One thing that should scare Labour a lot: their vote share held up ok in Copeland. But the Conservatives very effectively squeezed UKIP to gain vote share, something that they haven't managed in a by-election in a generation.
The Conservatives turned out almost all of their base. They got almost as many votes as they did in GE2015 itself.
I'd be interested to know just how many were direct converts. I suspect fewer that one would think.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
I feel that is putting too nicer gloss on it. There are a lot more "Corbyn being a voter repellant liability" issues that apply equally to almost all constituencies. Kippers are going back to the Tories in part because they don't want to split the "keep Jezza out" vote. LDs probably didn't make as much headway as expected for the same reason.
I am not saying that Jezza is an asset! far from it, but the difference between Stoke and Copeland was the Nuclear issue. I think Stoke is the byelection with more relavance, and it does have some despite the hold. Labour will lose seats on the Stoke result.
Looks like West Cumbria hospital is toast, but that looked on the cards whatever happened in the election.
Copeland and Stoke can go back to being ignored by the government and media now.
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..
Labour have campaigned on saving the NHS since 2008. It has failed every time. There is a phrase for people who repeat their mistakes: incapable of adapting. Those who do not adapt become extinct.
Labour have campaigned on a pro NHS basis because they have a paucity of other policies. The NHS is popular, and should not be dropped. What Labour needs is to come up with some popular and credible policies for the rest of a manifesto.
They are not campaigning on a pro NHS platform - it is a "Tories are evil" approach.
Constructive proposals for change or a justification on why the current approach is perfect would be "pro NHS".
"24 hours to save the NHS" or "babies will die under the Tories" are not.
It just goes to show: either Labour strategists (if there are any) are stupid Or The Labour Leadership has no new ideas.
I suspect they have no-one who takes a realistic view of the economy and what is realistically achievable so they opt for lala land politics. Or they are as thick as pigshit.
OR - a look at economic prospects shows the economy will never support their spending plans and they have given up..
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
I feel that is putting too nicer gloss on it. There are a lot more "Corbyn being a voter repellant liability" issues that apply equally to almost all constituencies. Kippers are going back to the Tories in part because they don't want to split the "keep Jezza out" vote. LDs probably didn't make as much headway as expected for the same reason.
I am not saying that Jezza is an asset! far from it, but the difference between Stoke and Copeland was the Nuclear issue. I think Stoke is the byelection with more relavance, and it does have some despite the hold. Labour will lose seats on the Stoke result.
Looks like West Cumbria hospital is toast, but that looked on the cards whatever happened in the election.
Copeland and Stoke can go back to being ignored by the government and media now.
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..
Labour have campaigned on saving the NHS since 2008. It has failed every time. There is a phrase for people who repeat their mistakes: incapable of adapting. Those who do not adapt become extinct.
Labour have campaigned on a pro NHS basis because they have a paucity of other policies. The NHS is popular, and should not be dropped. What Labour needs is to come up with some popular and credible policies for the rest of a manifesto.
They are not campaigning on a pro NHS platform - it is a "Tories are evil" approach.
Constructive proposals for change or a justification on why the current approach is perfect would be "pro NHS".
"24 hours to save the NHS" or "babies will die under the Tories" are not.
Not entirely true. Yes, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of the formulation of constructive policies to improve the NHS, BUT we all know that Labour would like to throw 744 billion squillion quid at absolutely everything the morning after they won an election.
The bulk of the electorate would probably rather like the NHS to be hosed down with unlimited cash, if only there were a ready supply of it stuffed down the back of the Treasury sofa. Or, at the very least, some credible plan for raising the funds that didn't involve ultimately bankrupting the country and all of its taxpayers. But they see no evidence of any such thing, so Labour is not taken seriously. It's dismissed as implausible, laughable or downright dangerous. But mainly as impotent and useless.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
I feel that is putting too nicer gloss on it. There are a lot more "Corbyn being a voter repellant liability" issues that apply equally to almost all constituencies. Kippers are going back to the Tories in part because they don't want to split the "keep Jezza out" vote. LDs probably didn't make as much headway as expected for the same reason.
I am not saying that Jezza is an asset! far from it, but the difference between Stoke and Copeland was the Nuclear issue. I think Stoke is the byelection with more relavance, and it does have some despite the hold. Labour will lose seats on the Stoke result.
Looks like West Cumbria hospital is toast, but that looked on the cards whatever happened in the election.
Copeland and Stoke can go back to being ignored by the government and media now.
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..
Labour have campaigned on saving the NHS since 2008. It has failed every time. There is a phrase for people who repeat their mistakes: incapable of adapting. Those who do not adapt become extinct.
Labour have campaigned on a pro NHS basis because they have a paucity of other policies. The NHS is popular, and should not be dropped. What Labour needs is to come up with some popular and credible policies for the rest of a manifesto.
They are not campaigning on a pro NHS platform - it is a "Tories are evil" approach.
Constructive proposals for change or a justification on why the current approach is perfect would be "pro NHS".
"24 hours to save the NHS" or "babies will die under the Tories" are not.
Quite and both BBC and Sky have been bigging up the NHS crisis throughout the by-election campaign. It's very heartening that the voters have seen right through it. The country desperately needs a real debate about healthcare in the modern world - very sad that the establishment keep blocking one.
"Save the NHS" is as ludicrous a campaign as "Save the Pound". Its too big to die. People get that increased privatisation or not it will still be there regardless of the government. Yes the Tories were in talks with big US healthcare companies but it hasn't happened because politically it can't happen.
For whatever reaason the Corbyn brand has become toxic and as every advertiser will tell you that is something that is all but impossible to recover from. The big danger is that if he remains leader it'll spread to the 'Labour brand' and if that happens then the position could become irreversable.
Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
On the contrary, doubled vote share and kept deposit in both elections, despite being tactically squeezed in both. Several council seats gained too. The prospects for May elections look good, particularly with Labour in the poor state it is in at present.
One thing that should scare Labour a lot: their vote share held up ok in Copeland. But the Conservatives very effectively squeezed UKIP to gain vote share, something that they haven't managed in a by-election in a generation.
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Not listening, as ever.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
The big question about Labour is: 'is the weakness because of Corbyn or are they in decline because of Brexit splitting them or is there now no need for pro-immigration anti-povery party because the poor are anti-immigration?" I think it is Jezza. They have so many powerful people who are self serving elitists that they will survive. Unions, Civil Servants, Over paid for their intelligence politicians who will keep them in the mix.
Khan or Starmer or Flint will bring Labour back to where they were. Now if jezza is replaced by McDonnell or Abbott, then we might see real decline.But that also needs a party to replace them. Labour were useless in Scotland for decades. But it took the SNP with the passion and skills to replace them.
Only if Libs take seats from Labour will they become the opposition. But can they? And Plaid need to step up; so do UKIP if we are to see Labour disintegrate.
My conclusion is that Labour are all powerful in all big cities and nothing, including Jezza will change that, meaning a miserable life for us city-dwellers. But they could be wiped out in the towns and shires and certainly anywhere South of the M62. Good!
Labour on it's Copeland Good Morning leaflets promised to " underwrite " Moorside. A promise that could cost between £0 and £10 Bn according to circumstance. So in the end they had the most pro nuclear policy. But #1 Why leave it till polling day ? #2 How many voters would pick up on the significance of that one sentence ? It seems the worst of all worlds to me. Make the ludicrous promise but to no electoral effect.
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I don't know. I'm trying to find the Black Box.
One thing that should scare Labour a lot: their vote share held up ok in Copeland. But the Conservatives very effectively squeezed UKIP to gain vote share, something that they haven't managed in a by-election in a generation.
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Not listening, as ever.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
I feel that is putting too nicer gloss on it. There are a lot more "Corbyn being a voter repellant liability" issues that apply equally to almost all constituencies. Kippers are going back to the Tories in part because they don't want to split the "keep Jezza out" vote. LDs probably didn't make as much headway as expected for the same reason.
I am not saying that Jezza is an asset! far from it, but the difference between Stoke and Copeland was the Nuclear issue. I think Stoke is the byelection with more relavance, and it does have some despite the hold. Labour will lose seats on the Stoke result.
Looks like West Cumbria hospital is toast, but that looked on the cards whatever happened in the election.
Copeland and Stoke can go back to being ignored by the government and media now.
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..
Labour have campaigned on saving the NHS since 2008. It has failed every time. There is a phrase for people who repeat their mistakes: incapable of adapting. Those who do not adapt become extinct.
Labour have campaigned on a pro NHS basis because they have a paucity of other policies. The NHS is popular, and should not be dropped. What Labour needs is to come up with some popular and credible policies for the rest of a manifesto.
No, what Labour needs to do is recover the public's trust in its ability to manage the UK economy successfully enough to be able to maintain or increase funding for current public sector services like the vital NHS as well as any other popular and credible policies they may put in their GE manifesto.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
I feel that is putting too nicer gloss on it. There are a lot more "Corbyn being a voter repellant liability" issues that apply equally to almost all constituencies. Kippers are going back to the Tories in part because they don't want to split the "keep Jezza out" vote. LDs probably didn't make as much headway as expected for the same reason.
I am not saying that Jezza is an asset! far from it, but the difference between Stoke and Copeland was the Nuclear issue. I think Stoke is the byelection with more relavance, and it does have some despite the hold. Labour will lose seats on the Stoke result.
Looks like West Cumbria hospital is toast, but that looked on the cards whatever happened in the election.
Copeland and Stoke can go back to being ignored by the government and media now.
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..
Labour have campaigned on saving the NHS since 2008. It has failed every time. There is a phrase for people who repeat their mistakes: incapable of adapting. Those who do not adapt become extinct.
Labour have campaigned on a pro NHS basis because they have a paucity of other policies. The NHS is popular, and should not be dropped. What Labour needs is to come up with some popular and credible policies for the rest of a manifesto.
No, what Labour needs to do is recover the public's trust in its ability to manage the UK economy successfully enough to be able to maintain or increase funding for current public sector services like the vital NHS as well as any other popular and credible policies they may put in their GE manifesto.
Sound finances were the basis of New Labour's appeal in 1997. I have always said that, and it underpins all other policies.
Betting point to note: UKIP spent much of the Copeland by-election ludicrously short priced and despite being neck and neck with Labour in the betting in Stoke Central in the end only just stayed ahead of the Conservatives. The default bet with UKIP should remain lay until further notice.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
As an opening line to a post, that will not be bettered this month.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
As an opening line to a post, that will not be bettered this month.
LOL. Indeed. I wonder if Yellow Sub will juxtapose all his conversations on Grindr with this site.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
The trouble is that even those who noticed Labour's policy on nuclear (most wouldn't) most probably didn't believe them.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
As an opening line to a post, that will not be bettered this month.
Grindr in Cumbria seems more intellectual than further South, not speaking from personal experience though!
Another issue is the very strange month long gap between Reed announcing he was going and actually resigning. I'd assumed the substantial amount of media he got in that month explaining his decision, chewing the cud, lately campaigning along side the new candidate had neutralised the issue. Voters don't like unnecessary elections. But how did the long swan song really play ?
Not that there have to be any local factors at all. It may just be be Captain May and her HMS Brexit are quite popular at the moment.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
I feel that is putting too nicer gloss on it. There are a lot more "Corbyn being a voter repellant liability" issues that apply equally to almost all constituencies. Kippers are going back to the Tories in part because they don't want to split the "keep Jezza out" vote. LDs probably didn't make as much headway as expected for the same reason.
I am not saying that Jezza is an asset! far from it, but the difference between Stoke and Copeland was the Nuclear issue. I think Stoke is the byelection with more relavance, and it does have some despite the hold. Labour will lose seats on the Stoke result.
Looks like West Cumbria hospital is toast, but that looked on the cards whatever happened in the election.
Copeland and Stoke can go back to being ignored by the government and media now.
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..
Labour have campaigned on saving the NHS since 2008. It has failed every time. There is a phrase for people who repeat their mistakes: incapable of adapting. Those who do not adapt become extinct.
Labour have campaigned on a pro NHS basis because they have a paucity of other policies. The NHS is popular, and should not be dropped. What Labour needs is to come up with some popular and credible policies for the rest of a manifesto.
No, what Labour needs to do is recover the public's trust in its ability to manage the UK economy successfully enough to be able to maintain or increase funding for current public sector services like the vital NHS as well as any other popular and credible policies they may put in their GE manifesto.
Sound finances were the basis of New Labour's appeal in 1997. I have always said that, and it underpins all other policies.
Yep, and they even managed it until 2001 when Gordon turned on the spending taps.
If Labour want an audience for their extra spending on x or y they need to specify where it will come from. And they can't simultaneously crush 'bankers' while getting more tax from them either, the discussion needs to be around NI, income tax, VAT and local taxes.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
As an opening line to a post, that will not be bettered this month.
Grindr in Cumbria seems more intellectual than further South, not speaking from personal experience though!
I'm wondering how the conversation proceeded from "a/s/l?".
Another issue is the very strange month long gap between Reed announcing he was going and actually resigning. I'd assumed the substantial amount of media he got in that month explaining his decision, chewing the cud, lately campaigning along side the new candidate had neutralised the issue. Voters don't like unnecessary elections. But how did the long swan song really play ?
Not that there have to be any local factors at all. It may just be be Captain May and her HMS Brexit are quite popular at the moment.
I'm quite glad: Labour deserved to lose Copeland after their fairly awful vote-for-us-or-the-baby-get-it campaign.
I'm also glad that Nuttall lost: I wonder how long it will be before his online CV reads: "ex UKIP MP for Stoke Central", before he his aide has to admit he miswrote 'candidate' for 'MP' ?
So:
*) A historically good night for the Conservatives. Not even Blair managed this.
*) A hideous night for Labour. They should really have tried to persuade a heavy-hitter (Ed Balls?) to stand in Stoke. Instead they've got an MP who doesn't seem the uncontroversial type.
*) Lacklustre for the Lib Dems, although few expected them to do well.
*) A terrrrrrible night for UKIP. If they can't win in these circumstances, what's their point?
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
As an opening line to a post, that will not be bettered this month.
Grindr in Cumbria seems more intellectual than further South, not speaking from personal experience though!
I'm wondering how the conversation proceeded from "a/s/l?".
People are turned on by the strangest things.
You merely have to hint at an AV thread and it gets me all flustered
Another issue is the very strange month long gap between Reed announcing he was going and actually resigning. I'd assumed the substantial amount of media he got in that month explaining his decision, chewing the cud, lately campaigning along side the new candidate had neutralised the issue. Voters don't like unnecessary elections. But how did the long swan song really play ?
Not that there have to be any local factors at all. It may just be be Captain May and her HMS Brexit are quite popular at the moment.
Another issue is the very strange month long gap between Reed announcing he was going and actually resigning. I'd assumed the substantial amount of media he got in that month explaining his decision, chewing the cud, lately campaigning along side the new candidate had neutralised the issue. Voters don't like unnecessary elections. But how did the long swan song really play ?
Not that there have to be any local factors at all. It may just be be Captain May and her HMS Brexit are quite popular at the moment.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
The trouble is that even those who noticed Labour's policy on nuclear (most wouldn't) most probably didn't believe them.
That's the issue. A party need a credible position, not just a position.
Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Hmmm.....the biggest gainers in Stoke and one of only two parties to gain vote share in Copeland. Doesn't sound bad
They failed to reach 10% in either seat. That's disappointing for the LibDems IMO.
Quite. And we had quite a few Lib Dems touting in advance a good performance by the sandalistas, especially in Stoke Central.
Not really, the problem was expectations rather than reality. Copeland was billed as (and was) a close run between Tory and Labour. Ditto UKIP and Labour in Stoke. The third and other parties usually get squeezed into lost deposit territory in such circumstances (as did Labour in Richmond). To come away with almost 10% in one of the seats is actually creditable.
@AlastairMeeks If I've learned anything in politics it's that ' Message Matters Most " and that you have to exert whatever influence you can whenever you can. The Borgia Popes would all have been on Grindr. It wasn't all politics though. I sent him pictures from a local Polish Paper Cuts exhibition as well. So intricate. Quite revelatory.
I wonder if the Tories regret not just trying a little harder in Stoke. With the sort of swing they achieved in Copeland they could have won. Instead they let Nuttall do most of the running there and the UKIP result, whilst disappointing, was far from terrible.
The good news is that if UKIP have pretty much ceased operations by 2020 (as seems increasingly likely to me) there is a substantial share of the electorate to squeeze, quite possibly making them favourites in seats like this where UKIP did well in terms of vote share in 2015. It seems increasingly unlikely that the former Labour voters who switched to UKIP are going to be going home any time soon.
I was having this discussion about narratives and framing with a local Labour operative on Grindr. I'm not saying I told you so because I didn't. But I did query the rebuttal vs framing on Nuclear. The Tories went on Corbyn is anti Nuclear, we're not. Labour responded with " We're pro nuclear as well. "
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
The trouble is that even those who noticed Labour's policy on nuclear (most wouldn't) most probably didn't believe them.
That's the issue. A party need a credible position, not just a position.
If you don't like their position, why, they have others.....
One thing that should scare Labour a lot: their vote share held up ok in Copeland. But the Conservatives very effectively squeezed UKIP to gain vote share, something that they haven't managed in a by-election in a generation.
The Conservatives turned out almost all of their base. They got almost as many votes as they did in GE2015 itself.
I'd be interested to know just how many were direct converts. I suspect fewer that one would think.
Copeland Labour voters just went on strike.
That's what I thought a few weeks ago. Labour voters will not vote Labour as long as Corbyn is in situ.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
Labour on it's Copeland Good Morning leaflets promised to " underwrite " Moorside. A promise that could cost between £0 and £10 Bn according to circumstance. So in the end they had the most pro nuclear policy. But #1 Why leave it till polling day ? #2 How many voters would pick up on the significance of that one sentence ? It seems the worst of all worlds to me. Make the ludicrous promise but to no electoral effect.
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I don't know. I'm trying to find the Black Box.
Labour seem to be trying to specialise in the 0% policy, one that actually manages to piss off their entire base. Its the same as their EU position, "Leave but with open borders", a policy designed to incense just about anyone whose politics leans to the left.
I wonder if the Tories regret not just trying a little harder in Stoke. With the sort of swing they achieved in Copeland they could have won. Instead they let Nuttall do most of the running there and the UKIP result, whilst disappointing, was far from terrible.
The good news is that if UKIP have pretty much ceased operations by 2020 (as seems increasingly likely to me) there is a substantial share of the electorate to squeeze, quite possibly making them favourites in seats like this where UKIP did well in terms of vote share in 2015. It seems increasingly unlikely that the former Labour voters who switched to UKIP are going to be going home any time soon.
The other three seats in Stoke/Newcastle could all be Tory targets at the next GE, despite all of them having been held by Lab since at least 1935. Stoke Central is much better for Lab because it has a more mixed population.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
Put me down as one of the 21%. It'd be absolutely bloody fantastic for Corbyn to lead Labour into the GE, he's the best possible person for the job (of destroying the working men's roots of the Labour Party).
Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Hmmm.....the biggest gainers in Stoke and one of only two parties to gain vote share in Copeland. Doesn't sound bad
It does sound bad when the LibDem rise was 3.8% and the Government's was 8.5%. No good running a race in a personal best if the guy in the next lane just broke the world record....
I don't get the big shock in Copeland. This is is huge rural seat in provincial England. There is no concentration of champagne socialism or ethnic minority groups, and the traditional industry is long since gone. It's no surprise that the Labour vote share falls every time. If you just had the demographic data to go on, you would say this is a safe Tory seat and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
There are others like this which have already gone (Forest of Dean) and others which eventually should go (Bassetlaw perhaps?).
Future studies of the 'red rosette on a donkey' effect will surely cite the 2017 Stoke by-election.
I'll be seeing lots of donkies in N Cyprus next week.. they escaped after the invasion of 1974.. I'll stick a few red rosettes on and see what happens.
@Steven_Swinford: Ukip chairman just told #r4today that it could take the party 23 years to win a by-election - as long as it took to win EU referendum
Future studies of the 'red rosette on a donkey' effect will surely cite the 2017 Stoke by-election.
I'll be seeing lots of donkies in N Cyprus next week.. they escaped after the invasion of 1974.. I'll stick a few red rosettes on and see what happens.
The problems that Labour face on the economy are almost endless. It took the Tories a generation to recover from black Wednesday and 2008 was far, far worse than that.
Our underlying growth rate seems to have fallen sharply, in part because the financial chicanery that went on before 2007 flattered the results somewhat. This means we live in a world where there is very little new money being generated for the State. Osborne was remarkably effective at increasing the take (as shown by the recent borrowing figures) but these sums are completely dwarfed by the extra that the State is already spending, hence the deficit.
Promises of new money for the NHS or anything else in that scenario are not really credible unless they are combined with equivalent commitments to cut something else. This is a game Labour never want to play but with our tax rates already at historical highs increased taxation is again not a credible solution.
Labour's best hope is that the Tories do indeed eliminate the deficit so that the additional income generated by growth is then free for them to distribute as they think fit. It just seems unlikely that is going to happen by 2020.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
VX nerve agent, a chemical on a U.N. list of weapons of mass destruction, was used to kill the estranged half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in last week's bizarre murder in a busy Kuala Lumpur airport, Malaysian police said on Friday.
Congratulations to Theresa May who has just secured a majority of 150 in the 2020 General Election
Commiserations to Theresa May who will have to preside over the economic chaos and collapse of hard Brexit and then the chaos and political collapse as Scotland breaks away taking Ulster with it.
Labour? I remember a Labour Party. Didn't they disappear a few years ago?
Absolutely nothing to do with May, she has just got very very lucky to pop up at this time. Anything other than a donkey for Labour and she would be heading for the exit.
The problems that Labour face on the economy are almost endless. It took the Tories a generation to recover from black Wednesday and 2008 was far, far worse than that.
Our underlying growth rate seems to have fallen sharply, in part because the financial chicanery that went on before 2007 flattered the results somewhat. This means we live in a world where there is very little new money being generated for the State. Osborne was remarkably effective at increasing the take (as shown by the recent borrowing figures) but these sums are completely dwarfed by the extra that the State is already spending, hence the deficit.
Promises of new money for the NHS or anything else in that scenario are not really credible unless they are combined with equivalent commitments to cut something else. This is a game Labour never want to play but with our tax rates already at historical highs increased taxation is again not a credible solution.
Labour's best hope is that the Tories do indeed eliminate the deficit so that the additional income generated by growth is then free for them to distribute as they think fit. It just seems unlikely that is going to happen by 2020.
As ever, Labour only win when the Tories have done the hard work for them.
One thing that should scare Labour a lot: their vote share held up ok in Copeland. But the Conservatives very effectively squeezed UKIP to gain vote share, something that they haven't managed in a by-election in a generation.
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Not listening, as ever.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.
It doesn't matter. The Conservatives are happily implementing the policy which UKIP was set up to achieve.
Not shocked about either of these by elections results - they were both on the cards for weeks now. I don't blame working class Labour supporters for not turning out - I certainly won't be voting for Labour while Corbyn is still in charge.
P.S there seems to this idea that the only people dissatisfied with politicians are WWC people. Yeah, that's not true. Lots of people from all different backgrounds feel this way.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
She'll hold - she has a personal following.
I imagine her role in the Brexit vote will ensure she'd hold on. Many Tories would probably vote for her over a pro-EU Conservative.
The problems that Labour face on the economy are almost endless. It took the Tories a generation to recover from black Wednesday and 2008 was far, far worse than that.
Our underlying growth rate seems to have fallen sharply, in part because the financial chicanery that went on before 2007 flattered the results somewhat. This means we live in a world where there is very little new money being generated for the State. Osborne was remarkably effective at increasing the take (as shown by the recent borrowing figures) but these sums are completely dwarfed by the extra that the State is already spending, hence the deficit.
Promises of new money for the NHS or anything else in that scenario are not really credible unless they are combined with equivalent commitments to cut something else. This is a game Labour never want to play but with our tax rates already at historical highs increased taxation is again not a credible solution.
Labour's best hope is that the Tories do indeed eliminate the deficit so that the additional income generated by growth is then free for them to distribute as they think fit. It just seems unlikely that is going to happen by 2020.
As ever, Labour only win when the Tories have done the hard work for them.
Est. 2030?
Probably, if they can survive in a strong enough position to take advantage until then.
I don't get the big shock in Copeland. This is is huge rural seat in provincial England. There is no concentration of champagne socialism or ethnic minority groups, and the traditional industry is long since gone. It's no surprise that the Labour vote share falls every time. If you just had the demographic data to go on, you would say this is a safe Tory seat and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
There are others like this which have already gone (Forest of Dean) and others which eventually should go (Bassetlaw perhaps?).
No surprise if it were a general ection. But this is a by-election, and the best ever result for the Conservatives under universal suffrage.
Ukip’s best days appear to be behind it. Since last year’s Brexit vote the party has been adrift. Its message of ensuring “Brexit means exit” is inapt, as voters are happy to entrust Prime Minister Theresa May with that task. Mr Nuttall’s leadership will be questioned but there is no one else better placed to lead the party. He will probably remain in place, stand in further by-elections and lose again, while his party drifts into a fringe interest.
Labour, however, faces a stark choice about how it interprets these results. It can either wrap itself in the comfort blanket of the Stoke victory and blame Tony Blair’s Brexit speech for losing Copeland. Or it can confront the fact that its supporters are floating away to the Conservatives and that there is something rotten at its core — the party leadership. Based on Mr Corbyn’s performance as opposition leader to date, any criticism will be swept aside. Like a frog in a pot of water that is coming to the boil, Labour is not dead yet — but it is rapidly reaching the point at which it will be too late to change course.
Contrary to what some of the diehard Brexiters appear to think, only a small minority of people actively want Brexit at any cost (or hard Brexit, call it what you will). Most people are looking for Safe Brexit - exit with as little damage as possible - and a significant minority don't want it at all.
Thus UKIP is in the wrong place even on its core issue.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
She'll hold - she has a personal following.
Are you open to a bet on that?
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?
Not shocked about either of these by elections results - they were both on the cards for weeks now. I don't blame working class Labour supporters for not turning out - I certainly won't be voting for Labour while Corbyn is still in charge.
P.S there seems to this idea that the only people dissatisfied with politicians are WWC people. Yeah, that's not true. Lots of people from all different backgrounds feel this way.
Have voters ever been satisfied with politicians? Maybe in the 1950s.
This old Corbyn-being-completely-unelectable topic must be difficult for journalists to write about and make interesting.
It's not as if EVERY sensible person - on the left and right - hasn't known it since day one.
Momentum know it too. Weirdly, they seem quite proud that they have someone unelectable as leader.
Thd irony bring, of course, that the political land is ripe for a centre-left Lab leader to make hay.
How long will this be allowed to last?
Quite. Imagine a Kier Starmer (or Hillary Benn) as LotO, he'd be keeping the government rather busy at the moment, and certainly wouldn't have thrown away a Parliamentary seat in a by-election.
Penny for the thoughts of Jamie Reed this morning.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
She'll hold - she has a personal following.
Are you open to a bet on that?
She may be able to hold if she defects to the Tories.
She has a 1% majority and the seat was 47% Leave, one of the lowest in the Midlands.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
She'll hold - she has a personal following.
Are you open to a bet on that?
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?
That's perfect. On that basis I won't quibble too much about terms or about it being contingent on Jeremy Corbyn being in charge and I simply offer an evens bet that at the next election Gisela Stuart will lose her seat.
One thing that should scare Labour a lot: their vote share held up ok in Copeland. But the Conservatives very effectively squeezed UKIP to gain vote share, something that they haven't managed in a by-election in a generation.
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Not listening, as ever.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.
It doesn't matter. The Conservatives are happily implementing the policy which UKIP was set up to achieve.
Yep. They had one purpose which was to make euroscepticism a mainstream issue through keeping the pressure on the other parties. They succeeded amazingly well and should now withdraw from the field after a job well done. Obviously the Lib Dems will try to claim some victory out of UKIP disappearing but that is simply desperation in trying to deny the fact that they have been utterly defeated on what was one of their core issues. The Lib Dems have do ready lost the war.
I know the boundary changes will mess this up a bit but if we want to know what Corbyn is going to do, it might be useful to look at what the balance of the parliamentary party would be like if you lop off the 100 most marginal Labour MPs.
Does this decimate the hated Blairites and leave the left more-or-less intact, or would it be an equal opportunity massacre?
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21. Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries): https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!
She'll hold - she has a personal following.
Are you open to a bet on that?
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?
That's perfect. On that basis I won't quibble too much about terms or about it being contingent on Jeremy Corbyn being in charge and I simply offer an evens bet that at the next election Gisela Stuart will lose her seat.
Future studies of the 'red rosette on a donkey' effect will surely cite the 2017 Stoke by-election.
I'll be seeing lots of donkies in N Cyprus next week.. they escaped after the invasion of 1974.. I'll stick a few red rosettes on and see what happens.
Not shocked about either of these by elections results - they were both on the cards for weeks now. I don't blame working class Labour supporters for not turning out - I certainly won't be voting for Labour while Corbyn is still in charge.
P.S there seems to this idea that the only people dissatisfied with politicians are WWC people. Yeah, that's not true. Lots of people from all different backgrounds feel this way.
Have voters ever been satisfied with politicians? Maybe in the 1950s.
Voters are never totally happy with politicans, but this time it feels like voters literally have no hope whatsoever in the political class (or at least elements of the political class) to improve their lives.
Comments
Hard to see her not trying to run with this for the final 3 years of this parliament, now.
I'd be interested to know just how many were direct converts. I suspect fewer that one would think.
Copeland Labour voters just went on strike.
Or
The Labour Leadership has no new ideas.
I suspect they have no-one who takes a realistic view of the economy and what is realistically achievable so they opt for lala land politics. Or they are as thick as pigshit.
OR - a look at economic prospects shows the economy will never support their spending plans and they have given up..
The bulk of the electorate would probably rather like the NHS to be hosed down with unlimited cash, if only there were a ready supply of it stuffed down the back of the Treasury sofa. Or, at the very least, some credible plan for raising the funds that didn't involve ultimately bankrupting the country and all of its taxpayers. But they see no evidence of any such thing, so Labour is not taken seriously. It's dismissed as implausible, laughable or downright dangerous. But mainly as impotent and useless.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
Khan or Starmer or Flint will bring Labour back to where they were. Now if jezza is replaced by McDonnell or Abbott, then we might see real decline.But that also needs a party to replace them. Labour were useless in Scotland for decades. But it took the SNP with the passion and skills to replace them.
Only if Libs take seats from Labour will they become the opposition. But can they? And Plaid need to step up; so do UKIP if we are to see Labour disintegrate.
My conclusion is that Labour are all powerful in all big cities and nothing, including Jezza will change that, meaning a miserable life for us city-dwellers. But they could be wiped out in the towns and shires and certainly anywhere South of the M62. Good!
Those aren't rhetorical questions. I don't know. I'm trying to find the Black Box.
My challenge to the Labour operative was that while there had been a strong Rebuttal to the Tories they'd implicitly accepted the frame. The Labour framing should have been " We'll build Moorside. Will the Tories ? " In effect run the campaign as was but with Moorside replacing the Maternity issue.
But the response was the Maternity issue was the sucessful challenge to the Tories nuclear frame. Hmm. Who knows ?
MarkSenior not crowing. Another good sign.
Not that there have to be any local factors at all. It may just be be Captain May and her HMS Brexit are quite popular at the moment.
@Casino_Royale Yes indeed.
@AlastairMeeks I'm still searching for the Holy Grail of your Grindr profile !
If Labour want an audience for their extra spending on x or y they need to specify where it will come from. And they can't simultaneously crush 'bankers' while getting more tax from them either, the discussion needs to be around NI, income tax, VAT and local taxes.
I'm quite glad: Labour deserved to lose Copeland after their fairly awful vote-for-us-or-the-baby-get-it campaign.
I'm also glad that Nuttall lost: I wonder how long it will be before his online CV reads: "ex UKIP MP for Stoke Central", before he his aide has to admit he miswrote 'candidate' for 'MP' ?
So:
*) A historically good night for the Conservatives. Not even Blair managed this.
*) A hideous night for Labour. They should really have tried to persuade a heavy-hitter (Ed Balls?) to stand in Stoke. Instead they've got an MP who doesn't seem the uncontroversial type.
*) Lacklustre for the Lib Dems, although few expected them to do well.
*) A terrrrrrible night for UKIP. If they can't win in these circumstances, what's their point?
You merely have to hint at an AV thread and it gets me all flustered
Oh, my coat?
Darned. I've been doing this wrong.
The good news is that if UKIP have pretty much ceased operations by 2020 (as seems increasingly likely to me) there is a substantial share of the electorate to squeeze, quite possibly making them favourites in seats like this where UKIP did well in terms of vote share in 2015. It seems increasingly unlikely that the former Labour voters who switched to UKIP are going to be going home any time soon.
May 56% / 31%
Corbyn 21% / 65%
Nuttall 15% / 48%
Farron 22% / 45%
@steve_hawkes: Labour told the locals in Copeland their babies would die if they voted Tory - and they still choose them over Jeremy Corbyn
Never fear, there is a solution...
@BolsoverBeast: The glaring lesson to be learnt from yesterdays results is that @UKLabour isn't left-wing enough to motivate the electorate.
End Tory-Lite.
There are others like this which have already gone (Forest of Dean) and others which eventually should go (Bassetlaw perhaps?).
@PolhomeEditor: John McDonnell: "I don't think this is about Jeremy Corbyn."
Our underlying growth rate seems to have fallen sharply, in part because the financial chicanery that went on before 2007 flattered the results somewhat. This means we live in a world where there is very little new money being generated for the State. Osborne was remarkably effective at increasing the take (as shown by the recent borrowing figures) but these sums are completely dwarfed by the extra that the State is already spending, hence the deficit.
Promises of new money for the NHS or anything else in that scenario are not really credible unless they are combined with equivalent commitments to cut something else. This is a game Labour never want to play but with our tax rates already at historical highs increased taxation is again not a credible solution.
Labour's best hope is that the Tories do indeed eliminate the deficit so that the additional income generated by growth is then free for them to distribute as they think fit. It just seems unlikely that is going to happen by 2020.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/stoke-copeland-labour-remain-richmond-copeland-ukip?CMP=share_btn_tw
It's not as if EVERY sensible person - on the left and right - hasn't known it since day one.
Momentum know it too. Weirdly, they seem quite proud that they have someone unelectable as leader.
Thd irony bring, of course, that the political land is ripe for a centre-left Lab leader to make hay.
How long will this be allowed to last?
Est. 2030?
P.S there seems to this idea that the only people dissatisfied with politicians are WWC people. Yeah, that's not true. Lots of people from all different backgrounds feel this way.
Thus UKIP is in the wrong place even on its core issue.
Bloody hell, Labour. You lost the wrong damned seat.
Penny for the thoughts of Jamie Reed this morning.
She has a 1% majority and the seat was 47% Leave, one of the lowest in the Midlands.