politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oldham West & Royton set to be Corbyn’s first big electoral
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oldham West & Royton set to be Corbyn’s first big electoral test
The very first by election of the 2015 parliament has now been triggered by the sad death of Michael Meacher who, it might be recalled, sought to mount a leadership challenge in the post-Blair leadership election.
0
Comments
In this case, I think it will mean that the Corbynista and UKIP campaigns will benefit to the detriment of the other parties. Thus a factor will be how in the Corbyn camp the Labour candidate is - if a full blown leftie, then we can expect the new activist members' energy to be on full show. If not, a Labour win but on a poor showing for them.
As for the other parties:
Should UKIP be pouring money into trying to win this which, on the face of it, looks like a no-hoper, or should they be concentrating on the upcoming referendum?
Farron needs to get the Lib Dems some press, and fast.
The Conservatives should look to try to keep Corbyn in for the while, and a Labour loss here might cause a move against him.
Oh, and sympathies to BJO and his family. I hope everything works out well. If you're reading BJO, I can give just one piece of advice from personal experience: when it comes to neurosurgeons, shop around. Get at least one other opinion. Their quality varies massively.
And I think I missed the opportunity to say 'first'!
A rather fortuitous by-election courtesy of Mr Meacher, that will test the mettle of the Purples, Yellows and Reds, better than any polls at the mo. – An easy hold for Labour imho, but interesting to see how a lower turn-out than a GE, jiggles the final outcome.
Michael Meacher RIP
Oh, and what else has Nigel got to do with himself these days?
... unless Labour pick an absolute numpty of a candidate.
Seats have been won in by-elections with bigger swings than needed here, but I don't think that will happen this time.
Doesn’t appear ever to have been very fertile ground for the LD’s or Libs although it’s next door to Oldham East & Saddleworth, so a reasonable result here would be good.
If the Tories pick the same candidate as last time (and 2010) they could do well.
As others have said, a lot depends on the calibre of the candidates, especially Labour’s!
The UKIP hustings are on Saturday so you won't need to wait long to see who the candidate is. My money would be on John Bickley who came close in the by-election nearby last year, a very good man.
The bye election is probably more of a challenge for UKIP than anyone else. In the election they set themselves up as the main, if distant, challenger in a lot of safe Labour seats like this. They will be desperate to maintain that second place after a few dismal months since the election.
However, I am reluctant betting on Jeremy Corbyn's judgement in picking by-election candidates. Given his picks for his office, he's quite capable of imposing on the constituency an on-the-run IRA terrorist.
What might be more interesting is to see what happens with the candidate selection.If they import some hard-left union hack, then it will be a straw in the wind and the moderate Labour MPs might become even more uneasy. If they pick a fairly dull local candidate, it would make Corbyn's life easier.
However, if they pick somebody like the egregious Miss Powell, Mr Burnham or Dr Hunt, regardless of that person's official views they deserve to lose.
So I've gone for a pony on them here.
It'd be impressive to lose this seat.
I'm expecting a Bennite to be selected and for Labour to retain the seat with close to 5 figure majority. How Kippers fair is the interesting bit for me.
"These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998
A bad candidate would be someone parachuted in due to links with unions or Corbyn, with little knowledge or interest in the local area.
Might Ed Balls be interested in getting back into Parliament?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/03/galloway-melenchon-expose-gap
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34600107
"Most of them have fled conflict and poverty in Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan and are trying to seek refuge across the Channel in the UK."
So why can't they "seek refuge" in, oh I don't know, say, FRANCE??
The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
Mr. Blue [2], the English votes precede a general vote in the Commons including MPs not affected by English-only (or English & Welsh-only) legislation.
Mr. Tyndall, indeed. The current set-up is indefensible, and the proposed changes do not remedy that.
"BJO..You may not see this but I do hope things go well for you and your wife..when the old machine that is the NHS works well then it can be brilliant.. "
A sensitive post from Doddy. It was worth waiting five years for
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11946488/Airports-Will-the-Government-please-stop-talking-and-just-start-building.html
My sentiments exactly.
I can only assume the Conservatives are afraid of emasculating Westminster and are willing to tolerate an indefensible anti-English devolution settlement to keep Westminster as it is.
The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
Heathrow is a disaster - we should have asked the Chinese to build Boris Island a la HK airport - would be ready in 6 years.
I'm not sure that's the best reading of the figures. Meacher had been MP since it was created in 1997, and MP for its main predecessor, Oldham West, since 1970. Why should he suddenly have developed a personal vote in 2015 that by inference didn't exist in 2010?
However, the fact is that Labour's vote did increase by 9% so if it's not a personal vote then it must be some other reason. The natural assumption has to be that Labour scooped up a large number of the ex-Lib Dem votes but that they themselves were part of a larger protest vote that's been floating in the constituency for a long time (the BNP polled 16.4% there in 2001, at the time of the Oldham riots).
On that basis, a Corbyn-led Labour might be good for the party: it might reasonably be expected to hold onto votes cast against the government and its policies. The question is whether it can hold onto its former mainstream as well - and if not, who stands to benefit? And of course, while I dispute that the increase between 2010 and 2015 was a personal vote, that doesn't mean he didn't already have a personal vote, which will still be lost with his death.
Perhaps as much as anything, what will be fascinating is Labour's process before the election is called: how do they choose a candidate, who will it be and what will that person represent, what platform will they stand on and what campaigning techniques will they adopt?
"So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws. "
Like what?
'What about Farage, the Ukip leader who some claim will alienate wavering voters and scupper any chance of a victory for the Outers? Overall, we do not find much evidence for the claim that Farage will make large numbers of voters more likely to vote to keep Britain in the EU. Compared to voters who are not exposed to a Farage cue, those who are given this treatment are no more likely to vote to Leave. Broadly speaking then, it appears that voters have already priced in the so-called ‘Farage Effect’.'
http://whatukthinks.org/eu/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/
It will be interesting to see if Jeremy follows his predecessors and has quick byelection perhaps on 3 December or delays till February. I think 3 December.
As this seat is near Heywood & Middleton where UKIP ran Labour close in byelection last year, I think again this will be a tight contest especially if UKIP choose John Buckley again.
But I'm not sure if it covers budgetary measures, which was the biggest concern this year. That's probably deliberate, if so.
Personally, I think that's a mistake - it allows the party to be painted as anti-English.
There are 650 MPs.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf
Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.
Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
Westminster is the UK parliament and all MP's should be treated equally. If Conservatives want EVEL then let them set up an English parliament and complete a federal structure for the UK.
Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.
Very sad to see Michael Meacher pass away. An interesting note regarding Mr Meacher is that he wrote the foreword to David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour" book months after he stepped down as Environment Minister.
Griffin's book put forward the 'Let it Happen on Purpose' theory regarding the 9/11 attacks, and was probably the well-regarded conspiracy* book (there are some pretty frightening 'facts' in there).
A brave move for a former minister of Tony Blair's USA-supporting government to put his name to a book like that.
*It is probably unfair and demeaning to call it a conspiracy book. It's actually a well-explored expose of some very uncomfortable, unanswered questions.
I would class emergency cover as exactly that - the same level of cover that is there on a bank holiday, or at 4am. People there to deal with emergency admissions/deterioration of inpatients, but no elective work at all. Half-arsed industrial action was tried a couple of years ago - the only thing it achieved was to encourage the government to do whatever they wanted. I have very little to do with chronic renal failure so I don't know what dialysis units' bank holiday set-ups are, but whatever they are should be the same in a strike.
Various numbers are thrown around for how much it costs to train a doctor- I've no idea if anyone really knows. Are you subtracting the value of the work done while training? After university junior doctors are working (very hard!) - it's not just training. Given that there is a monopoly employer in this country, making it so that everyone was trapped here (even if it was possible - how on earth would the rules work in practice) would mean that there would be no reason to pay the enslaved doctors anything.
"It would stop a future Labour Minority government, with SNP support, from forcing measures onto England where they did not command a majority of English MPs."
I would have thought under those circumstances or even with a Labour goverment dependant on Scottish Labour MP's they would just overturn it. Sounds like a non starter..
I am however amused by your notion that a skilled marksman is more expensive than maintaining a pack of hounds and hunting horses and costumes.
What your really mean is that you hate (or perhaps I should say despise) the notion of equality implicit in representative democracy, and long for a return to the days when the well-to-do not only could but were expected to abuse the poor. With, of course, nowadays the extra spice of racism all too often.