of the betting markets. Thank god polling has gone out of fashion, eh?
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
I wonder what the Conservatives' long-term strategy will be now?
Last night's result makes it look as though Corbyn is safe until at least next May's locals. His initial period in charge of Labour has not been an unqualified success, and both polling and local election results are not looking good for his party.
Yet it is possible that the Conservatives will have to keep up this fire on Corbyn for five years, and if that's the case then the public will get war-weary. It's time for them to lessen the fire on him a little. They've damaged him; the last thing they want is for the GBP to start developing sympathy for him.
Attack his policies, attack things he says: and it's not as if there is not plenty of ammunition there. Attack the people around him: McDonnell and Abbott particularly. Attack Momentum.
But leave off Corbyn's past a little, at least until nearer the GE. The public will get fed up with it.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
Good result for Labour, no getting away from that, but its probably decent Labour voters voting for a decent Labour candidate rather than anything to do with the Communist element of the Labour party.
I was just about to post that there would be calls for him to be deselected and what did I see down-thread
asjohnstone • Posts: 460
5:38AM
Momentum type on twitter already demanding that McMahon be deselected for 2020
I can understand Kippers being a trifle upset with disappointment, but it just looks like Labour had a massive GOTV effort on the last day for errant postal votes - if reporting is accurate.
This quote made me Nuttal "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"
How did Kippers get it so wrong? I know they're keen as mustard and all that - but the margin was huge.
This election has something for almost everyone - Corbynites can crow about the result, moderate Labour and Kendallites have another one in their fold and the Tories can continue to buy popcorn shares.
The biggest lesson missed from the headline is that it's a dangerous assumption to think that the PB commentariat's prejudices are reflective of those of the general public.
Though some Labour posters were hoping for a UKIP win to hasten Corbyn's departure I believe that was very short sighted. If towns with large immigrant communities start supporting a Powellite Party we'll quickly end up with a very fractured and ugly society. A much more important consideration than the petty question of who leads Labour
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
I think this is the key. If UKIP believe there is fraud in the PV system - and I can see how it can easily exist with the current system but that doesn't mean it does - then they should make private complaints with evidence to the Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer. Simply throwing around the accusations achieves nothing.
The biggest lesson missed from the headline is that it's a dangerous assumption to think that the PB commentariat's prejudices are reflective of those of the general public.
Not just PB - the commentariate - across the political spectrum - called this wrong:
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
Simply throwing around the accusations achieves nothing.
Its counter productive - if its not true here, next time they make accusations they'll be dismissed
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
To answer your question as well, even though it wasn't directed at me.
Postal voting should only be available to those with a genuine need. Those who will either be away or incapable of reaching the polling booth on the day of the vote. PV should not be available on demand. Again I have no idea if there is any corruption and certainly no one has produced any reasonable proof or testimony to that effect but given the opportunity is there we should remove the possibility.
This election has something for almost everyone - Corbynites can crow about the result, moderate Labour and Kendallites have another one in their fold and the Tories can continue to buy popcorn shares.
On the header I'd largely agree but regardless of the candidate's abilities the big winner is Cornyn.
If in Oldham "the big winner is Corbyn" then the biggest winners nationwide are the Conservatives.
Cameron is a rather lucky Prime Minister.
Quite so.
PBers should be mindful that parliamentary by-elections are strange, weird and wonderful beasts that should be thoroughly enjoyed and then for long term electoral considerations consigned to the fantasy fiction remainder bin.
The anecdotal feedback from Labour and the usually spot on John Harris @ Guardian were very leary about their chances too.
Somebody did a very effective GOTV job - how they did it is another matter, posted postal votes were expected to have a huge impact whatever else happened TO wise.
The biggest lesson missed from the headline is that it's a dangerous assumption to think that the PB commentariat's prejudices are reflective of those of the general public.
Not just PB - the commentariate - across the political spectrum - called this wrong:
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
I think this is the key. If UKIP believe there is fraud in the PV system - and I can see how it can easily exist with the current system but that doesn't mean it does - then they should make private complaints with evidence to the Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer. Simply throwing around the accusations achieves nothing.
Indeed. And when he does have a case, it will be the Farage that cried wolf.
But I'd like to say this: there will be some level of fraud - or attempted fraud - in all parts of the system. There's too much at stake, and too many 'enthusiastic' supporters. All a system can do is:
1) Make it as difficult as possible, whilst still maintaining the ability for people to vote. 2) Have checks and balances that might detect fraud by flagging up odd occurrences. 3) Make it particularly hard to do in bulk: I might be able to vote for my wife against her wishes (*), but not the entire street.
IMO point 3 is where PV was failing in some cases: it was too easy to do large-scale fraud. We'll have to see if the IVR and other changes have made a difference.
OT This story is so WTF, given how many here are pet owners...
One drug which is causing increasing excitement is rapamycin, an anti-rejection medicine used in patients who have undergone kidney transplants and which has been shown to extend the life of mice by more than 25 per cent. If successful it could see dogs living for an extra four years.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
To answer your question as well, even though it wasn't directed at me.
Postal voting should only be available to those with a genuine need. Those who will either be away or incapable of reaching the polling booth on the day of the vote. PV should not be available on demand. Again I have no idea if there is any corruption and certainly no one has produced any reasonable proof or testimony to that effect but given the opportunity is there we should remove the possibility.
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
snip
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
I think this is the key. If UKIP believe there is fraud in the PV system - and I can see how it can easily exist with the current system but that doesn't mean it does - then they should make private complaints with evidence to the Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer. Simply throwing around the accusations achieves nothing.
Indeed. And when he does have a case, it will be the Farage that cried wolf.
But I'd like to say this: there will be some level of fraud - or attempted fraud - in all parts of the system. There's too much at stake, and too many 'enthusiastic' supporters. All a system can do is:
1) Make it as difficult as possible, whilst still maintaining the ability for people to vote. 2) Have checks and balances that might detect fraud by flagging up odd occurrences. 3) Make it particularly hard to do in bulk: I might be able to vote for my wife against her wishes (*), but not the entire street.
IMO point 3 is where PV was failing in some cases: it was too easy to do large-scale fraud. We'll have to see if the IVR and other changes have made a difference.
OT This story is so WTF, given how many here are pet owners...
One drug which is causing increasing excitement is rapamycin, an anti-rejection medicine used in patients who have undergone kidney transplants and which has been shown to extend the life of mice by more than 25 per cent. If successful it could see dogs living for an extra four years.
Companion animal geriatrics is one of the big areas of research in the field - everything from derivatives of jellyfish for canine Alzheimers through to antibodies for canine lymphoma.
Rapamune is an mTOR inhibitor. A bit meh, to be honest, in humans with revenues of only about $350m and a black box warning. If you are really interested, I'm have dinner with one of the senior executives of the company developing the product in a couple of weeks and can ask about it.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
I think this is the key. If UKIP believe there is fraud in the PV system - and I can see how it can easily exist with the current system but that doesn't mean it does - then they should make private complaints with evidence to the Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer. Simply throwing around the accusations achieves nothing.
Indeed. And when he does have a case, it will be the Farage that cried wolf.
But I'd like to say this: there will be some level of fraud - or attempted fraud - in all parts of the system. There's too much at stake, and too many 'enthusiastic' supporters. All a system can do is:
1) Make it as difficult as possible, whilst still maintaining the ability for people to vote. 2) Have checks and balances that might detect fraud by flagging up odd occurrences. 3) Make it particularly hard to do in bulk: I might be able to vote for my wife against her wishes (*), but not the entire street.
IMO point 3 is where PV was failing in some cases: it was too easy to do large-scale fraud. We'll have to see if the IVR and other changes have made a difference.
It makes me despair - he wasn't meant to be here, neither were they. And now they've got indefinite leave to remain as High Court rules that May acted unlawfully. She refused UK citizenship to wife and both grown up children of failed Al Qaeda supporting asylum seeker
OT This story is so WTF, given how many here are pet owners...
One drug which is causing increasing excitement is rapamycin, an anti-rejection medicine used in patients who have undergone kidney transplants and which has been shown to extend the life of mice by more than 25 per cent. If successful it could see dogs living for an extra four years.
Companion animal geriatrics is one of the big areas of research in the field - everything from derivatives of jellyfish for canine Alzheimers through to antibodies for canine lymphoma.
Rapamune is an mTOR inhibitor. A bit meh, to be honest, in humans with revenues of only about $350m and a black box warning. If you are really interested, I'm have dinner with one of the senior executives of the company developing the product in a couple of weeks and can ask about it.
I'd like to expand on my second comment below. Farage's comments about the postal votes are utterly stupid and damage UKIP more than Labour.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result. In which case, it would be best to be gracious: congratulate the new MP, but add a rider that you think the PV situation was odd and might need investigating.
Secondly, it just makes you look like a sore loser. If you have specific allegations, say them and/or report them to the police. Saying 'impeccable sources' as he did in his tweet is a rather odd appeal to authority. And what would an 'impeccable source' be? Someone manipulating the postal votes?
UKIP need to get rid of Farage. He's unelectable and unprofessional. If his allegations about 'impeccable sources' turn out to be a lie or exaggeration, he should resign.
It does not bode well for the EU referendum.
I agree with that. A poor result for UKIP but Farage is embarrassing himself, yet again.
There could still be an overbearing cultish party leader whose leadership is put in question by this result.
I can understand Kippers being a trifle upset with disappointment, but it just looks like Labour had a massive GOTV effort on the last day for errant postal votes - if reporting is accurate.
This quote made me Nuttal "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"
How did Kippers get it so wrong? I know they're keen as mustard and all that - but the margin was huge.
Shite isn't a big enough word to describe UKIP's ground game.
One post-paris yougov would have calibrated the narrative and sucked the value out of the betting markets. Thank god polling has gone out of fashion, eh?
How do you know the constituency polling wouldn't have been badly wrong ?
Good morning. Bad day for UKIP. It's been a bad year for UKIP. Looks like another look at the drawing board.
Ditch Farage. He's taken UKIP so far but he isn't the right leader to take it any further.
UKIP needs someone who's happy for it to be a movement, not a cult, and have strong first lieutenants supporting him/her and carrying the message across the country.
There's certainly lots to take away from this one.
When the by-election was first called, the narrative here was that it would be a very boring clear Lab win - exactly as it turned out. I think the media were desperate to build a story about a close contest that would fit into the Corbyn soap opera, as well as building up UKIP to knock em down
UKIP need to work on the expectations management, which is difficult under FPTP but they turned an expected result into an apparent loss.
If people have allegations about the conduct of the election, they need to put them in writing to the Returning Officer and Electoral Commission. We have a proud record of democracy and interfering with an election is taken very seriously by the authorities. On the other hand if you're just fed up with the system as it is, then throwing around baseless allegations about the integrity of the ballot endears you to no-one.
On a related note, UKIP need to get away from being The Farage Show, especially in the run up to the EU referendum. He is now a liability to his cause and should take a back seat until after the referendum. Do UKIP have the 'men in grey suits' that can do the job though?
Labour appear to have a potential future minister in Jim McMahon OBE. He's only 35 but has been leading the council for six years and is (was) the NEC representative for councillors. The PLP if not the Corbynistas will be happy to have another moderate centrist in the Commons, possibly for as long as his predecessor.
I still managed to make a few quid from an all-green book as the UKIP price came in so far, but why oh why didn't I bet the mortgage on the Lost Deposits!
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
OT This story is so WTF, given how many here are pet owners...
One drug which is causing increasing excitement is rapamycin, an anti-rejection medicine used in patients who have undergone kidney transplants and which has been shown to extend the life of mice by more than 25 per cent. If successful it could see dogs living for an extra four years.
Companion animal geriatrics is one of the big areas of research in the field - everything from derivatives of jellyfish for canine Alzheimers through to antibodies for canine lymphoma.
Rapamune is an mTOR inhibitor. A bit meh, to be honest, in humans with revenues of only about $350m and a black box warning. If you are really interested, I'm have dinner with one of the senior executives of the company developing the product in a couple of weeks and can ask about it.
Probably about $25-30m in annual revenues. Have a couple of other things I need to talk to him about (and the purpose of the dinner is to introduce him to someone else) so no promises.
I can understand Kippers being a trifle upset with disappointment, but it just looks like Labour had a massive GOTV effort on the last day for errant postal votes - if reporting is accurate.
This quote made me Nuttal "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"
How did Kippers get it so wrong? I know they're keen as mustard and all that - but the margin was huge.
Shite isn't a big enough word to describe UKIP's ground game.
I can understand Kippers being a trifle upset with disappointment, but it just looks like Labour had a massive GOTV effort on the last day for errant postal votes - if reporting is accurate.
This quote made me Nuttal "You've got to ask yourself, is this Britain or is this Harare?"
How did Kippers get it so wrong? I know they're keen as mustard and all that - but the margin was huge.
Shite isn't a big enough word to describe UKIP's ground game.
It makes me despair - he wasn't meant to be here, neither were they. And now they've got indefinite leave to remain as High Court rules that May acted unlawfully. She refused UK citizenship to wife and both grown up children of failed Al Qaeda supporting asylum seeker
Under what rules can associates of terrorists be allowed to remain in the UK? There needs to be an explicit change in the law here, and we need to start deporting people first and allowing appeals from their home country. The rest of the world works this way, why don't we?
It makes me despair - he wasn't meant to be here, neither were they. And now they've got indefinite leave to remain as High Court rules that May acted unlawfully. She refused UK citizenship to wife and both grown up children of failed Al Qaeda supporting asylum seeker
If my reading of that judgement is correct, then the judge might have come to a different conclusion had parliament passed a law to say that citizenship could be denied to the immediate family of future deportees on national security grounds, as a deterrent.
I suspect that would come up against the Right to Family Life, which infuriates me.
It should mean you have the right to see, call and visit your family without hindrance or obstruction by the authorities.
It should not grant an unadulterated right for all of your family to have settlement rights in the UK as soon as you, yourself, secure permanent residence.
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Why do you think the Labour Party is committed to democracy?
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
And under the old system you had to apply for your postal vote for each election, whereas now you keep it once it's in the system. Used to annoy me as I was often away with work and didn't bother for local elections in safe seats, but the principle was the right one when compared to the free-for-all we have now.
This by-election was of course run on the same basis as the GE, before the IVR rules will drop a lot of voters off next year. I'm sure this will be very controversial, but is any research being done into the affects of this change, ie by comparison of 2015 and 2016 rolls in different areas?
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Why do you think the Labour Party is committed to democracy?
I think the Labour party under Blair was a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
Apologies for the delay in replying - just got to work. Yes, I'd abolish it. Armed forces and diplomats overseas can vote by post - that's it. If you're living it up on the Costa del Sol and want to vote then get on a plane and come back to vote. My dad tells me that when he was young politicians would drive old people to the polling station. The current system stinks and it needs to change.
Labour are back! Or not. Either way, this can only be good for Corbyn, as it probably negates temporarily any moderate Labour members efforts in painting the New New Labour as unelectable. Corbyn is the Messiah for a lot of my colleagues, and my union has gone balls deep on him. I might have to pull out....
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
Apologies for the delay in replying - just got to work. Yes, I'd abolish it. Armed forces and diplomats overseas can vote by post - that's it. If you're living it up on the Costa del Sol and want to vote then get on a plane and come back to vote. My dad tells me that when he was young politicians would drive old people to the polling station. The current system stinks and it needs to change.
I think that is too extreme. For a start you would disenfranchise tens of thousands of North Sea workers. But I agree with the principle. Only those with a clear need should be allowed postal votes. Everyone else should make the effort and get to the polling booth.
Labour are back! Or not. Either way, this can only be good for Corbyn, as it probably negates temporarily any moderate Labour members efforts in painting the New New Labour as unelectable. Corbyn is the Messiah for a lot of my colleagues, and my union has gone balls deep on him. I might have to pull out....
Labour are back! Or not. Either way, this can only be good for Corbyn, as it probably negates temporarily any moderate Labour members efforts in painting the New New Labour as unelectable. Corbyn is the Messiah for a lot of my colleagues, and my union has gone balls deep on him. I might have to pull out....
By and large, we elect parties not presidents. Though if McMahon had lost, everyone who didn't blame Corbyn would have blamed the Blairite candidate.
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Why do you think the Labour Party is committed to democracy?
I think the Labour party under Blair was a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office.
Hope that answers your question.
"a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office. " Would that not apply also to the Conservative Party?
Labour are back! Or not. Either way, this can only be good for Corbyn, as it probably negates temporarily any moderate Labour members efforts in painting the New New Labour as unelectable. Corbyn is the Messiah for a lot of my colleagues, and my union has gone balls deep on him. I might have to pull out....
It was noted here that the FBU have re-affiliated to Labour. What is the thinking behind that, or do they simply think that the politics of the 1970s and '80s are overdue a return?
It shows that people in the real world haven't noticed the Labour Party shenanigans these past few weeks and months. And why should they have? In OW&R they had a good candidate and you can be sure they weren't hanging on to every Dan Hodges tweet for guidance.
It bodes well for Cons if Jezza is still in charge come 2020. Because at a GE people do pay attention to all this stuff. As they did with EdM in 2015.
UKIP? a) it's a long and rocky road to the top; or b) stop embarrassing yourself.
See how the proletariat kneel before the invincible ideology of Chairman Corbyn!
On a more serious note, a significantly disappointing result for the purples. Never expected much tactical voting (not really the way of the blues) but UKIP could've and should've done better.
However, worth noting this has been a rock solid Labour seat since Aethelred the Unready, so perhaps Labour's real victory was in expectations management. Party holds safe seat isn't the most exciting headline.
I'll admit, Patrick O'Flynn's tweet made me thought UKIP had won, or were at least very very close. The Lib Dems did well to halt the slide, and got around double the 500 or so votes I predicted. If you take away every single postal vote, and assume it to be Labour - you probably arrive at somewhere around the "media narrative". Perhaps Labour's ground operation has improved ? Reading too much into this BE would be foolish, though.
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Why do you think the Labour Party is committed to democracy?
I think the Labour party under Blair was a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office.
Hope that answers your question.
It does, and more: it gives a sound reasoning for Corbyn's huge win in the inner-Party election.
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Why do you think the Labour Party is committed to democracy?
I think the Labour party under Blair was a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office.
Hope that answers your question.
"a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office. " Would that not apply also to the Conservative Party?
Not to the extent we saw under Blair. Nor does it apply to the Labour party when they were in power prior to Blair. Difficult to tell about them now.
I'm not fully against that idea, just as long as it did not lead to many people being disenfranchised. And that's the danger.
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Basically I think what I set out. Only genuine need, mostly because you were going to be away for election day. As far as I can see it worked very well and the change was completely unnecessary. It is one of the instances where I genuinely doubt the motives of those who made the change.
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985 The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Why do you think the Labour Party is committed to democracy?
I think the Labour party under Blair was a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office.
Hope that answers your question.
"a thoroughly corrupt organisation that would do pretty much anything to get power and keep it. They were not committed to democracy at all, merely to staying in office. " Would that not apply also to the Conservative Party?
Of course. The nature of politics is that the pursuit of power is in itself the abandonment of principle.
7th takeaway. I am £5 poorer this morning. Don't bet on UKIP :-).
More seriously no doubt the Corbynista will take as vindication of a surge towards the sunny uplands of Jez's socialist paradise. So bad for Labour in longer term.
Labour are back! Or not. Either way, this can only be good for Corbyn, as it probably negates temporarily any moderate Labour members efforts in painting the New New Labour as unelectable. Corbyn is the Messiah for a lot of my colleagues, and my union has gone balls deep on him. I might have to pull out....
We broke away from New Labour after the 2002/3 strike, when Blair and Prescott didn't fancy giving us 30 grand a year. Under Brown and Milliband, there was talk of re affiliating, but they still weren't seen as being on our side enough. Now, under a Tory government, with Corbyn in charge? The union thinks all their birthdays have come at once. To be fair, a lot of us are unhappy, but it was voted upon, and we have to follow the majority. It's not gonna be pretty.
The Tory vote was down almost 10% and the UKIP vote up 3% so clearly a few Tories went to UKIP. The Green vote was down 1% which clearly went to Labour and it may be a few Tories cast a local vote for Jim McMahon, a centrist and local boy, while they would not vote his more leftwing predecessor Michael Meacher. It us a good result for Labour but I would not read too much into it, William Hague saw the Tory vote rise by almost 7% in Uxbridge in 1997 in his first by election again with a good local candidate John Randall, that was not replicated in the 2001 election
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
Apologies for the delay in replying - just got to work. Yes, I'd abolish it. Armed forces and diplomats overseas can vote by post - that's it. If you're living it up on the Costa del Sol and want to vote then get on a plane and come back to vote. My dad tells me that when he was young politicians would drive old people to the polling station. The current system stinks and it needs to change.
I think that is too extreme. For a start you would disenfranchise tens of thousands of North Sea workers. But I agree with the principle. Only those with a clear need should be allowed postal votes. Everyone else should make the effort and get to the polling booth.
Okay, fair enough - it would need thinking through - but the current system is broken.
The Oldham result would have been sensational if Labour had lost..
Yes, but that is far from what actually happened. By elections do produce huge swings and sensational results. UKIP were second placed and had a chance to take a large bite out of Labour's vote. By elections have been won from worse positions. As it happened there was a swing from UKIP to Labour despite all the bad news about Labour recently.
Of course if one were desperate to find an anti Corbyn spin on what is undoubtedly a good result for Labour you might suggest a candidate like McMahon is more attractive than the left wing nutter who held the seat for so long. But I don't think that will be the story.
For UKIP the bad news keeps coming. Getting a tactical squeeze the next time is going to be even more difficult after a result like this. They look a fading force but the referendum gives them another chance.
One post-paris yougov would have calibrated the narrative and sucked the value out of the betting markets. Thank god polling has gone out of fashion, eh?
How do you know the constituency polling wouldn't have been badly wrong ?
Even if it had been out by the same margin as the GE polls were in late April, it would still have given us a headsup that it was nowhere near close.
Yes I was expecting the Greens to beat the yellow peril. I think the remaining Lib Dem vote at the GE was definitely the "core" now, but Labour is taking votes off the Greens.
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result.
Perhaps Ukip care more about our democracy than they do about winning themselves? When I went to bed at 9:30 last night all the speculation on here - and I see you contributed to it - was that turnout would be sub 30%.
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Yes, and I admitted that I was wrong about that prediction below.I felt there were good reasons for a poor turnout: the time of year, the electoral cycle, the fact it is a safe seat etc. I was wrong. I am the psephological smelly old woman in the cave.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
Apologies for the delay in replying - just got to work. Yes, I'd abolish it. Armed forces and diplomats overseas can vote by post - that's it. If you're living it up on the Costa del Sol and want to vote then get on a plane and come back to vote. My dad tells me that when he was young politicians would drive old people to the polling station. The current system stinks and it needs to change.
I think that is too extreme. For a start you would disenfranchise tens of thousands of North Sea workers. But I agree with the principle. Only those with a clear need should be allowed postal votes. Everyone else should make the effort and get to the polling booth.
Okay, fair enough - it would need thinking through - but the current system is broken.
You could restrict it to people getting mobility PIP or DLA. For those temporarily out of the country, you could have early voting in person, as in some US states. And as has been pointed out, something for those out of the country longer term. Australians vote at the Embassy I believe.
I hope this result allows Labour to finally come to terms with their leadership. Whether most of the MP's are now to the right of the leadership rather than to the left as they used to be is unimportant.
This should be the moment of Labour's renaissance. With Osborne's leaving so many open goals if they don't bury their differences and start scoring they wont be forgiven.
1) UKIP in second place is a powerful GOTV motivator for the party in first place.
2) Tories are reluctant to tactically vote, but former LDs still do, and will be hard to get back.
3) A strong candidate with deep local roots is better than a parachuted favourite from head office
4) Kendallite politics is not dead in the Labour party and wins elections. Indeed by replacing a far left MP with a solid Labour Centrist the vote share goes up.
5) Postal voting is here to stay. I like putting my pencil on a paper in a booth but a lot of people like voting by post, and these are often returned early.
6) UKIP are not as popular as they think they are.
Yes I was expecting the Greens to beat the yellow peril. I think the remaining Lib Dem vote at the GE was definitely the "core" now, but Labour is taking votes off the Greens.
Yes clearly Corbyn is squeezing the Greens and with Cameron holding down the UKIP vote and no wwc shift to them as yet and the LD vote still nowhere a bad night for the minor parties
Yes I was expecting the Greens to beat the yellow peril. I think the remaining Lib Dem vote at the GE was definitely the "core" now, but Labour is taking votes off the Greens.
Question for Greens is whether this is a temp tactical switch by Greens to Lab in order to stop UKIP or a more permanent, Corbyn-related effect.
Comments
(I jest!)
I suspect sometimes they are not - for example, I think the Nats genuinely thought they would win SINDYRef- and UKIP's intemperate reaction to last night's result suggests there was more to their 'closing gap' narrative than spin and lies - but as Lord Ashcroft famously observes, a poll is 'a snapshot, not a prediction'.
I think Labour were both genuinely worried about the result and genuinely surprised by the size of their win - and UKIP, were shocked by their poor showing.
Good news about the handling of postal ballots.
So we can take three stories out of OW&R:
1) Labour is doing well in its heartlands (despite / because) of Corbyn and Labour's new leftist slant.
2) UKIP have lost it, both monetarily, electorally and mentally.
3) With my prediction of a 20% turnout, people should treat my polling advice as if I was the psephological old woman in a cave:
Firstly, as Labour's majority over UKIP is greater than the number of PV cast, it makes no difference to the result. In which case, it would be best to be gracious: congratulate the new MP, but add a rider that you think the PV situation was odd and might need investigating.
Secondly, it just makes you look like a sore loser. If you have specific allegations, say them and/or report them to the police. Saying 'impeccable sources' as he did in his tweet is a rather odd appeal to authority. And what would an 'impeccable source' be? Someone manipulating the postal votes?
UKIP need to get rid of Farage. He's unelectable and unprofessional. If his allegations about 'impeccable sources' turn out to be a lie or exaggeration, he should resign.
It does not bode well for the EU referendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/parliamentary-constituencies/oldham-west-and-royton/12032551/Nigel-Farage-says-Labours-Oldham-victory-bent.html
It was going to be tight because it had to be tight, because Corbyn's hopeless, right?
That narrative suited Labour, on the ground, as it motivated their supporters & got their committed vote out.
It suited the tories.
It suited the Labour MPs hostile to corbyn.
It suited UKIP, or at least they thought it suited them.
One post-paris yougov would have calibrated the narrative and sucked the value out of the betting markets. Thank god polling has gone out of fashion, eh?
http://news.sky.com/story/1599503/labour-mp-gets-death-threat-over-syria-vote
Good.
I hope some of these plonkers end up before the courts....
Clearly Labour would have won whatever and as others have suggested why would they need to do anything dodgy with postal votes? Well, you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
I agree that Ukip are foolish to say what they think - if they don't have any evidence then they should stay quiet. But I'm in no doubt that postal votes in general are not good.
Last night's result makes it look as though Corbyn is safe until at least next May's locals. His initial period in charge of Labour has not been an unqualified success, and both polling and local election results are not looking good for his party.
Yet it is possible that the Conservatives will have to keep up this fire on Corbyn for five years, and if that's the case then the public will get war-weary. It's time for them to lessen the fire on him a little. They've damaged him; the last thing they want is for the GBP to start developing sympathy for him.
Attack his policies, attack things he says: and it's not as if there is not plenty of ammunition there. Attack the people around him: McDonnell and Abbott particularly. Attack Momentum.
But leave off Corbyn's past a little, at least until nearer the GE. The public will get fed up with it.
Bad day for UKIP. It's been a bad year for UKIP. Looks like another look at the drawing board.
And I did not say UKIP should not complain about PV if they genuinely believe there was something dodgy: but it's the way Farage did it. It's not going to overturn the result in any way, and makes him look a fool and a sore loser.
I'm not particularly happy with the PV system: but I also understand that bashing the system wildly with no evidence can be more harmful to our democracy than the system itself.
So a question: what would you do about the PV system? I'm guessing you would not want it to stay the same, so would you want the current rules tightening up? It abolished?
I was just about to post that there would be calls for him to be deselected and what did I see down-thread
asjohnstone • Posts: 460
5:38AM
Momentum type on twitter already demanding that McMahon be deselected for 2020
"My six takeaways from Labour’s sensational win in Oldham"
...............................................................................................
Mike, indulging in six takeaways at this time of the morning is surely a dogs breakfast !!
Cameron is a rather lucky Prime Minister.
This quote made me
How did Kippers get it so wrong? I know they're keen as mustard and all that - but the margin was huge.
Though some Labour posters were hoping for a UKIP win to hasten Corbyn's departure I believe that was very short sighted. If towns with large immigrant communities start supporting a Powellite Party we'll quickly end up with a very fractured and ugly society. A much more important consideration than the petty question of who leads Labour
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-corbyn-should-be-worried-about-the-oldham-by-election
Postal voting should only be available to those with a genuine need. Those who will either be away or incapable of reaching the polling booth on the day of the vote. PV should not be available on demand. Again I have no idea if there is any corruption and certainly no one has produced any reasonable proof or testimony to that effect but given the opportunity is there we should remove the possibility.
PBers should be mindful that parliamentary by-elections are strange, weird and wonderful beasts that should be thoroughly enjoyed and then for long term electoral considerations consigned to the fantasy fiction remainder bin.
Unicorn sausages for breakfast anyone ??
Somebody did a very effective GOTV job - how they did it is another matter, posted postal votes were expected to have a huge impact whatever else happened TO wise.
"Not just PB - the commentariat - across the political spectrum - called this wrong:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/peter-kellner/why-corbyn-should-be-worried-about-the-oldham-by-election"
Poor Peter! And unlike the PB commentariat he gets paid for it. I hope the reputational damage had already been priced in from the last election
But I'd like to say this: there will be some level of fraud - or attempted fraud - in all parts of the system. There's too much at stake, and too many 'enthusiastic' supporters. All a system can do is:
1) Make it as difficult as possible, whilst still maintaining the ability for people to vote.
2) Have checks and balances that might detect fraud by flagging up odd occurrences.
3) Make it particularly hard to do in bulk: I might be able to vote for my wife against her wishes (*), but not the entire street.
IMO point 3 is where PV was failing in some cases: it was too easy to do large-scale fraud. We'll have to see if the IVR and other changes have made a difference.
(*) She'd kill me if I tried
What were the old eligibility rules, before the anyone-can-apply system came in?
Companion animal geriatrics is one of the big areas of research in the field - everything from derivatives of jellyfish for canine Alzheimers through to antibodies for canine lymphoma.
Rapamune is an mTOR inhibitor. A bit meh, to be honest, in humans with revenues of only about $350m and a black box warning. If you are really interested, I'm have dinner with one of the senior executives of the company developing the product in a couple of weeks and can ask about it.
Turnout higher than expected too. Thankfully still won that bet with Ladbrokes but am struggling to withdraw the funds this morning - site error!
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4632064.ece
Rapamune is an mTOR inhibitor. A bit meh, to be honest, in humans with revenues of only about $350m and a black box warning. If you are really interested, I'm have dinner with one of the senior executives of the company developing the product in a couple of weeks and can ask about it.
There could still be an overbearing cultish party leader whose leadership is put in question by this result.
Or, indeed, their game.
UKIP needs someone who's happy for it to be a movement, not a cult, and have strong first lieutenants supporting him/her and carrying the message across the country.
When the by-election was first called, the narrative here was that it would be a very boring clear Lab win - exactly as it turned out. I think the media were desperate to build a story about a close contest that would fit into the Corbyn soap opera, as well as building up UKIP to knock em down
UKIP need to work on the expectations management, which is difficult under FPTP but they turned an expected result into an apparent loss.
If people have allegations about the conduct of the election, they need to put them in writing to the Returning Officer and Electoral Commission. We have a proud record of democracy and interfering with an election is taken very seriously by the authorities. On the other hand if you're just fed up with the system as it is, then throwing around baseless allegations about the integrity of the ballot endears you to no-one.
On a related note, UKIP need to get away from being The Farage Show, especially in the run up to the EU referendum. He is now a liability to his cause and should take a back seat until after the referendum. Do UKIP have the 'men in grey suits' that can do the job though?
Labour appear to have a potential future minister in Jim McMahon OBE. He's only 35 but has been leading the council for six years and is (was) the NEC representative for councillors. The PLP if not the Corbynistas will be happy to have another moderate centrist in the Commons, possibly for as long as his predecessor.
I still managed to make a few quid from an all-green book as the UKIP price came in so far, but why oh why didn't I bet the mortgage on the Lost Deposits!
The old system was covered by the Representation of the People Act 1985
The new system was introduced by Labour under the Representation of the People Act 2000
Probably about $25-30m in annual revenues. Have a couple of other things I need to talk to him about (and the purpose of the dinner is to introduce him to someone else) so no promises.
I suspect that would come up against the Right to Family Life, which infuriates me.
It should mean you have the right to see, call and visit your family without hindrance or obstruction by the authorities.
It should not grant an unadulterated right for all of your family to have settlement rights in the UK as soon as you, yourself, secure permanent residence.
Educational.
Only Labour can take any positives and Jeremy Corbyn has every right to crow.
This by-election was of course run on the same basis as the GE, before the IVR rules will drop a lot of voters off next year. I'm sure this will be very controversial, but is any research being done into the affects of this change, ie by comparison of 2015 and 2016 rolls in different areas?
Hope that answers your question.
Either way, this can only be good for Corbyn, as it probably negates temporarily any moderate Labour members efforts in painting the New New Labour as unelectable.
Corbyn is the Messiah for a lot of my colleagues, and my union has gone balls deep on him. I might have to pull out....
Would that not apply also to the Conservative Party?
It bodes well for Cons if Jezza is still in charge come 2020. Because at a GE people do pay attention to all this stuff. As they did with EdM in 2015.
UKIP?
a) it's a long and rocky road to the top; or
b) stop embarrassing yourself.
I tend towards b).
See how the proletariat kneel before the invincible ideology of Chairman Corbyn!
On a more serious note, a significantly disappointing result for the purples. Never expected much tactical voting (not really the way of the blues) but UKIP could've and should've done better.
However, worth noting this has been a rock solid Labour seat since Aethelred the Unready, so perhaps Labour's real victory was in expectations management. Party holds safe seat isn't the most exciting headline.
The Lib Dems did well to halt the slide, and got around double the 500 or so votes I predicted. If you take away every single postal vote, and assume it to be Labour - you probably arrive at somewhere around the "media narrative".
Perhaps Labour's ground operation has improved ?
Reading too much into this BE would be foolish, though.
The other big change for Labour is that Jim McMahon is off
http://www.labour.org.uk/pages/labours-national-executive-committee1 now.
It will be interesting to see who his replacement is.
Meacher's own win in GE 2015 itself was a big one. He increased his vote share by 9.3%.
So Labour's vote has gone up from 45.5% in 2010 to 62% now.
Am I correct that UKIP Is the threat to Labour in the Northern seats ?
7th takeaway. I am £5 poorer this morning. Don't bet on UKIP :-).
More seriously no doubt the Corbynista will take as vindication of a surge towards the sunny uplands of Jez's socialist paradise. So bad for Labour in longer term.
Tribal areas have a very long memory..
I joked back in April that if the SNP stood south of the border they would have won all of Tyne and Wear easily...
Now, under a Tory government, with Corbyn in charge? The union thinks all their birthdays have come at once.
To be fair, a lot of us are unhappy, but it was voted upon, and we have to follow the majority. It's not gonna be pretty.
By elections do produce huge swings and sensational results. UKIP were second placed and had a chance to take a large bite out of Labour's vote. By elections have been won from worse positions. As it happened there was a swing from UKIP to Labour despite all the bad news about Labour recently.
For UKIP the bad news keeps coming. Getting a tactical squeeze the next time is going to be even more difficult after a result like this. They look a fading force but the referendum gives them another chance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35002555
If not, how can UKIP ever show widespread differences?
This should be the moment of Labour's renaissance. With Osborne's leaving so many open goals if they don't bury their differences and start scoring they wont be forgiven.
1) UKIP in second place is a powerful GOTV motivator for the party in first place.
2) Tories are reluctant to tactically vote, but former LDs still do, and will be hard to get back.
3) A strong candidate with deep local roots is better than a parachuted favourite from head office
4) Kendallite politics is not dead in the Labour party and wins elections. Indeed by replacing a far left MP with a solid Labour Centrist the vote share goes up.
5) Postal voting is here to stay. I like putting my pencil on a paper in a booth but a lot of people like voting by post, and these are often returned early.
6) UKIP are not as popular as they think they are.