politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Jeremy Corbyn wants to see Labour humiliated at a general e
Comments
-
Her seat voted Remain.Sandpit said:
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.Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
I'm sure many of us would pay a lot more than £20 for Gisela Stuart to lose her seat.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Mortimer said:
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?AlastairMeeks said:
Are you open to a bet on that?Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
I think any half decent UKIP candidate would have won. Nuttall became the story, rather than UKIP policies, and I think his campaign and confusion over Hillsborough has taken UKIP backwards. There doesn't really seem much point in them.Jonathan said:I reckon Dianne James would have won.
0 -
Actually, I would prefer that she won (just not credible that she will defy the odds to do so). She should be listened to in forming a Red Brexit policy. She is a Labour member, albeit a centrist one.Roger said:
I'm sure many of us would pay a lot more than £20 for Gisela Stuart to lose her seat.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Mortimer said:
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?AlastairMeeks said:
Are you open to a bet on that?Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
Labour loyalists plus diehard Leave supporters lending their votes might still see her over the line. I hope so anyway, one of the few Labour MPs I rate.foxinsoxuk said:
Her seat voted Remain.Sandpit said:
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.Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
If you think that sounded feeble you should have heard John McDonnell this morning describe why last night's elections were encouraging!MarqueeMark said:
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....Roger said:
Hmmm.....the biggest gainers in Stoke and one of only two parties to gain vote share in Copeland. Doesn't sound badtlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
0 -
Only if they eat them.notme said:Do the conservatives now officially have a mandate to kill the babies of the poor?
Anything less would just be a waste.
0 -
@Sandpit
19m
Jamie Reed @JamieFonzarelli
@GillTroughton fought a great campaign. Labour vote didn't come out. Congratulations and good luck to Trudy Harrison.
#CopelandByElection0 -
There's an interesting point there: "And it knows Corbyn won't listen."Jonathan said:
This is the problem with Corbyn producing letters from Doris Storm et al at PMQ's. He reads out people's concerns and uses them against the government. But there's no way the contents of any letter will sway him. His course is set. He knows what needs doing and has done for forty years.
Those letters show his inflexibility, not his concern.0 -
25% isn't terrible for UKIP, but a decent candidate would surely have taken them over 30%.TwistedFireStopper said:
I think any half decent UKIP candidate would have won. Nuttall became the story, rather than UKIP policies, and I think his campaign and confusion over Hillsborough has taken UKIP backwards. There doesn't really seem much point in them.Jonathan said:I reckon Dianne James would have won.
0 -
If labour don't ditch corbyn right now, they'll be stuck with him until the election. they won't have a better chance.0
-
This kind of mentality will ring a bell to anyone who was an avid tv-watcher during the Iraq invasion of 2003...Scott_P said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMqU8vE65g80 -
A Try friend of mine is in her constituency and votes for her, as do many Tories because she is a brilliant MP.foxinsoxuk said:
Actually, I would prefer that she won (just not credible that she will defy the odds to do so). She should be listened to in forming a Red Brexit policy. She is a Labour member, albeit a centrist one.Roger said:
I'm sure many of us would pay a lot more than £20 for Gisela Stuart to lose her seat.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Mortimer said:
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?AlastairMeeks said:
Are you open to a bet on that?Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
"centrist one"foxinsoxuk said:
Actually, I would prefer that she won (just not credible that she will defy the odds to do so). She should be listened to in forming a Red Brexit policy. She is a Labour member, albeit a centrist one.Roger said:
I'm sure many of us would pay a lot more than £20 for Gisela Stuart to lose her seat.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Mortimer said:
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?AlastairMeeks said:
Are you open to a bet on that?Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
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
Isn't the Labour parlance 'hard right' ?
0 -
If Gisela was up against someone like Soubry I'd sell the shirt on my back to campaign for her.foxinsoxuk said:
Her seat voted Remain.Sandpit said:
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.Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
Well, that was how Whitehaven became a town! it has quite a history of slavetrading:Sean_F said:
Sell them into slavery, certainly.notme said:Do the conservatives now officially have a mandate to kill the babies of the poor?
https://notesfromcamelidcountry.net/2014/01/08/rum-and-the-slave-trade-whitehavens-dark-spirit/
It started with Coal, then Slave trading.0 -
The results in Stoke are just as bad for Labour:
UKIP: 74% of their GE vote.
Tories: 74% of their GE vote.
Labour: 64% of their GE vote.
0 -
The Fink
Stoke is a disaster because Copeland is a disaster and Stoke may persuade enough of Mr Corbyn’s Labour fans that it isn’t.
Exhibit A
@PaulFlynnMP: Copeland-unique pro-nuclear seat. Stoke is
Typical of 100s of UKIP threatened Labour seats Significant result is Stoke. Copeland not.0 -
Did any of the Tory leaflets have recipes on the back?Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:
Only if they eat them.notme said:Do the conservatives now officially have a mandate to kill the babies of the poor?
Anything less would just be a waste.0 -
I think Evens on Gisela losing her seat are fantastic odds. I don't know what the new boundry do to Edgebaston but by the time you factor in deselection, vengeful Remain voters, an activist strikes etc she must be in serious trouble. I understand Kate Hoey is retiring. I wouldn't surprised if Gisela retires as well.0
-
Absolutely agree.foxinsoxuk said:
Sound finances were the basis of New Labour's appeal in 1997. I have always said that, and it underpins all other policies.fitalass said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:
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.madasafish said:
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..foxinsoxuk said:
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.AlsoIndigo said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
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.
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.0 -
@gabyhinsliff: Lab: we need to listen to the voters. Voters: we think Corbyn is hopeless. Lab: yeah not those voters.0
-
Where are these "half decent UKIP candidates" of which you speak? Let's face it, their chances of attracting quality declines by the day.TwistedFireStopper said:
I think any half decent UKIP candidate would have won. Nuttall became the story, rather than UKIP policies, and I think his campaign and confusion over Hillsborough has taken UKIP backwards. There doesn't really seem much point in them.Jonathan said:I reckon Dianne James would have won.
0 -
Not as bad, but still very bad.MarkHopkins said:
The results in Stoke are just as bad for Labour:
UKIP: 74% of their GE vote.
Tories: 74% of their GE vote.
Labour: 64% of their GE vote.0 -
Have we hear from the Ex MP for Broxtowe this morning?0
-
If Gisela was up against someone like Soubry I'd happily vote Conservative. That's her problem now.Casino_Royale said:
If Gisela was up against someone like Soubry I'd sell the shirt on my back to campaign for her.foxinsoxuk said:
Her seat voted Remain.Sandpit said:
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.Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
Surely "Stoke is a triumph..."Scott_P said:The Fink
Stoke is a disaster because Copeland is a disaster and Stoke may persuade enough of Mr Corbyn’s Labour fans that it isn’t.
Exhibit A
@PaulFlynnMP: Copeland-unique pro-nuclear seat. Stoke is
Typical of 100s of UKIP threatened Labour seats Significant result is Stoke. Copeland not.0 -
The kippper ceiling is very low. Even in the 2014 Euro elections* their supposed triumph, and fought on their favoured turf they did not reach 27%Sean_F said:
25% isn't terrible for UKIP, but a decent candidate would surely have taken them over 30%.TwistedFireStopper said:
I think any half decent UKIP candidate would have won. Nuttall became the story, rather than UKIP policies, and I think his campaign and confusion over Hillsborough has taken UKIP backwards. There doesn't really seem much point in them.Jonathan said:I reckon Dianne James would have won.
*called accurately by me as "peak kipper" at the time btw.0 -
Wow. You think that was a good night for the Lib Dems? Given that we've had weeks of Snell and Nuttall are crap on here, you'd have thought Stoke ought to have been the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to at least challenge Ukip and the Tories for second. After all, by elections are what they do best.foxinsoxuk said:
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.tlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Yes, so dead that they outpolled the Lib Dems by 2,923 votes yesterday.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.Mortimer said:
Not listening, as ever.foxinsoxuk said:
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.AlastairMeeks said: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.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.0 -
he was posting about 0500 if you look back, presumably having a nap now.SquareRoot said:Have we hear from the Ex MP for Broxtowe this morning?
0 -
... and as for Council Elections, the trend continues:
Britain Elects@britainelects 9h9 hours ago
Your council by-elections for tonight:
Two LDEM gains from CON.
One CON hold.
http://britainelects.com/results/council-by-elections/ …
0 -
-
I seem to recall a thread from a few weeks back saying these seats had to be a springboard for the LibDems. Hmmmmmm. Is Farron considering his position yet?Scrapheap_as_was said:Well this is better.... how many threads were there saying this was hardly likely to happen?
0 -
Laying UKIP is a license to print money!tlg86 said:
Wow. You think that was a good night for the Lib Dems? Given that we've had weeks of Snell and Nuttall are crap on here, you'd have thought Stoke ought to have been the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to at least challenge Ukip and the Tories for second. After all, by elections are what they do best.foxinsoxuk said:
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.tlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Yes, so dead that they outpolled the Lib Dems by 2,923 votes yesterday.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.Mortimer said:
Not listening, as ever.foxinsoxuk said:
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.AlastairMeeks said: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.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.0 -
Mr. P, I wonder if Goldsmith might help Corbyn too, inadvertently, of course. He can point to Richmond and say "Strange things happen at by-elections".0
-
I have no wish to see them disappear, but I think you are right they are too strong in the cities to disappear, but could face wipeout.Dixie said: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!
This is serious labour, Jeremy corbyn has to go. McDonnell as an interim leader would be better if only because he seems more competent.0 -
I dont know, I've heard that all my life. People said that's why turnout was so low, but now it's risen 3 generals in a row, albeit minutely in the last one.The_Apocalypse said:
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.AndyJS said:
Have voters ever been satisfied with politicians? Maybe in the 1950s.The_Apocalypse said: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.
Not saying it's not a problem, but line labour on the NHS or tories on the BBC, I've hear it so many times I struggle to believe it can be that bad, even when it is bad to some extent.
0 -
Scores from last night :
Labour 1/10 - They held Stoke, I guess but the internals of that result are horrifying psephologiclly speaking for them. That's before we even get to Copeland.
UKIP 1/10 - Didn't come close enough in Stoke to indicate to me that they can win ANYWHERE. Candidates weren't an issue imo, poor ones in Stoke; good ones in general in Copeland, beaten by the Lib Dems into 4th in Copeland
Lib Dems 5/10 - Neither a serious target seat but the trend of increasing vote in a BE from GE levels occurred in both seats, so a continuation of that decent trend. Middling.
Tories 9.5/10 - Just miss out on the 10/10 due to not beating UKIP in Stoke, the Copeland result was off the charts good.0 -
Absolutely. Some politicians transcend party politics. Frank Field is another one, so is Kate Hoey.Casino_Royale said:
If Gisela was up against someone like Soubry I'd sell the shirt on my back to campaign for her.foxinsoxuk said:
Her seat voted Remain.Sandpit said:
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.Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
McDonnell is Corbyn-lite, with extra dodgy minders. If it is serious, Labour has to turn round to the hard left and tell them to fvck off. Which means a brutal war between MPs and members.kle4 said:
I have no wish to see them disappear, but I think you are right they are too strong in the cities to disappear, but could face wipeout.Dixie said: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!
This is serious labour, Jeremy corbyn has to go. McDonnell as an interim leader would be better if only because he seems more competent.0 -
And? Yes, first past the post is a cruel mistress and Ukip aren't very good at winning seats. But they still got 67% more votes than the stop Brexit party.foxinsoxuk said:
Laying UKIP is a license to print money!tlg86 said:
Wow. You think that was a good night for the Lib Dems? Given that we've had weeks of Snell and Nuttall are crap on here, you'd have thought Stoke ought to have been the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to at least challenge Ukip and the Tories for second. After all, by elections are what they do best.foxinsoxuk said:
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.tlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Yes, so dead that they outpolled the Lib Dems by 2,923 votes yesterday.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.Mortimer said:
Not listening, as ever.foxinsoxuk said:
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.AlastairMeeks said: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.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.0 -
Stoke is the result with more general applicability, and it is not good for Labour and terminal for the Kippers.MarkHopkins said:
The results in Stoke are just as bad for Labour:
UKIP: 74% of their GE vote.
Tories: 74% of their GE vote.
Labour: 64% of their GE vote.
On QT last night the (Labour and Remain supporting) owner of Stoke City FC, and owner of their biggest employer Bet365 made an interesting point. Stoke has (one of?) the highest percentages of manufacturing employment in the UK, and has held onto manufacturing jobs relatively well. It doesn't seem to have benefitted the peeople of Stoke in terms of employment as much as his Online bookie.0 -
Corbyn is another who transcends party politics.
0 -
Thanksfoxinsoxuk said:
he was posting about 0500 if you look back, presumably having a nap now.SquareRoot said:Have we hear from the Ex MP for Broxtowe this morning?
I note he was saying that the problem for Labour is that the Tories are popular at the moment and it would be a problem for any Labour leader. This is Momentum type denial.. Labour are unpopular because of Corbyn and there's no getting away from it.0 -
Actually that's probably true. It's too easy to start blaming Labour's woes entirely on a disgusting leadership. The problems run alot deeper. Any new leader will face much the same problem. What is Labour for? Who is it for? Why should anyone vote for Labour? They need a narrative just as badly as they need a new leader.Scott_P said:Awesome
@PolhomeEditor: John McDonnell: "I don't think this is about Jeremy Corbyn."
0 -
Don't worry, blue rosettes on donkeys works just as well in different areas, it's not a www thing.ThomasNashe said:
LOL! The contempt of the metropolitan elite for the white working class is a wonder to behold.Essexit said:Future studies of the 'red rosette on a donkey' effect will surely cite the 2017 Stoke by-election.
0 -
kle4 said:
I have no wish to see them disappear, but I think you are right they are too strong in the cities to disappear, but could face wipeout.Dixie said: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!
This is serious labour, Jeremy corbyn has to go. McDonnell as an interim leader would be better if only because he seems more competent.
Momentum: Life imitating parody!CornishBlue said:
This kind of mentality will ring a bell to anyone who was an avid tv-watcher during the Iraq invasion of 2003...Scott_P said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMqU8vE65g80 -
Yes, regarding the Lib Dems, I recall this on a thread header about Stoke from three days back never mind three weeks:MarqueeMark said:
I seem to recall a thread from a few weeks back saying these seats had to be a springboard for the LibDems. Hmmmmmm. Is Farron considering his position yet?Scrapheap_as_was said:Well this is better.... how many threads were there saying this was hardly likely to happen?
"We could get a very tight result with four parties being very close to each other."
0 -
McDonnell's back history is worse than Corbyn's... if that's possiblekle4 said:
I have no wish to see them disappear, but I think you are right they are too strong in the cities to disappear, but could face wipeout.Dixie said: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!
This is serious labour, Jeremy corbyn has to go. McDonnell as an interim leader would be better if only because he seems more competent.0 -
Anecdotal, of course, but elsewhere online, I've seen a few Labour activists saying that after last night, they wish they could have Gordon Brown back.
If they're really that desperate they might be willing to vote for some pretty unlikely candidates in their next leadership election.0 -
... in an ideal constituency for UKIP.tlg86 said:
And? Yes, first past the post is a cruel mistress and Ukip aren't very good at winning seats. But they still got 67% more votes than the stop Brexit party.foxinsoxuk said:
Laying UKIP is a license to print money!tlg86 said:
Wow. You think that was a good night for the Lib Dems? Given that we've had weeks of Snell and Nuttall are crap on here, you'd have thought Stoke ought to have been the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to at least challenge Ukip and the Tories for second. After all, by elections are what they do best.foxinsoxuk said:
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.tlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Yes, so dead that they outpolled the Lib Dems by 2,923 votes yesterday.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.Mortimer said:
Not listening, as ever.foxinsoxuk said:
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.AlastairMeeks said: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.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
I'm not a Lib Dem member, and I'm likely to vote Conservative due to the fact I rather fancy (ahem) our MP. But the comments against Farron on here are quite ridiculous. He's doing a good job, as a recent by-election win shows.0 -
That's basically true. But the removal of Corbyn is the sine qua non of any rebuild.Patrick said:
Actually that's probably true. It's too easy to start blaming Labour's woes entirely on a disgusting leadership. The problems run alot deeper. Any new leader will face much the same problem. What is Labour for? Who is it for? Why should anyone vote for Labour? They need a narrative just as badly as they need a new leader.Scott_P said:Awesome
@PolhomeEditor: John McDonnell: "I don't think this is about Jeremy Corbyn."0 -
Do you really believe UKIP has a future? they will become a rump party in areas where the BNP used to lurk, but their time has passed. The voters do not like them, they are losing members hand over fist, and have no policies to offer that differentiate them from the Tories and are led by a clown.tlg86 said:
And? Yes, first past the post is a cruel mistress and Ukip aren't very good at winning seats. But they still got 67% more votes than the stop Brexit party.foxinsoxuk said:
Laying UKIP is a license to print money!tlg86 said:
Wow. You think that was a good night for the Lib Dems? Given that we've had weeks of Snell and Nuttall are crap on here, you'd have thought Stoke ought to have been the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to at least challenge Ukip and the Tories for second. After all, by elections are what they do best.foxinsoxuk said:
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.tlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Yes, so dead that they outpolled the Lib Dems by 2,923 votes yesterday.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.Mortimer said:
Not listening, as ever.foxinsoxuk said:
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.AlastairMeeks said: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.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
I am not happy with Britain becoming a one party state, but both LibDems and Labour have capacity to revive, particularly if it is a car crash hard Brexit, rather than a controlled hard Brexit.
0 -
Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.0 -
Ed Miliband, for example?Robert_Of_Sheffield said:Anecdotal, of course, but elsewhere online, I've seen a few Labour activists saying that after last night, they wish they could have Gordon Brown back.
If they're really that desperate they might be willing to vote for some pretty unlikely candidates in their next leadership election.0 -
The most obvious donkey in Stoke was Paul Nuttall, and the voters responded accordingly.kle4 said:
Don't worry, blue rosettes on donkeys works just as well in different areas, it's not a www thing.ThomasNashe said:
LOL! The contempt of the metropolitan elite for the white working class is a wonder to behold.Essexit said:Future studies of the 'red rosette on a donkey' effect will surely cite the 2017 Stoke by-election.
0 -
There was a by-election in an adjoining constituency back in 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle-under-Lyme_by-election,_1986
Lab 41% -1%
Lib 39% +17%
Con 19% -17%
That change is from the 1983 election - when the Lib/SDP Alliance got over 25% of the national vote.
Quite a contrast to Stoke Central now.
0 -
Oh he's probably worse, do t get me wrong. But to fill In temporarily he might stop the rot because superficially he looks more credible than corbyn. He would not work long term.MarqueeMark said:
McDonnell is Corbyn-lite, with extra dodgy minders. If it is serious, Labour has to turn round to the hard left and tell them to fvck off. Which means a brutal war between MPs and members.kle4 said:
I have no wish to see them disappear, but I think you are right they are too strong in the cities to disappear, but could face wipeout.Dixie said: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!
This is serious labour, Jeremy corbyn has to go. McDonnell as an interim leader would be better if only because he seems more competent.
0 -
Or maybe we could seriously try to raise the underlying growth rate? There is no obvious reason why our productivity should be so much lower than, say, the US or Switzerland. Raising it to the levels in those countries would give us a couple of decades of supranormal economic growth and avoid hard choices about such matters as NHS funding for another generation.DavidL said: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.
0 -
I don't think it was appropriate for a Labour MP under any circumstance to share a platform with Nigel Farage still worse to use his arguments. A Red Brexit policy is fine but not with her anywhere near it. I find her more disagreeable than Kate Hoey who at least never pretended to be anything other than a Tory in false coloursfoxinsoxuk said:
Actually, I would prefer that she won (just not credible that she will defy the odds to do so). She should be listened to in forming a Red Brexit policy. She is a Labour member, albeit a centrist one.Roger said:
I'm sure many of us would pay a lot more than £20 for Gisela Stuart to lose her seat.AlastairMeeks said:
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.Mortimer said:
A charity one, yep - £20 at evens to a charity of our respective choices?AlastairMeeks said:
Are you open to a bet on that?Mortimer said:
She'll hold - she has a personal following.foxinsoxuk said:
There is the silver lining that Gisela Stuart is nearly first to go!MarqueeMark said:
The great joy on that list is Margaret Beckett, who would pay the ultimate price for "lending" her vote to nominate Jeremy Corbyn....NeilVW said:
For Labour to shed a hundred seats they would need to lose to the Tories by something like 48-21.edmundintokyo said: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?
Just for fun, here are the losing Lab MPs in that scenario (keeping all other parties constant, and using current boundaries):
https://tinyurl.com/LabSeatLosses0 -
The question for Labour members is: if not now, when?Jonathan said:Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.0 -
UKIP is that rump party !foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really believe UKIP has a future? they will become a rump party in areas where the BNP used to lurk, but their time has passed. The voters do not like them, they are losing members hand over fist, and have no policies to offer that differentiate them from the Tories and are led by a clown.tlg86 said:
And? Yes, first past the post is a cruel mistress and Ukip aren't very good at winning seats. But they still got 67% more votes than the stop Brexit party.foxinsoxuk said:
Laying UKIP is a license to print money!tlg86 said:
Wow. You think that was a good night for the Lib Dems? Given that we've had weeks of Snell and Nuttall are crap on here, you'd have thought Stoke ought to have been the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to at least challenge Ukip and the Tories for second. After all, by elections are what they do best.foxinsoxuk said:
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.tlg86 said:Got to laugh at the Lib Dems, a derisory total in both by elections.
Yes, so dead that they outpolled the Lib Dems by 2,923 votes yesterday.foxinsoxuk said:
UKIP are dead, and good riddance. It wasn't all bad last night.Mortimer said:
Not listening, as ever.foxinsoxuk said:
My interpretation too, UKIP are going to be widely squeezed by the Tories. UKIP are now irrelevant. The Labour vote share held mostly up.AlastairMeeks said: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.
I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
Tin-earred to the public view - even at elections where the left suffer a resounding defeat.
I am not happy with Britain becoming a one party state, but both LibDems and Labour have capacity to revive, particularly if it is a car crash hard Brexit, rather than a controlled hard Brexit.0 -
The LibDems should have done much better in Stoke.Pulpstar said:Scores from last night :
Labour 1/10 - They held Stoke, I guess but the internals of that result are horrifying psephologiclly speaking for them. That's before we even get to Copeland.
UKIP 1/10 - Didn't come close enough in Stoke to indicate to me that they can win ANYWHERE. Candidates weren't an issue imo, poor ones in Stoke; good ones in general in Copeland, beaten by the Lib Dems into 4th in Copeland
Lib Dems 5/10 - Neither a serious target seat but the trend of increasing vote in a BE from GE levels occurred in both seats, so a continuation of that decent trend. Middling.
Tories 9.5/10 - Just miss out on the 10/10 due to not beating UKIP in Stoke, the Copeland result was off the charts good.
They had a good candidate opposed to two crap ones and an unsupported novice and yet they got less than half the votes they did in 2010.
It was exactly the type of by-election where they've cleaned up on in the past.
0 -
By elections tend to squeeze parties which are not in contention. It's what UKIP should have done in Stoke and it's what the LibDEms did in Richmond.another_richard said:There was a by-election in an adjoining constituency back in 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle-under-Lyme_by-election,_1986
Lab 41% -1%
Lib 39% +17%
Con 19% -17%
That change is from the 1983 election - when the Lib/SDP Alliance got over 25% of the national vote.
Quite a contrast to Stoke Central now.0 -
Yes, the result in Stoke Central result is just as bad. 37.1% Labour vote share in Stoke, compared to 37.3% in Copeland. Stoke C is a classic heartland urban manufacturing seat for Labour and should be far safer than the likes of Copeland, with its significant rural hinterland.MarkHopkins said:
The results in Stoke are just as bad for Labour:
UKIP: 74% of their GE vote.
Tories: 74% of their GE vote.
Labour: 64% of their GE vote.
The combined Con + UKIP vote in both seats is also near identical, the only difference being that the split in Stoke was 50:50 compared to 87:13 in Copeland. Had the Con + UKIP vote split 70:30 Labour would have lost in Stoke too.0 -
I don't know. All Ukip can do is be like the VW Beetle in those Top Gear challenges. The Tories have to deliver Brexit - and to be fair, they are - at which point the need for Ukip is not there. I suppose they will continue to be a repository for nota votes as there will be people in the North who just can't bring themselves to vote Tory.foxinsoxuk said:Do you really believe UKIP has a future? they will become a rump party in areas where the BNP used to lurk, but their time has passed. The voters do not like them, they are losing members hand over fist, and have no policies to offer that differentiate them from the Tories and are led by a clown.
I am not happy with Britain becoming a one party state, but both LibDems and Labour have capacity to revive, particularly if it is a car crash hard Brexit, rather than a controlled hard Brexit.
The bigger question is, how do the Lib Dems revive? What Stoke showed is how dependent they used to be on nota. They need to get that vote back.0 -
Lib dems need to target their support to win back seats at the next ge in any number, in the anpbsence of polling up in the 20s. Increasing their shares last night is a step in the right direction, but it wasn't fantastic as Neither increased dramatically.
Sensible labour people need to snap out of it. There are ones who have to know better either staying silent out of fear or tribal loyalty, or for the same reasons acting like Copeland is not really significant, as though a show of over confident bravado to avoid upsetting the core is what is needed now.
No. If you want your party to recover and you aren't someone who believes corbyn will lead you there, putting on a brave face is not helping, you have to stand up and say so and tell the members the same. May cannot really arrange a ge with article 50 imminent, so anyone who does stand up doesn't need to worry about Losing their seat or expulsion. They have to do something.
But hey, it's their party,
.0 -
The Liberals weren't in contention in NuL in 1983 yet they nearly won in 1986.logical_song said:
By elections tend to squeeze parties which are not in contention. It's what UKIP should have done in Stoke and it's what the LibDEms did in Richmond.another_richard said:There was a by-election in an adjoining constituency back in 1986:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle-under-Lyme_by-election,_1986
Lab 41% -1%
Lib 39% +17%
Con 19% -17%
That change is from the 1983 election - when the Lib/SDP Alliance got over 25% of the national vote.
Quite a contrast to Stoke Central now.
Similarly there are numerous other examples of them soaring in by-elections.
It is after all what the 'Dunny-On-The-Wold' obsessives get excited about on Thursday nights.
0 -
Thought the Lib Dems should have done better in both contests, any reason why they are still trailling their 2010 Stoke vote? Thought Farron as a neighbour to Copeland would have fought harder.0
-
Oh come off it. Ten years ago Labour won Copeland by 20%, there wasnt any more heavy industry then than there is now. In a General Election less than two years ago Labour had a 6.5% majority, and now its the midterm where the government is suppose to be less popular, in the middle of a supposed NHS/Care crisis, with basically the same major employers then as now, and they lost. The only thing that has changed for the worse in Copeland in the last two years from a Labour perspective is their party is lead by an unelectable fool.JonWC said: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?).0 -
Good morning all. We're still going to borrow ~£60bn this year, give or take. There's a long way to go before Labour will have the room to maneuver.foxinsoxuk said:
Sound finances were the basis of New Labour's appeal in 1997. I have always said that, and it underpins all other policies.fitalass said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:
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.madasafish said:
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..foxinsoxuk said:
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.AlsoIndigo said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
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.
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.
Barring a disastrous Brexit, I can't see Labour being in contention to at least 2025.0 -
The Tories are the first governing party to win a byelection since 1982. But never mind all that: the shadow cabinet minister Cat Smith reportedly reckoned that “to be 15-18 points behind the polls and to push the Tories within 2,000 votes is an incredible achievement.” I am not sure how you would describe that kind of thinking: it sounds distinctly like someone taking comfort from the fact that a complete disaster could conceivably have been even worse.YellowSubmarine said:John Harris's take on Copeland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/copeland-labour-stoke-crisis-jeremy-corbyn
0 -
Mr. Indigo, to be fair, the unemployment rate was drastically reduced when the Death Star blew up Alderaan.0
-
Hope she takes such a bullishly positive line to the loss of her Lancaster & Fleetwood seat to the Tories in 2020 - that looks pretty much nailed-on at the moment.AlsoIndigo said:
The Tories are the first governing party to win a byelection since 1982. But never mind all that: the shadow cabinet minister Cat Smith reportedly reckoned that “to be 15-18 points behind the polls and to push the Tories within 2,000 votes is an incredible achievement.” I am not sure how you would describe that kind of thinking: it sounds distinctly like someone taking comfort from the fact that a complete disaster could conceivably have been even worse.YellowSubmarine said:John Harris's take on Copeland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/copeland-labour-stoke-crisis-jeremy-corbyn
0 -
What optimistic souls. I got stabbed in the hand, but that's good, I could have been stabbed In the neck!AlsoIndigo said:
The Tories are the first governing party to win a byelection since 1982. But never mind all that: the shadow cabinet minister Cat Smith reportedly reckoned that “to be 15-18 points behind the polls and to push the Tories within 2,000 votes is an incredible achievement.” I am not sure how you would describe that kind of thinking: it sounds distinctly like someone taking comfort from the fact that a complete disaster could conceivably have been even worse.YellowSubmarine said:John Harris's take on Copeland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/copeland-labour-stoke-crisis-jeremy-corbyn
0 -
"If I'm not for myself, who will be for me?AlastairMeeks said:
The question for Labour members is: if not now, when?Jonathan said:Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.
If not this way, how? And if not now, when?"
Maybe time for a re-read of that one.
0 -
The question is how.AlastairMeeks said:
The question for Labour members is: if not now, when?Jonathan said:Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.0 -
That is my estimate too. Politically we are about the same point as we were in 1987, with Militant going bonkers and Maggie rampant. The Libs and SDP were looking weak and held only a few seats.John_M said:
Good morning all. We're still going to borrow ~£60bn this year, give or take. There's a long way to go before Labour will have the room to maneuver.foxinsoxuk said:
Sound finances were the basis of New Labour's appeal in 1997. I have always said that, and it underpins all other policies.fitalass said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:
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.madasafish said:
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..foxinsoxuk said:
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.AlsoIndigo said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
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.
Labour have campaigned
Barring a disastrous Brexit, I can't see Labour being in contention to at least 2025.
Within 10 years though, Maggie was defenestrated by her own side, Tories had run out of ideas and New Labpur were to sweep into power with an enormous majority. Labour needs to stop navel gazing and put that0 -
Looking ahead to the May local election.
The local elections held two years into a government usually result in a large lead for the Opposition party:
1977 Opp +>10%
1981 Opp +3%
1985 Opp +7%
1989 Opp +6%
1994 Opp +12%
1999 Gov +2%
2003 Opp +5%
2007 Opp +13%
2012 Opp +7%
{Data from Wikipedia}
Unless something happens quickly Labour will get the worse result of any Opposition at this stage of a parliament.
0 -
The million dollar question. That botched coup has really undercut many of the usual options. The unions turn on him? Someone actually defects to another party and others say they will have to do the same unless corbyn goes?Jonathan said:
The question is how.AlastairMeeks said:
The question for Labour members is: if not now, when?Jonathan said:Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.
There has to be something. I know the man is stubborn but he's not a limpet.0 -
Labour is currently far weaker than it was in the eighties.foxinsoxuk said:
That is my estimate too. Politically we are about the same point as we were in 1987, with Militant going bonkers and Maggie rampant. The Libs and SDP were looking weak and held only a few seats.John_M said:
Good morning all. We're still going to borrow ~£60bn this year, give or take. There's a long way to go before Labour will have the room to maneuver.foxinsoxuk said:
Sound finances were the basis of New Labour's appeal in 1997. I have always said that, and it underpins all other policies.fitalass said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:
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.madasafish said:
Campaigning on "Save our hospital" when your Party is not in Power is the act of political idiots..foxinsoxuk said:
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.AlsoIndigo said:
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.foxinsoxuk said:I am disappointed for Gill Troughton in Copeland, but I think that there are local nuclear issues that do not generalise to other constituencies.
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.
Labour have campaigned
Barring a disastrous Brexit, I can't see Labour being in contention to at least 2025.
Within 10 years though, Maggie was defenestrated by her own side, Tories had run out of ideas and New Labpur were to sweep into power with an enormous majority. Labour needs to stop navel gazing and put that0 -
Geographically, which party(ies) do the May elections favour this year? Are they mainly urban, rural, leave, remain, or a good mixture?another_richard said:Looking ahead to the May local election.
The local elections held two years into a government usually result in a large lead for the Opposition party:
1977 Opp +>10%
1981 Opp +3%
1985 Opp +7%
1989 Opp +6%
1994 Opp +12%
1999 Gov +2%
2003 Opp +5%
2007 Opp +13%
2012 Opp +7%
{Data from Wikipedia}
Unless something happens quickly Labour will get the worse result of any Opposition at this stage of a parliament.0 -
"Exactly the type"? Sorry, but that is nonsense.another_richard said:
The LibDems should have done much better in Stoke.Pulpstar said:Scores from last night :
Labour 1/10 - They held Stoke, I guess but the internals of that result are horrifying psephologiclly speaking for them. That's before we even get to Copeland.
UKIP 1/10 - Didn't come close enough in Stoke to indicate to me that they can win ANYWHERE. Candidates weren't an issue imo, poor ones in Stoke; good ones in general in Copeland, beaten by the Lib Dems into 4th in Copeland
Lib Dems 5/10 - Neither a serious target seat but the trend of increasing vote in a BE from GE levels occurred in both seats, so a continuation of that decent trend. Middling.
Tories 9.5/10 - Just miss out on the 10/10 due to not beating UKIP in Stoke, the Copeland result was off the charts good.
They had a good candidate opposed to two crap ones and an unsupported novice and yet they got less than half the votes they did in 2010.
It was exactly the type of by-election where they've cleaned up on in the past.
In the past LibDems tended to clean up in Tory held seats where they started in second place and Labour were not in contention.0 -
Foxinsoxuk:
That is my estimate too. Politically we are about the same point as we were in 1987, with Militant going bonkers and Maggie rampant. The Libs and SDP were looking weak and held only a few seats.
Within 10 years though, Maggie was defenestrated by her own side, Tories had run out of ideas and New Labpur were to sweep into power with an enormous majority. Labour needs to stop navel gazing and put that
By 1987 Militant were on the wane, and the Labour recovery had started. Kinnock's famous 'taxis' speech came at the 1985 party conference.0 -
@JohnRentoul: Labour’s share of vote has dropped in every by-election since EU referendum: Witney -2 %pts, Richmond -9, Sleaford -7, Stoke -2, Copeland -5
@JohnRentoul: Lib Dem share of vote has increased in every by-election since #EUref: Witney +23 %points, Richmond +30, Sleaford +5, Stoke +6, Copeland +4
@JohnRentoul: Change in Tory share of vote in by-elections since #EUref: Witney -15 %points, Richmond -13, Sleaford -3, Stoke +2, Copeland +9. Neat.
@JohnRentoul: Change in Ukip share of vote in by-elections since #EUref: Witney -6 %points, Richmond no candidate, Sleaford -2, Stoke +2, Copeland -90 -
Way hey hey! Didn't bother staying up. But a double winner for me this morning on Tory Copeland, Lab stoke.0
-
I am fairly sure there was anti UKIP tactical voting for Snell, whose pro-Remain comment are not offputting to LDs generally.swing_voter said:Thought the Lib Dems should have done better in both contests, any reason why they are still trailling their 2010 Stoke vote? Thought Farron as a neighbour to Copeland would have fought harder.
If so Labours real position is worse than it first appears.
I do think that Labour was wrong to rush through these byelections, not leaving them until May as was mooted.0 -
Worth noting that More United, with its large-ish online following, backed Smellfoxinsoxuk said:
I am fairly sure there was anti UKIP tactical voting for Snell, whose pro-Remain comment are not offputting to LDs generally.swing_voter said:Thought the Lib Dems should have done better in both contests, any reason why they are still trailling their 2010 Stoke vote? Thought Farron as a neighbour to Copeland would have fought harder.
If so Labours real position is worse than it first appears.
I do think that Labour was wrong to rush through these byelections, not leaving them until May as was mooted.0 -
You have to go back to 1989 for the last time we had the County Council elections two years into a parliament:JosiasJessop said:
Geographically, which party(ies) do the May elections favour this year? Are they mainly urban, rural, leave, remain, or a good mixture?another_richard said:Looking ahead to the May local election.
The local elections held two years into a government usually result in a large lead for the Opposition party:
1977 Opp +>10%
1981 Opp +3%
1985 Opp +7%
1989 Opp +6%
1994 Opp +12%
1999 Gov +2%
2003 Opp +5%
2007 Opp +13%
2012 Opp +7%
{Data from Wikipedia}
Unless something happens quickly Labour will get the worse result of any Opposition at this stage of a parliament.
https://tinyurl.com/j2ygq5z
Obviously these aren't very favourable to Labour, but we can still compare with 2013. But we also have the metro mayors for the first time which will be interesting.0 -
"A marmalade dropper from John Curtice, the swing to the Tories in Copeland was bigger than what the national polls are currently suggesting"
Some of us on PB have been saying precisely this for months. Corbyn is especially toxic in marginal seats and this is not reflected in the universal figure.
Mind you, I don't suppose Copeland was particularly a marginal before all this, so it is probably even worse for Labour that even us cynics on PB have thought.0 -
Get 20 odd of your mates, resign the whip and refuse to rejoin until corbyns gone.Jonathan said:
The question is how.AlastairMeeks said:
The question for Labour members is: if not now, when?Jonathan said:Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.
0 -
ThomasNashe said:
Foxinsoxuk:
That is my estimate too. Politically we are about the same point as we were in 1987, with Militant going bonkers and Maggie rampant. The Libs and SDP were looking weak and held only a few seats.
Within 10 years though, Maggie was defenestrated by her own side, Tories had run out of ideas and New Labpur were to sweep into power with an enormous majority. Labour needs to stop navel gazing and put that
By 1987 Militant were on the wane, and the Labour recovery had started. Kinnock's famous 'taxis' speech came at the 1985 party conference.
Yeah. maybe this is 1983. Just trying to be positive about anything other than emigrating.
0 -
I'm getting to the point where I don't want Labour to recover. The malaise is too embedded. I don't find much to like about them anymore. I feel like sitting it out until another Party forms which feels a little more 'Joe Cox' and a little less John McDonnell which I'm sure won't happen with Labour for many years if at all.0
-
That's pretty damning for the Lib Dems. Surely they are the repository for pro-Remain votes?foxinsoxuk said:
I am fairly sure there was anti UKIP tactical voting for Snell, whose pro-Remain comment are not offputting to LDs generally.swing_voter said:Thought the Lib Dems should have done better in both contests, any reason why they are still trailling their 2010 Stoke vote? Thought Farron as a neighbour to Copeland would have fought harder.
If so Labours real position is worse than it first appears.
I do think that Labour was wrong to rush through these byelections, not leaving them until May as was mooted.0 -
100 MPs could resign the whip and it would make no difference. The best answer IMO is tge unions.Slackbladder said:
Get 20 odd of your mates, resign the whip and refuse to rejoin until corbyns gone.Jonathan said:
The question is how.AlastairMeeks said:
The question for Labour members is: if not now, when?Jonathan said:Anecdote alert...
Corbyn is an issue for members on closed social media. Criticism going well beyond the usual suspects. Some have woken up.0 -
Ha, indeed. Not sure she'll be quite so optimistic when her own P45 arrives.ThomasNashe said:
Hope she takes such a bullishly positive line to the loss of her Lancaster & Fleetwood seat to the Tories in 2020 - that looks pretty much nailed-on at the moment.AlsoIndigo said:
The Tories are the first governing party to win a byelection since 1982. But never mind all that: the shadow cabinet minister Cat Smith reportedly reckoned that “to be 15-18 points behind the polls and to push the Tories within 2,000 votes is an incredible achievement.” I am not sure how you would describe that kind of thinking: it sounds distinctly like someone taking comfort from the fact that a complete disaster could conceivably have been even worse.YellowSubmarine said:John Harris's take on Copeland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/24/copeland-labour-stoke-crisis-jeremy-corbyn
0 -
So, options for the PLP:
1) Split. I first suggested this in early 2016, I think. And again when the Smith challenge failed. I really don't think it'll happen, but it could, and perhaps should.
2) Agree on a Corbyn-acceptable but non-mental leadership candidate to stand and get guaranteed support in exchange for Corbyn stepping down. If he will.
3) Resign and go run a museum.0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
