Copeland and Stoke

[tim2]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Labour hold Stoke  turnout just over 36%

Mr Corbyn said the party's "message was not enough to win through in Copeland" but hailed victory in Stoke as a "decisive rejection of UKIP's politics of division and dishonesty".

He added: "Labour will go further to reconnect with voters and break with the failed political consensus."

 

 

Conservatives win Copeland

Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said the Copeland result was the best by-election performance by a governing party in terms of the increase in its share of the vote since January 1966.increase

Or, alternatively and perhaps more accurately, the worst by-election perfrmance by an opposition party in living memory.

[gingerjon]

14 minutes ago, tim2 said:

Or, alternatively and perhaps more accurately, the worst by-election perfrmance by an opposition party in living memory.

I think you have to say the Tories performed well *as well as* a very poor Labour performance.  I don't think it's either/or.

[Bob8]

It is poor from Labour, but good enough that Corbyn can claim victory and the calls for him to go are not overwhleming just yet.  The worst possible result for Labour (with due respect to the returned Labour MP, who might be lovely).

[Bob8]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/stoke-on-trent-by-election-narrowing-gap-labour-scant-consolation/

Also, for UKIP to come second when the Tories appear to be fully delivering on Brexit is a great result for them.  Once Brexit gets harder to deliver than strong soundbites are now, people who think it should be straight forward and easy might well drift to UKIP.  If there is then disenchantment from euro-sceptic Tories and Labour are still a basket case, it could be happy days for UKIP.

[GeordieSaint]

Some pretty derogatory comments about the people of Copeland on the Indepedent online comments sections. Presuming many are Corbynistas as they can't seem to figure out when people voted Tory and not Labour.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/stoke-on-trent-by-election-narrowing-gap-labour-scant-consolation/

Also, for UKIP to come second when the Tories appear to be fully delivering on Brexit is a great result for them.  Once Brexit gets harder to deliver than strong soundbites are now, people who think it should be straight forward and easy might well drift to UKIP.  If there is then disenchantment from euro-sceptic Tories and Labour are still a basket case, it could be happy days for UKIP.

I see your point but this was Ukip's chance to make progress and they've blown it.  They may come back later but any momentum they have now has gone.

[Bob8]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

I see your point but this was Ukip's chance to make progress and they've blown it.  They may come back later but any momentum they have now has gone.

Considering their leader is rubbish and that UKIP's raison d'être has apparently disappeared, I do not see this as the big chance.  It might be they never get one, but if the Brexit path proves rocky it might well happen.

[Trojan]

To lose a seat they have held for 80 years is a disaster for Labour.  At a time when the people who the Labour party was created to help are suffering the consequences of this ruthless Tory government, Corbyn has failed them miserably.

There was a tacit majority in the Commons to oppose the Brexit bill, and Corbyn failed to give the leadership to this majority

There are riots in our prisons due to the Tory cuts. Corbyn says nothing  Social care in the community is in mess due to the Tory cuts. Crobyn says nothing

But top of the list is the increase in deaths due to disinvestment in the NHS.

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2017/excess_deaths_2015_failures_health_social_care.html

The Tories clearly have a plan for the problem of how to pay for increased longevity in the population, and that is to put an end to it.

Corbyn should be making these points.  He isn't.  He has to go.

As Craig posted some time ago, the Tories could dismantle the NHS before his eyes and Corbyn would be incapable of rousing any worthwhile protest.

[Saint Toppy]

Wow, Copeland is a spectacular win for the Tories, one because its a 'safe' labour seat (or was) and secondly because ruling parties just aren't supposed to win new seats. I really do think its the nuclear industry that was the deciding factor. Despite what he says now Corbyn has spent his whole life firmly in the anti-nuclear camp so whatever their local candidate said a local people who's whole livelihoods rely on that industry just wont trust a labour leader who's against their main local industry.

As for Stoke, Labour must be relieved to have clung on, but behind the smiles of victory there must be some seriously worried people in the party. Their majority dropped, their vote share dropped while both the Tories & UKIP saw their vote shares rise.

All the focus this morning will be on Labour, the Tories and UKIP, but the major under-performers for me has to be the LibDems, they were absolutely nowhere in both. Their Copeland performance in particular must be worrying given Farron is in the neighbouring constituency and supposedly understands the needs of Cumbrians

[Bedford Roughyed]

On 2/16/2017 at 11:58 AM, Bedford Roughyed said:

I'm going to go with -

Copeland - Tory

Stoke - Labour

I got an election right!!!!!

[JohnM]

Please may I touch the hem of your coat? ??

[Bedford Roughyed]

6 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

As for Stoke, Labour must be relieved to have clung on, but behind the smiles of victory there must be some seriously worried people in the party. Their majority dropped, their vote share dropped while both the Tories & UKIP saw their vote shares rise.

I'd suggest that the Stoke vote was more anti UKIP/Nuttall than pro labour?  If the Tories had been the 'main' rivals they might of lost that one too.

[ckn]

37 minutes ago, Trojan said:

To lose a seat they have held for 80 years is a disaster for Labour.  At a time when the people who the Labour party was created to help are suffering the consequences of this ruthless Tory government, Corbyn has failed them miserably.

There was a tacit majority in the Commons to oppose the Brexit bill, and Corby failed to give the leadership to this majority

There are riots in our prisons due to the Tory cuts. Corby says nothing  Social care in the community is in mess due to the Tory cuts. Crobyn says nothing

But top of the list is the increase in deaths due to disinvestment in the NHS.

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2017/excess_deaths_2015_failures_health_social_care.html

The Tories clearly have a plan for the problem of how to pay for increased longevity in the population, and that is to put an end to it.

Corbyn should be making these points.  He isn't.  He has to go.

As Craig posted some time ago, the Tories could dismantle the NHS before his eyes and Corbyn would be incapable of rousing any worthwhile protest.

Yesterday morning's news summed up Corbyn's Labour for me.  Tories announce that they'll make reform a formal part of prisons for the first time and actually put forward very sensible and reasonable proposals, Labour shadow minister chimes up with (something like, I can't remember properly) "an unacceptable set of proposals that miss the point".  It might be me just being very prejudiced against the current Shadow Cabinet but it just sounded like protest for protest's sake at the same time as they happily stand on the sidelines cheering through the worst of May's stuff from benefit cuts to NHS dismantlement to Brexit to the ethical disaster of pensions for women (see the WASPI stuff), and so on.  On all of those, the only credible and effective opposition has been from the SNP, a party on the edge of Parliament who can do nothing electorally outside of Scotland, yet I regularly see first-year MPs leading consistent and coherent opposition.  I saw one debate where there was a SNP MP making damn good points about the cuts in the ENGLISH NHS while the Labour MPs (not just front bench) either sat back picking their nails or were absent from the chamber.

Edit: might be time to move this off-topic stuff back to the main Labour thread.  I'll try to get time to do it later today, might be early evening though.

[GeordieSaint]

36 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

All the focus this morning will be on Labour, the Tories and UKIP, but the major under-performers for me has to be the LibDems, they were absolutely nowhere in both. Their Copeland performance in particular must be worrying given Farron is in the neighbouring constituency and supposedly understands the needs of Cumbrians

You've stated that Labour should be worried in Stoke as the Tories and UKIP increased their vote share whilst absolutely ignoring the Lib Dems doubled their vote share in both Stoke and Copeland. Realistically the Lib Dems are never going to challenge Labour or the Tories in many places but let's not ignore their performance has again improved since 2015. 

[Griff9of13]

10 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

You've stated that Labour should be worried in Stoke as the Tories and UKIP increased their vote share whilst absolutely ignoring the Lib Dems doubled their vote share in both Stoke and Copeland. Realistically the Lib Dems are never going to challenge Labour or the Tories in many places but let's not ignore their performance has again improved since 2015. 

I wonder if that's because people see the Lib Dems as the only party to support anti brexit sentiments?

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

Considering their leader is rubbish and that UKIP's raison d'être has apparently disappeared, I do not see this as the big chance.  It might be they never get one, but if the Brexit path proves rocky it might well happen.

This was very much presented as UKIP's big chance. Labour are struggling and Stoke was a strong Brexit area. 

Nuttall failed miserably really, the turnout was appalling but he managed under 6,000 votes in this climate. I'm not saying UKIP are done but it wasn't a good night for them IMO. They were expected to run Labour closer but looking at the final results I think the Tories got more than was anticipated.

McDonnell has come out and stated that it had nothing to do with Corbyn and even suggested it was about the leadership challenges. These leftie dinosaurs are going nowhere.

[Saint Toppy]

21 minutes ago, ckn said:

On all of those, the only credible and effective opposition has been from the SNP, a party on the edge of Parliament who can do nothing electorally outside of Scotland, yet I regularly see first-year MPs leading consistent and coherent opposition.  I saw one debate where there was a SNP MP making damn good points about the cuts in the ENGLISH NHS while the Labour MPs (not just front bench) either sat back picking their nails or were absent from the chamber.

 

Which in itself is both farcical and hypocritical;

a) because the NHS in England is absolutely naff all to do with anyone from Scotland and is a perfect example of why the rules need changing in Westminster to bar Scottish MP's from interfering in anything that Scotland has complete devolved powers over like Education and the NHS.

b ) The NHS in Scotland is in just a big a mess (if not more) than in England & Wales, so an SNP MP to be criticising a Tory party over something they have complete control over in Scotland but have completely ballsed it up themselves is a bit hypocritical

I get your point though about Labour providing absolutely no opposition 

[Futtocks]

A heartening pair of figures from further down the list of results in Stoke:

The Incredible Flying Brick, Official Monster Raving Loony Party, 127 (0.6%), finishing ahead of...
David Furness, British National Party Local People First, 124 (0.59%)

[Wolford6]

UKIP must have thought it would win at Stoke. The turnout and result has left Labour, UKIP and Tory parties with the same sense of unease and dissatisfaction.

[JonM]

4 hours ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

I'd suggest that the Stoke vote was more anti UKIP/Nuttall than pro labour?  If the Tories had been the 'main' rivals they might of lost that one too.

Conservatives were within a few hundred votes of UKIP weren't they? Low turnout for all parties was the big story I'd suggest.

I think you're right that if UKIP does look like making progress, there is a decent majority of voters who will hold their noses and vote for whichever party looks like keeping UKIP out, but it's not clear that happened in Stoke. Expect the same thing to happen in France - if Le Pen wins the first round, people will put aside their differences to make sure she doesn't win the second.

 

[Saintslass]

2 hours ago, Wolford6 said:

UKIP must have thought it would win at Stoke. The turnout and result has left Labour, UKIP and Tory parties with the same sense of unease and dissatisfaction.

I would have thought the Tories were very happy with the Stoke result given that they increased their vote share and votes, while Labour lost vote share and votes.  Labour retained Stoke because the opposition was a three way split between UKIP, Tories (just a few hundred votes behind UKIP) and the LibDems. 

[shaun mc]

Copeland was not a 'safe' Labour seat as some have claimed

And in recent years boundary changes meant it gained some traditional Conservative voters in the Keswick area

 

[Saintslass]

10 minutes ago, shaun mc said:

Copeland was not a 'safe' Labour seat as some have claimed

And in recent years boundary changes meant it gained some traditional Conservative voters in the Keswick area

 

One media outlet showed the % vote share of Labour over the last 20 years.  It definitely looked like a safe Labour seat based on those figures anyway. 

[Niels]

I remember reading am article in the Guardian last month which described it as a safe seat. 

[Bob8]

4 minutes ago, Niels said:

I remember reading am article in the Guardian last month which described it as a safe seat. 

The majority was over 2,000 and when in opposition, that should be utterly safe.