Ship of Fools: Stoke by-election

Thread: Stoke by-election Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020086

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Any thoughts from Shipmates on the upcoming by-election in Stoke? Current wisdom seems to be that UKIP are too disorganised to take it, but current wisdom seems to be pretty flaky these days. What do y'all reckon?

I think there's also a by-election coming up in Cumbria where Labour are thought to be vulnerable to the Conservatives. Any thoughts on that one?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I honestly have no idea what will happen, so much depends on the turnout. I think there are a couple of interesting questions to be asked about Stoke: e.g. will the apparent popularity of UKIP as a party translate as a vote for Nuttall himself? Have UKIP committed to many gaffes to be credible? Now that the EU Referendum has passed, will the Kippers bother to vote, or even transfer to the Tories? Will Labourites rise up en masse to stop UKIP winning? What specifically local issues may sway the campaign? Will aliens swoop down and purloin the ballot boxes? It's all to play for.

In Cumbria (which seems to be receiving far less media coverage), I have a hunch that the LibDems may take quite a lot of votes from Labour, thus opening the door for the Tories to win. On the other hand, ruling parties tend to do badly in by-elections.

In both cases, everything depends on turnout and on the changed situation since the Referendum.

[ 19. February 2017, 13:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

I don't know much about either constituency, but I understand that both voted to leave the EU in last year's referendum. Judging from the soundbites and vox pops on the news from both, I suspect that if they are representative (big if, I know) then Labour are screwed in both, and Corbyn's position as leader will become even more tenuous.

A couple of days ago on the radio news I heard a piece from Stoke, where they interviewed voters on the streets. From that, there was no mention at all of Paul Nuttall and his utter lack of credibility, but nearly everyone was saying that they wanted out of Europe, that they wouldn't vote for a candidate who had favoured Remain (the position of the current Labour candidate, for one), and of those who expressed a party preference all said UKIP rather than the Tories. The presenter of that piece indicated a common suspicion that the Tories were concentrating efforts and resources on the Cumbrian constituency as a more realistic prospect (at the last election, Stoke was Labour 1st, UKIP 2nd about 5K votes behind, and then the Tories 3rd just 55 votes behind UKIP. In Copeland, the Tories were 2nd last time).

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if Paul Nuttall is elected MP, despite his incompetence, lack of credibility and that he was parachuted into the constituency despite having no links to it. I fear it will be Gorgeous George all over again, and the people that lose out most will be the electors of Stoke, who will end up pretty much unrepresented for the duration.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Anonymous Labour MPs are apparently reasonably positive about the response they're getting on the doorstep in Stoke... and of course they're prepping the ground so that if they lose it will be Corbyn's fault and if they win then he'll have had nothing to do with it.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I think Labour will hold on. The fact that there is any uncertainty about that speaks volumes; in normal political times this seat should be safe as houses but these are far from normal times.

People campaigning in the constituency report that Labour is running a very good ground game whereas UKIP are disorganised. Labour supporters on the doorstep mainly staying loyal despite no great love for Corbyn. Nuttall not really cutting through. Turnout likely to be very low.

This is the sort of seat where Corbyn's policy of accepting the decision on Brexit/rolling over and playing dead, should shore up the Labour vote.

Let's face it, UKIP are a one-issue party who now lack an issue, with only one well-known personality.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I have to say that I was intrigued to hear Douglas Carswell (not the person you were thinking of, I know) on "Any Questions" yesterday. Although I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is an intelligent man with a nuanced approach to things. Why on earth did he defect to UKIP?

[ 19. February 2017, 14:45: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

In all normal circumstances, Nuttall ought to be unelectable even to a Parish Council. Since the Trump result, I think he is bound to win.

It would be nice to think otherwise, but 2016 has taken away any faith I had in politics or the wisdom of electorates.

[ 19. February 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I think Carswell mainly defected to UKIP as he is a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad. AIR he is a libertarian free-trader who believes that anyone should be allowed to live and work wherever they can better themselves.

He possible assumed that the referendum result would be a remain win, and therefore UKIP would have continuing appeal.

Well known that he and Farage can't stand one another.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Both should have been fairly safe Labour seats. But, in the current climate I guess all bets are off.

Copeland is the one I'm more familiar with, mainly because I keep an eye on nuclear related news. The largest local employer, by a long way, is Sellafield - which makes the leave vote in the referendum quite anomalous since generally support for Leave was weaker among communities with a higher proportion of higher educated voters and immigrants. The constituency is also one of the likely sites for a new nuclear power station at Moorside (just outside Sellafield), which will be a very substantial boost to the local economy.

Last week Mrs May was in town talking about how important new nuclear power stations are to the UK, and that only the Conservatives have the commitment to new build and will ensure that Moorside is built. At almost exactly the same time, Toshiba (the major investor in the project) was stating that uncertainty over UK membership of Euratom (Mrs May had slipped a comment that the UK would be leaving Euratom into a footnote of the bill authorising her to call Article 50) was of grave concern - and without assurances that the UK nuclear industry will remain within the safety and security provisions of Euratom they would be too concerned about safety issues to invest in UK nuclear industry. Plus, of course, in common with any major technological investment they would need access to the European workforce. I'm not sure how much the electorate in the area realised the extent to which the economy and future investment of the area is tied in with EU membership, with Euratom membership in particular (but, there had been no mention of leaving Euratom prior to a few weeks ago anyway, so that wasn't something that the people of Copeland have expressed their views on yet anyway). I would expect the likelihood of a £10-15 billion invest disappearing is the sort of thing that may well affect minds when it comes to voting.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Last week Mrs May was in town

Which I think tells you how the Copeland result will go. Stoke Central, not so sure.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Liberal Dems are being bullish in Stoke but that's the way they are at the moment, with a surge in membership since the Referendum. I'm not too convinced they have grounds to be and even if they have it could weaken the Labour vote and give Nuttall a chance.

Stoke's an interesting one as, although natural Labour territory, many Labour voters feel let down - and it's not simply a Brexit thing. Tristram Hunt was never very popular in Stoke and the Labour run city council is legendary for its inefficiency - 'Broke and Bent' not Stoke on Trent.

The Stokies deserve better. Their city has been battered for years through no fault of their own. They deserve an even break. Sadly, many see UKIP as a potential answer. My hope would be that there'll be sufficient residual loyalty to Labour to see off Nuttall and his cronies.

The Kippers couldn't organise the proverbial. I'm involved in local politics just up the road from Stoke as the Deep Red gives way to a thin strip of yellow before you get the Deep Blue if Tory Cheshire. So I'm in a liminal place. From what little I've seen of UKIP on the ground they are full of bluster but never follow through - they are as disorganised as disorganised can be.

I just hope that Stoke puts two fingers up to Nuttall. He is a nasty piece of work. A thug.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Liberal Dems are being bullish in Stoke but that's the way they are at the moment, with a surge in membership since the Referendum. I'm not too convinced they have grounds to be and even if they have it could weaken the Labour vote and give Nuttall a chance.

Now, how come the Lib Dems are apparently experiencing a surge in membership, but not really in prospective vote share? They seem stuck on about 11% nationwide. Are they just preaching hard to the converted?

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

Latest odds:

Copeland: Conservative 2/5 Lab 5/2 Rest 40/1 or worse

Stoke: Labour 4/7 UKIP 13/8 Rest 25/1 or worse

Updates here.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

My understanding is that Stoke-on-Trent has shown a fair bit of support for the extreme right over the years and UKIP could well profit from this. My hope is therefore that the Tory vote holds up and keeping UKIP out while making the election a fight between Labour, who are reluctant supporters of Brexit and the LibDems, who are dead against it.

There's just a chance here, as anywhere that with only one anti-Brexit party, the LibDems could win the seat. It is a by-election after all.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There's just a chance here, as anywhere that with only one anti-Brexit party, the LibDems could win the seat. It is a by-election after all.

Well, not the only anti-Brexit party. There are also the Greens, and (not relevant everywhere) the SNP, Plaid and probably some of the NI parties. But, in England I'd concede that in most places the LibDems are by far the strongest anti-Brexit party.

This could be a seat winner for them. If 20% of the electorate in a constituency feel very strongly against Brexit and therefore turn out to vote LibDem that would be a very strong position - with a 50% turnout, 40% of the vote would win most elections. But, it's probably pushing it to get half those who voted Remain to feel so strongly that they'll vote for any party that stands against Brexit; a sizeable proportion of Remain voters have swallowed the "it was the will of the people" lie and consider it a done deal, and therefore will have other criteria to use to decide where to put their cross on the ballot paper.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's what the Lib Dems are hoping for and word is that they are getting a good reception on the doors - but then, the Christian People's Alliance are saying the same. Stoke's a friendly place and people are willing to talk politics ... Although social media round here can get rather fraught.

Most Stokies I know are staunch Labour or else independent ...

But I've not been in to help with the campaign - and I'm Lib Dem in case you're wondering ... Not sure I can this week coming either.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

This appears to be a boost for everyone except UKIP. Looks like it will go to whoever gets their vote out, which usually increases the Tories chances.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Liberal Dems are being bullish in Stoke but that's the way they are at the moment, with a surge in membership since the Referendum. I'm not too convinced they have grounds to be and even if they have it could weaken the Labour vote and give Nuttall a chance.
Now, how come the Lib Dems are apparently experiencing a surge in membership, but not really in prospective vote share? They seem stuck on about 11% nationwide. Are they just preaching hard to the converted?

They still suffer from the scars of collaborating with the enemy in 2010 and betraying our children who want a university education. We have to balance this against the Labour party betraying our children who want to be Europeans. Those of us who want to support them on Europe, still remember how badly we were let down by them.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Labour, who are reluctant supporters of Brexit

I wouldn't call their 3-line whip reluctant. I'd call it opportunistic - playing to the next by-election, never mind the impact on the country.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I find it interesting that some people are still assuming that UKIP voters who no longer want to vote for that party would go to the Tories (or vice-versa). There's strong evidence that - especially in places like Stoke - most UKIP voters are actually disgruntled Labour voters.

Basically, in UK politics as it stands right now, the Tories are the establishment party, Labour are the party that thinks it's for the common people but is being abandoned by them in droves because it's failed them too many times, and UKIP is the populist, anti-establishment party that says all the things those disaffected former Labour voters want to hear. A simple left-right axis may be OK for discussing political theory, but it doesn't really work when it comes to analysing shifts in voter intentions.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Now, how come the Lib Dems are apparently experiencing a surge in membership, but not really in prospective vote share? They seem stuck on about 11% nationwide. Are they just preaching hard to the converted?
They still suffer from the scars of collaborating with the enemy in 2010 and betraying our children who want a university education. We have to balance this against the Labour party betraying our children who want to be Europeans. Those of us who want to support them on Europe, still remember how badly we were let down by them.

Though, as it becomes clearer how they moderated some of the worst evils of the Tories (eg: on welfare reform) I think many of us are moving towards giving them another chance to redeem themselves over tuition fees. If I didn't have the option of voting SNP I'd certainly be thinking about voting LibDem again.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it interesting that some people are still assuming that UKIP voters who no longer want to vote for that party would go to the Tories (or vice-versa). There's strong evidence that - especially in places like Stoke - most UKIP voters are actually disgruntled Labour voters.

Which is why people (most recently Sioni) are saying that a collapse in UKIP support (eg: over the conflicting statements about Hillsborough) is good for everyone - because those disgruntled UKIP voters will not be moving to just one party. Although I expect it won't be all that good for LibDems or Greens, as neither of them are likely to be attractive to former-UKIPers (who would probably object to pro-EU, pro-immigration policies).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Now, how come the Lib Dems are apparently experiencing a surge in membership, but not really in prospective vote share? They seem stuck on about 11% nationwide. Are they just preaching hard to the converted?
They still suffer from the scars of collaborating with the enemy in 2010 and betraying our children who want a university education. We have to balance this against the Labour party betraying our children who want to be Europeans. Those of us who want to support them on Europe, still remember how badly we were let down by them.
Though, as it becomes clearer how they moderated some of the worst evils of the Tories (eg: on welfare reform) I think many of us are moving towards giving them another chance to redeem themselves over tuition fees. If I didn't have the option of voting SNP I'd certainly be thinking about voting LibDem again.

Although ICM in the last hour have got them -2 at 8%, Tories 44 (+2), UKIP 13 (+1), Green 4 (-), and Labour 26 (-1).

YouGov last week had Con 40 (-), Lab 24 (-2), LibDem 11 (-), UKIP 14 (+2), Green 4 (-).

I'm not sure what's going on anymore but other than people who've always voted LibDem anyway signing up to actually join the party it doesn't look much like a movement in their direction.

FWIW you can now get 12/1 on the Tories taking both seats. Don't think it will happen myself, but there's been a big movement in that direction on the betting markets this morning.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm not sure what's going on anymore but other than people who've always voted LibDem anyway signing up to actually join the party it doesn't look much like a movement in their direction.

Yes, I think at present it's mostly LibDem voters joining (or, possibly re-joining) the party rather than any significant number of floating voters moving over to support the LibDems. But, membership is an important step forward - it creates resources to be tapped for election campaigns, more people to knock on doors and get the party noticed. The problem with national polling at the moment is that people aren't generally thinking about how they would vote since it's 3 years 'til the next election. Whereas people actually making a definite choice to do something (like join a party, or leave) may be a much better indicator of how things are swinging.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas people actually making a definite choice to do something (like join a party, or leave) may be a much better indicator of how things are swinging.

Whilst I agree with you there is the massive caveat of course that most people just don't join a political party in the first place. The number of people (on either side) who care either way, even about Brexit, is probably alarmingly small when it comes down to it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

FWIW you can now get 12/1 on the Tories taking both seats. Don't think it will happen myself, but there's been a big movement in that direction on the betting markets this morning.

Me neither but it's a good 12/1 shot, or even 8/1. If it pisses with rain in Stoke then the turn-out factor will do it.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Last week Mrs May was in town
Which I think tells you how the Copeland result will go. Stoke Central, not so sure.

To the surprise of the media, Mrs May has apparently turned up in Stoke this afternoon....

Odds on the Tories winning there are now 10/1 having been out at 33/1 over the weekend.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
To the surprise of the media, Mrs May has apparently turned up in Stoke this afternoon....

Odds on the Tories winning there are now 10/1 having been out at 33/1 over the weekend.

Does this mean she employs doubles like the late Saddam Hussein? I've just seen on the television news here, a picture of her sitting in on the House of Lords debate on Article 50 this afternoon, to make sure their lordships don't think of defying her.

Which one do you think is the real one?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Now, how come the Lib Dems are apparently experiencing a surge in membership, but not really in prospective vote share? They seem stuck on about 11% nationwide. Are they just preaching hard to the converted?

ISTM it's the difference between breadth and depth so to speak - if you take a position which is strongly ideologically focused, then people who believe fervently in that position will support you fervently. If you have a broader position that's a compromise between what different people believe, then you will probably not find many individuals who are rapturously enthusiastic about your programme, but in the aggregate more people will be willing to give it a go.

It's the same dynamic that allows Mr Corbyn to draw massed crowds to his rallies, and to make the Labour Party the largest party by membership in Europe, at the same time as Labour and Mr Corbyn sink like stones in the polls.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
To the surprise of the media, Mrs May has apparently turned up in Stoke this afternoon....

Odds on the Tories winning there are now 10/1 having been out at 33/1 over the weekend.
Does this mean she employs doubles like the late Saddam Hussein? I've just seen on the television news here, a picture of her sitting in on the House of Lords debate on Article 50 this afternoon, to make sure their lordships don't think of defying her.

Which one do you think is the real one?

No, she was indeed in both places. Another reason not to be a politician - the lunatic daily schedules. AIUI she was in the Lords just long enough to ensure her photo got taken.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
To the surprise of the media, Mrs May has apparently turned up in Stoke this afternoon....

Odds on the Tories winning there are now 10/1 having been out at 33/1 over the weekend.
Does this mean she employs doubles like the late Saddam Hussein? I've just seen on the television news here, a picture of her sitting in on the House of Lords debate on Article 50 this afternoon, to make sure their lordships don't think of defying her.

Which one do you think is the real one?
No, she was indeed in both places. Another reason not to be a politician - the lunatic daily schedules. AIUI she was in the Lords just long enough to ensure her photo got taken.

Stoke to London Euston only 90 minutes on the faster trains....

Stoke went quite big for the BNP at a local level in the late 2000s, before they faded away again in the couple of years after the 2010 general election.

I remember being at a district synod in Stoke just after one of the local elections and everyone cheered when it was announced the BNP hadn't won any seats.

This page gives a good account of the BNP in Stoke

As for Copeland, Corbyn's opposition to nuclear seems to be a big factor, on account of it being heavily dependent on that industry.

Posted by Cenobite (# 14853) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Liberal Dems are being bullish in Stoke but that's the way they are at the moment, with a surge in membership since the Referendum. I'm not too convinced they have grounds to be and even if they have it could weaken the Labour vote and give Nuttall a chance.

Stoke's an interesting one as, although natural Labour territory, many Labour voters feel let down - and it's not simply a Brexit thing. Tristram Hunt was never very popular in Stoke and the Labour run city council is legendary for its inefficiency - 'Broke and Bent' not Stoke on Trent.

The Stokies deserve better. Their city has been battered for years through no fault of their own. They deserve an even break. Sadly, many see UKIP as a potential answer. My hope would be that there'll be sufficient residual loyalty to Labour to see off Nuttall and his cronies.

The Kippers couldn't organise the proverbial. I'm involved in local politics just up the road from Stoke as the Deep Red gives way to a thin strip of yellow before you get the Deep Blue if Tory Cheshire. So I'm in a liminal place. From what little I've seen of UKIP on the ground they are full of bluster but never follow through - they are as disorganised as disorganised can be.

I just hope that Stoke puts two fingers up to Nuttall. He is a nasty piece of work. A thug.

One reason Tristram Hunt was never popular here is because he was 'parachuted' in as the candidate. Stokies (and I know, being married to one!) are generally more likely to vote for a local person than someone who is seen (whether fairly or not) as an opportunist after a 'safe' seat.

Which is why I think that, although there is a lot of media attention on Nuttall, and a significant amount of Stoke-on-Trent voted for Brexit, Gareth Snell's local roots, combined with this being traditional Labour heartland, will be enough to see Labour win the seat.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

Strong winds and heavy rain forecast for Thursday. That'll help the Tories, who I predict will walk both elections. May still looks strong to the uneducated eye, something which cannot be said of any other leader. They'll win both seats.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I read that as the Tories "walking TO" both elections and wondered why that would affect the result so beneficially!

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

I do not believe there are a sufficient number of Conservative votes in Stoke to win it. I predict a UKIP victory.

I believe there are a sufficient number of Conservative votes in Copeland to win it and I think that is what will happen.

I suspect that Jeremy Corbyn is not super-interested in increasing Labour's vote share. I suspect he is by inclination SR rather than SD, albeit in a mild sort of way. I suspect this is not a strategy that will yield great dividends, except perhaps to UKIP.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What do SR and SD stand for please?

Apart from that, I agree. I think noxious Nuttall will win in Stoke and the Conservatives in Copeland. In both the turnout will be low and the majorities will not be very large. Nuttall's victory will be determined as much by the number of normal Labour voters who decline to vote at all as by the number that actually switch to him. It's quite touch and go who will come second in Stoke.

[ 22. February 2017, 19:34: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Erm... I may be using terms rather loosely here, but by SR I mean a socialist revolutionary in contrast to a social democrat or SD.

I think Corbyn (and Momentum) believe that change will come not primarily by Parliamentary means but by means of a mass external movement (perhaps based around the unions and/or Labour party). Hence the apparent half-heartedness about seeking electoral success.

I think such an approach would be very unlikely to succeed - the grassroots zeal, I believe, just isn't there in the same way as it might have been 100 years ago.

Anyway, I could be completely wrong - maybe he doesn't think like that at all.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Normally, when a government has a slim majority, we talk about that majority being eroded by by-elections until the government loses the confidence of the house.

The fact that we're seriously entertaining the possibility of May's majority being increased by a by-election shows what bizarre times we are living through, and how unequal to those times the current opposition leader is.

Sounds like Copeland may well be lost. I still think Labour will hold Stoke, just, and Corbyn will continue to bumble along. That would be the dream result for May - if Stoke falls to UKIP, even Corbyn might finally throw in the towel, and she won't want that.

Posted by decampagne (# 17012) on :

It seems probable - not quite certain - that the Tories will win Copeland - which in many ways would an extraordinary event, historically; in terms of how seldom governing parties win by-elections: I think the last time was in 1982.

Stoke? I'd expect Labour to just about retain that, despite their candidate being fairly dreadful: UKIP have run a shocking, embarrassing campaign, with their candididate, the party's newly elected leader, revealed to have rather a lose grip on truth. (So much so, in fact, that I'd not rule out Nigel Farage returning, yet again, as the party's leader within a few months). The Tories have not been putting so much effort into campaigning in Stoke as they have been in Copeland - it would be even more extraordinary were they to win such an urban, deprived, seat, at this time. The fact that Theresa May has been there (as she has to Copeland) this week suggests there could be an outside chance of Tory victory though. But i think the most likely outcome is a close result, with Labour first, UKIP 2nd, Tories 3rd, everyone else a long way behind.

Corbyn will almost certainly stay where he is either way.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I do not believe there are a sufficient number of Conservative votes in Stoke to win it. I predict a UKIP victory.

I believe there are a sufficient number of Conservative votes in Copeland to win it and I think that is what will happen.

If everyone turned out to vote in the Stoke by-election then the Tories would not win it, not between now and The Second Coming. If however, the Tories vote while the Labour and UKIP vote sit at home grumbling then they could well win it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Sounds like Copeland may well be lost. I still think Labour will hold Stoke, just, and Corbyn will continue to bumble along. That would be the dream result for May - if Stoke falls to UKIP, even Corbyn might finally throw in the towel, and she won't want that.

The prospect of a govenrment led by Arthur Calwell was worth many votes to the Liberal Party under Robert Menzies. Calwell was for the most part (not in his support for the White Australia policy) a decent and honourable man but electoral disaster.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I do not believe there are a sufficient number of Conservative votes in Stoke to win it. I predict a UKIP victory.

I believe there are a sufficient number of Conservative votes in Copeland to win it and I think that is what will happen.

If everyone turned out to vote in the Stoke by-election then the Tories would not win it, not between now and The Second Coming. If however, the Tories vote while the Labour and UKIP vote sit at home grumbling then they could well win it.

It's interesting how the mood in Tory circles has changed over the last few weeks. Two or three weeks ago, most were saying that we can win Copeland but Stoke is a lost cause. Today, the general mood seems to be that both are very much in play. We'll see...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:

Sounds like Copeland may well be lost. I still think Labour will hold Stoke, just, and Corbyn will continue to bumble along. That would be the dream result for May - if Stoke falls to UKIP, even Corbyn might finally throw in the towel, and she won't want that.

And you were right. The Tories won Copeland:

Trudy Harrison (C) 13,748 (44.25%, +8.46%)
Gillian Troughton (Lab) 11,601 (37.34%, -4.92%)

and Labour keep Stoke

Gareth Snell (Lab) 7,853 (37.09%, -2.22%)
Paul Nuttall (UKIP) 5,233 (24.72%, +2.07%)
Jack Brereton (C) 5,154 (24.35%, +1.80%)
Zulfiqar Ali (LD) 2,083 (9.84%, +5.67%)

General story? The Lib Dems gained back some of the votes they lost in their 2015 shellacking. Other than that, Stoke was close to a re-run of the 2015 election, whereas in Copeland the Conservatives were big winners, and Labour and the Kippers both big losers (Labour lost 5 points; UKIP lost 9 points).

A pretty good day for Mrs. May, really.

[ 24. February 2017, 05:37: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cenobite was right. I heard similar comments from local Labour activists here over the last day or two. They were pretty confident from the reception they were getting on the doors.

Yes, their percentage was down but a good result for Labour and for Stoke itself I think, even though Labour hasn't done very well by The Potteries in recent years.

I do wonder whether Nuttall's holed below the waterline ...

May will be pleased with the result. The Tories always knew they wouldn't be able to take Stoke but they'll be bolstered by Copeland.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Usual caveats about extrapolating by-election results to national politics apply, but it's difficult to see this as anything but very good news indeed for the Tories.

Terrible for Labour and UKIP. The Lib Dems will be pleased about beating UKIP in Copeland, and not being annihilated in Stoke, the "capital of Brexit".

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I despair. Politically I have nowhere to go. Labour in disarray, no other credible alternatives. For now the Right have won the propaganda war and we just have to wait until enough people have been shafted by them and actually realise it instead of blaming Europe and Schroedinger's Immigrant.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Usual caveats about extrapolating by-election results to national politics apply, but it's difficult to see this as anything but very good news indeed for the Tories.

Indeed - the turnout in Stoke was utterly abysmal though - something like 1 in 3 voters.

What's really interesting is that the Tories managed to run a 25 year old paper candidate to within 70-odd votes of UKIP without really trying.

Plan A had been to focus on Copeland and quietly play down Stoke so as to keep Corbyn in place (and because rationally the Tories were unlikely to win there anyway).

Apparently on the doorsteps the Tories in Stoke were getting their best hearing for years so suddenly people got a bit more optimistic. Creditable third without money or manpower being used will gee up Tories standing in Labour marginals no end I would have thought.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though no outstanding success for UKIP can only be a good thing, it makes practically little difference while Mrs May leads the Tories into becoming UKIP clones. And, that this racist inspired little-Englander narrow minded stupidity is an election winning formula is a depressing thought, and is not a good thing for the country. I just hope the country wakes up and gains some common sense come 2020, though that will also need a credible Labour leader (and, much as I admire his political views, Corbyn has been a failure when it comes to inspiring confidence in his leadership).

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I do wonder to what extent the Copeland folk were worried by Corbyn's anti-nuclear stance (which FWIW I support)? After all, Sellafield is the big employer in the area and people are frightened of losing their jobs?

Same thing would be true around Barrow-in-Furness.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do wonder to what extent the Copeland folk were worried by Corbyn's anti-nuclear stance (which FWIW I support)? After all, Sellafield is the big employer in the area and people are frightened of losing their jobs?

Same thing would be true around Barrow-in-Furness.

Truer in Barrow I think - because they're building nuclear submarines.

Sellafield's a different kettle of fish because you can't just switch off a nuclear site and walk away. Even if they built nothing new in Sellafield, continued decommissioning work on Windscale/Calder Hall and the reprocessing facilities would keep most of them in work for a good few decades yet.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I do wonder to what extent the Copeland folk were worried by Corbyn's anti-nuclear stance (which FWIW I support)? After all, Sellafield is the big employer in the area and people are frightened of losing their jobs?

Same thing would be true around Barrow-in-Furness.
Truer in Barrow I think - because they're building nuclear submarines.

Sellafield's a different kettle of fish because you can't just switch off a nuclear site and walk away. Even if they built nothing new in Sellafield, continued decommissioning work on Windscale/Calder Hall and the reprocessing facilities would keep most of them in work for a good few decades yet.

By the way Alan do please correct me if I've got that wrong - just based on my experience of the naval nuclear scene.

Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :

Barrow did go Tory in the 1983 election at the time that the Trident submarines were being built, but that was as much down to the SDP splitting the "socialist" vote as concern for job preservation.

At the time the Shipyard employed about 15,000 people (in a town of about 60,000) but that's now down to about 3,000 - so now it might not be as much of an issue as it was in the eighties.

Labour has been back in control for the last twenty years.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

More significant than Sellafield, which as noted what will continue to be a big employer for a generation or more, would be Moorside - potential for a new major employer, short term in construction, but with a large workforce for 60+ years.

Whereas Corbyn is strongly opposed to nuclear weapons, his position on nuclear power is less clear. His leadership campaign (first time round) came down as not seeing the need for new nuclear power plants, more recently he's been more favourable to the idea though without specifically backing any particular scheme.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I suspect, though, that you can't rigidly separate the "civil" from "military" uses of nuclear at Sellafield. (I've just been having this conversation with my wife!)

Moorside I didn't know about.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm very relieved to have been proved wrong on my foreboding about ghastly Nuttall.

The second story from Stoke, of course is that the turnout was so appalling, 36.7%. That's almost identical (37.1%) to the proportion of those who did vote, who cast for the successful candidate. Mathematically, the first figure is much larger than the second (just over ⅓ voted as against just over ⅓ of ⅓ voted for Mr Snell, a ⅑)

Does one conclude that nearly ⅔ of the population of central Stoke don't care who represents them? Or doesn't think it makes any difference? Or thinks all the candidates, and there were 10 of them, were all such rubbish that they weren't prepared to prefer one over another? Or have chosen to engage in a principled boycott of the poll (a concept that IMHO is a pointless waste of time)? Or what? There is no way of knowing.

Alan, I agree with you if you are implying that you can't see what the point of UKIP is now the Conservatives have pinched their underpants.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I despair. Politically I have nowhere to go. Labour in disarray, no other credible alternatives. For now the Right have won the propaganda war and we just have to wait until enough people have been shafted by them and actually realise it instead of blaming Europe and Schroedinger's Immigrant.

I just read that John McDonnell has denied being in denial about Copeland. I can't quite see how Labour's going to get it together any time soon.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I despair. Politically I have nowhere to go. Labour in disarray, no other credible alternatives. For now the Right have won the propaganda war and we just have to wait until enough people have been shafted by them and actually realise it instead of blaming Europe and Schroedinger's Immigrant.

I went through the despair a while ago, when the right wing did their revolt against Corbyn. There is nothing to do but wait now. I'm not sure where Labour is going to go, but then I am not sure about anything in politics, or in fact, anything at all! There is a curious comfort in that, I suppose.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Sidiq Khan and rent to buy. In 2026 ... What can May possibly lose on? The electorate vote for a change as often as they punish.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It presumably hinges on Brexit. If it works, more or less, the Tories are home free. If it's a big mess, not. There is also the electoral cycle, which normally projects one main party as unelectable for a period.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Apparently the last time a governing party won an opposition seat in a by-election with a swing of this magnitude was the Worcester by-election of March 1878.

It's not the biggest government win since Thatcher's time, it's the biggest since Disraeli's.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It presumably hinges on Brexit. If it works, more or less, the Tories are home free. If it's a big mess, not. There is also the electoral cycle, which normally projects one main party as unelectable for a period.

FWIW it has worked. Moreover, it has achieved what David Cameron wanted, namely to prevent Tories defecting to UKIP from an overwhelmingly pro-EU Tory party. Maybe it didn't happen quite as he planned, but happen it did.

I'm coming round to the idea that I'll not see anything other than Tory governments in my lifetime.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye it has worked. Well said.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm very relieved to have been proved wrong on my foreboding about ghastly Nuttall.

The second story from Stoke, of course is that the turnout was so appalling, 36.7%. That's almost identical (37.1%) to the proportion of those who did vote, who cast for the successful candidate. Mathematically, the first figure is much larger than the second (just over ⅓ voted as against just over ⅓ of ⅓ voted for Mr Snell, a ⅑)

Does one conclude that nearly ⅔ of the population of central Stoke don't care who represents them? Or doesn't think it makes any difference? Or thinks all the candidates, and there were 10 of them, were all such rubbish that they weren't prepared to prefer one over another? Or have chosen to engage in a principled boycott of the poll (a concept that IMHO is a pointless waste of time)? Or what? There is no way of knowing.
*snip*

Having in my misspent kyouth campaigned in by-elections, I can suggest two factors you did not mention;
1) that many voters are not aware that there is a byelection-- shocking as this may seem to those of us who are news junkies and who follow public matters, there are many who pay no attention to the news (e.g., I only listen to C&W/hiphop etc) or who are so focussed on their own preoccupations (e.g., I am trying to manage two kids and take care of my mother-in-law and hold down a job-- why do you think I have time for this?); or
2) they do not believe that by-elections are important, as their votes are focussed on either supporting a PM they like, or throwing out one they dislike. Local MPs are never important enough to bother about.

These sectors of the population are rather bigger than we might like to think.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It presumably hinges on Brexit. If it works, more or less, the Tories are home free. If it's a big mess, not. There is also the electoral cycle, which normally projects one main party as unelectable for a period.
FWIW it has worked. Moreover, it has achieved what David Cameron wanted, namely to prevent Tories defecting to UKIP from an overwhelmingly pro-EU Tory party. Maybe it didn't happen quite as he planned, but happen it did.

I'm coming round to the idea that I'll not see anything other than Tory governments in my lifetime.

I am a bit more sanguine. I remember when Blair was winning elections, and journos were writing articles about the Tories being unelectable. I think Mrs May is on a roll, true, much of it smoke and mirrors. But so is everything in politics.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The second story from Stoke, of course is that the turnout was so appalling, 36.7%.

Stoke hasn't had a turnout much over 50% this century. It had the lowest turnout of the country in 2015. Copeland had a 51% turnout; the 12 point deficit vs the 2015 election was almost the same as Stoke.

By-elections always have bad turnout. Hilary Benn won Leeds Central in '99 on a 19.6% turnout. Lucy Powell won Manchester Central for Labour on 2012 on a 16.4% turnout. Granted, those ones were pretty much dead certs, but even in closely-contested seats, by-election turnout is usually poor.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I despair. Politically I have nowhere to go. Labour in disarray, no other credible alternatives. For now the Right have won the propaganda war and we just have to wait until enough people have been shafted by them and actually realise it instead of blaming Europe and Schroedinger's Immigrant.

I think that's pretty much spot on Karl. The Tories have played a very good game with the EU nonsense. They either leave themselves open to more disarray from the Eurosceptics, or they go with the vote and sell it as "the will of the people". The Euro-enthusiasts, with only one exception, have sacrificed Europe for a united party. In doing so, they've exposed the split in the Labour party.
The opposition either has to re-group and start pulling together (and in the opposite direction from the government), or we have to start again with a new party of opposition. Neither of those things seem possible before the 2020 GE. It now looks like we will actually have left the EU by that date, and we'll probably get an early election to take advantage of the honeymoon before the reality sets in: with a Tory landslide.
I can only echo Karl: I despair.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Surely you should get behind the Lib Dems then?

[ 24. February 2017, 16:45: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

If you think EU membership is the most important issue facing the UK today, then Mr Corbyn has never been your man. This is the guy who voted against Maastricht, voted against Lisbon, and went on holibobs at the critical part of the referendum campaign.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Surely you should get behind the Lib Dems then?

4th place with less than 10% in Stoke; 7.25% in Copeland. Hardly compelling. At least they've got the guts to stand up for the 75% who didn't vote to leave the EU, but UKIP have far more power than the Libdems, even without any mps or an effective leader.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I'm starting to think that Brexit has been "priced in", and people are looking for a reassuring leader in difficult times.

More by luck than judgement, the Tories have found someone whose dour, no-nonsense demeanour is going down well with most sections of the electorate. Sick of Blair and Blair clones like Cameron, the British people seem to quite like May. Even if (when?) the economy turns bad, even if (when?) Brexit turns out to be a disaster, there's a sort of Dunkirk spirit abroad and May has captured it brilliantly.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
there's a sort of Dunkirk spirit abroad and May has captured it brilliantly.

That's the most depressing bit...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I'm starting to think that Brexit has been "priced in", and people are looking for a reassuring leader in difficult times.

More by luck than judgement, the Tories have found someone whose dour, no-nonsense demeanour is going down well with most sections of the electorate. Sick of Blair and Blair clones like Cameron, the British people seem to quite like May. Even if (when?) the economy turns bad, even if (when?) Brexit turns out to be a disaster, there's a sort of Dunkirk spirit abroad and May has captured it brilliantly.

That's insightful. I sometimes think that some people hope that Brexit is fucking uncomfortable, because the English are good at that! Cold showers, cold beds, lumpy porridge, being caned for being late - ah, it's the nostalgia that gets me.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's insightful. I sometimes think that some people hope that Brexit is fucking uncomfortable, because the English are good at that! Cold showers, cold beds, lumpy porridge, being caned for being late - ah, it's the nostalgia that gets me.

I've heard Liam Fox say as much - a man who's consistently even wronger than Boris, if such be possible.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
It now looks like we will actually have left the EU by that date [2020], and we'll probably get an early election to take advantage of the honeymoon before the reality sets in: with a Tory landslide.

It is looking more and more like any chance of slowing Brexit, let alone reversing the fascist agenda that May has set, has evaporated. Not a single amendment from the Lords, a very perfunctory "debate" in the Commons, not even a decent length white paper for us to mull over. So, being out of the EU by 2020 is a depressingly certain event.

But, having said that the only realistic chance of an early general election is before Brexit, as an opportunity for the UK electorate to have a say on the intentions of the current government - which we deserve, having both been denied a direct say in a referendum on the particular plan and having been let down by our elected representatives refusal to actually debate the issue. If the government don't call a pre-Brexit general election for us to have our say then they have nothing to justify anything other than sticking with the fixed term. Would a year after Brexit still be considered a honeymoon? Or would it be obvious by then what an unmitigated disaster it all is (of course, many of us can see that even now) and a LibDem/SNP/PC/Green platform of re-entering the EU would look very attractive? Certainly if we do actually leave the EU then any party seeking to re-enter the EU asap would have my vote.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
having both been denied a direct say in a referendum on the particular plan and having been let down by our elected representatives refusal to actually debate the issue.

I wouldn't hope for a general election any time soon if I were you. The likes of the discredited Tony Blair and the oily shyster Peter Mandelson claim, as you do, that there was no mandate for the type of Brexit which the Prime Minister is proposing. I disagree, but would you doubt that Mrs May would secure a hefty endorsement of her position were she to call an election soon? Look at Copeland! She'd sweep the board.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure where Labour is going to go

Well it isn't heading for power unless it dumps its loony left leadership. It's being reported that many potential voters said, on the doorsteps, that they will never vote Labour while Corbyn is in charge. It's a pity that Labour hasn't learned from its own history. After near oblivion in 1983, it ditched its numpty leader Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock began the process of rehabilitating the party be expelling the Marxist Militant Tendency. But it still took them more than a decade to return to power. The reason isn't difficult to see. Corbyn may be the darling of his grass roots supporters, but to the rest of us, he's unelectible, and always will be, as was Foot. It isn't rocket science to see this.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
having both been denied a direct say in a referendum on the particular plan and having been let down by our elected representatives refusal to actually debate the issue.
I wouldn't hope for a general election any time soon if I were you. The likes of the discredited Tony Blair and the oily shyster Peter Mandelson claim, as you do, that there was no mandate for the type of Brexit which the Prime Minister is proposing. I disagree, but would you doubt that Mrs May would secure a hefty endorsement of her position were she to call an election soon? Look at Copeland! She'd sweep the board.

Oh, I know. Without an Opposition capable of opposing and providing an alternative to the government position - even a different version of Brexit, let alone the stay in the EU option - then an election will be a foregone conclusion. But, at least it will mean that we'll get to discuss the issues, a general election campaign being too short to do it justice but it's better than nothing.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, at least it will mean that we'll get to discuss the issues, a general election campaign being too short to do it justice

I've thought, ever since Mrs May became Prime Minister, that she should call a general election, because she has no personal mandate as Prime Minister. It isn't, of course, required. Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair without an election, as did Jim Callaghan from Harold Wilson. But now that I am convinced that she'd win a landslide, I see her small parliamentary majority as the best option for holding the government to account, both in Brexit and all other government legislation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A small majority is more than adequate when the Opposition doesn't oppose.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, at least it will mean that we'll get to discuss the issues

The last six or seven months have hardly suffered a lack of discussion of the various issues around Brexit. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, at least it will mean that we'll get to discuss the issues
The last six or seven months have hardly suffered a lack of discussion of the various issues around Brexit. Quite the reverse, in fact.

Rather a shame then that all this serious debate has taken place after the vote. The complacency of the Remain campaign did nothing to persuade people of the disadvantages of leaving the EU, let alone the falsehoods put about by the Leave campaign.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Nigel Farage says UKIP failed to win in Stoke because they didn't campaign enough on immigration. That tells us something about UKIP, but even more about Farage.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, at least it will mean that we'll get to discuss the issues
The last six or seven months have hardly suffered a lack of discussion of the various issues around Brexit. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Rather a shame then that all this serious debate has taken place after the vote. The complacency of the Remain campaign did nothing to persuade people of the disadvantages of leaving the EU, let alone the falsehoods put about by the Leave campaign.

We've not really had much serious discussion since the referendum. Trying to get those who support Leave to engage in discussion without them making exclamations of "you lost, get over it" or calling us Remoaners has not been easy, and that's even the case when the discussion is over whether a particular form of Brexit is better than another let alone what happens when you point out that the referendum result must (by virtue of being so close) mean that the Remain vote would be larger than the fraction of Leave voters who would have supported any particular version of Brexit. There have been lots of words said and written, but a dearth of dialogue. The discussion in newspaper/blog comments has been important, but we also need a decent Parliamentary discussion - in which the option of "if no Leave plan works then we stay" is on the table. Much, much more than the few hours so far.

As far as the pre-referendum discussion, it suffered several problems (which affected both sides), most importantly insufficient time. Without a significant political or popular movement for leaving the EU (ie: it was the view of a few fringe political parties, and a few known rebels in the Tories) we hadn't had the years and decades of discussion through the processes of the election cycle. This meant that we had no real idea of what Leave would look like (or, rather what Leave wanted it to look like) - so, nothing solid for the Leave campaign to promote, and a constantly moving target Remain couldn't hit. I don't think anyone can seriously fault the Remain campaign for failing to point out the disadvantages of Leaving - it wouldn't have picked up the 'Project Fear' tag so easily if it had. Not to forget the lies, I'm not sure anyone could have believed that there would be £350m for the NHS after the amount of information provided that showed a) there was £350m anyway and b) even if there was there would be other areas which would need UK tax money to replace EU funds. Where the main Remain campaign failed was in presenting the advantages of EU membership - which should have been easier as this is known, compared to trying to hit the moving target of the latest Leave ideas.

Part of the problem was, of course, that both sides had swallowed wholesale the lies repeated for a decade or more that immigration is a problem - as is often said, a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth. The Tories in particular have tied their wagon to an arbitrary and economically/socially damaging immigration cap - and then had no answer to the fact that remaining in the EU would make achieving that cap almost impossible.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

So long as people think too much immigration is a problem then it's a problem.
The significant thing with both these by Elections is the pitifully low turnout. The Electorate disconnect which caused the Brexit vote (70% turnout) is still there. If TM isn't able to take a tough line on immigration then chances are it will come to bite the Tory butt eventually.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Hmmm - the word "it's" is slippery there, rolyn. You should say: "As long as people think immigration is a problem, that thought is a problem".

It may or may not be the case that levels of immigration are a problem. But even if immigration were cut to zero, or were sub-zero, a lot of people would still think that immigration was a problem and would complain about immigration.

Those thoughts would remain a problem.

(Partly, they would switch to complaining about immigration that has already happened. I guess they would want that reversed.)

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Where the main Remain campaign failed was in presenting the advantages of EU membership -

The problem here is that the Remain campaign was lead (nominally) by David Cameron, who had hardly been an unqualified enthusiast for the EU during his 10 years as Tory leader. For him to suddenly come over all Euro-smitten would have been a pose too far, even for that cynical belief-free faker.

To return to topic, Corbyn's apparent indifference to electoral disaster is starting to annoy me intensely. It is becoming clear that he and his cronies don't regard parliamentary democracy as the main route to effecting change in this country. In which case they should resign their parliamentary seats, go off and be community organisers or some such, and leave the grown-up stuff to people who care a damn.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Hmmm - the word "it's" is slippery there, rolyn. You should say: "As long as people think immigration is a problem, that thought is a problem".

It may or may not be the case that levels of immigration are a problem. But even if immigration were cut to zero, or were sub-zero, a lot of people would still think that immigration was a problem and would complain about immigration.

Those thoughts would remain a problem.

(Partly, they would switch to complaining about immigration that has already happened. I guess they would want that reversed.)

I agree with your analysis.
It's the fact that the *thought* is out there, has been planted there, or whatever. And the problem is that it has found populist favour and that feeling will be very hard to shift.

I'm sure we haven't seen the last of a rebranded Nigel F yet.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't think there has been all that much discussion, post-referendum. How many people understand what the single market, EEA, the customs union, harmonization of regulations, divergence of regulations, mean?

The government are not busting a gut to inform people, and neither the opposition.

I do wonder if the people doing the negotiations will be well-informed, you have to hope so.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
To return to topic, Corbyn's apparent indifference to electoral disaster is starting to annoy me intensely. It is becoming clear that he and his cronies don't regard parliamentary democracy as the main route to effecting change in this country. In which case they should resign their parliamentary seats, go off and be community organisers or some such, and leave the grown-up stuff to people who care a damn.

It's interesting that you're starting to think this now. Was it not clear to you (in some way or other) when he was first elected?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've expressed views on Corbyn on these threads before. Nothing has happened in recent months to change those views. IMHO, 'complete waste of space' is being unfairly complimentary. The fact that he seems to regard quite a clever point he recently thought he'd made about funding and Surrey County Council as the big issue of the moment says so much about him. It's a complete blind for all the things that a real opposition would be doing and he isn't interested in.

I also don't see where the idea that he's a man of high principles comes from - or is 'high principles' nothing to do with the moral calibre of one's life and just a euphemism for being unimaginatively dogmatic?

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
To return to topic, Corbyn's apparent indifference to electoral disaster is starting to annoy me intensely. It is becoming clear that he and his cronies don't regard parliamentary democracy as the main route to effecting change in this country. In which case they should resign their parliamentary seats, go off and be community organisers or some such, and leave the grown-up stuff to people who care a damn.
It's interesting that you're starting to think this now. Was it not clear to you (in some way or other) when he was first elected?

When he first became leader I was willing to give him a chance to make a go of it. That chance expired around the time of the referendum result; his ham-fisted speech calling for article 50 to be triggered immediately was the last straw for me.

These by-elections are proof, if any more were needed, that Labour cannot win under Corbyn. More than that, there is growing evidence that Corbyn doesn't care that Labour can't win under Corbyn.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've expressed views on Corbyn on these threads before. Nothing has happened in recent months to change those views. IMHO, 'complete waste of space' is being unfairly complimentary. The fact that he seems to regard quite a clever point he recently thought he'd made about funding and Surrey County Council as the big issue of the moment says so much about him. It's a complete blind for all the things that a real opposition would be doing and he isn't interested in.

Nailing the tories to the wall on health and social care ought to be the big issue of the day, but for whatever reason the public don't seem to care.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Nailing the tories to the wall on health and social care ought to be the big issue of the day, but for whatever reason the public don't seem to care.

The main reason is that he's so deathly silent and unconvincing on Brexit that it makes even the valid points he makes about other things look trivial, fiddling while Rome burns, an assortment of distraction mechanisms.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Yes. I wonder why. It would have been much better for him to come out strongly one way, or the other, or at least to state his own position forcefully.

Perhaps he really doesn't know what he thinks about it.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

If Copeland proves to be an electoral canary in a coal mine for Labour, what should they do after Corbyn?

Steady as she goes on the policy front under a different leader (McDonnell? Abbot?) or move back towards the centre?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Go back to the Blairite look and wait for the Electorate to grow weary of the Tories. Hardly principled politics, but if that really is the only way to win the hearts and minds of the voting majority then what choice is there?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Go back to the Blairite look and wait for the Electorate to grow weary of the Tories.

This is Labour's only pathway back to power. It just depends how long it takes them to acknowledge the need to repeat the cleansing process they went through in the 1980's and 90's. The way in which Tony Blair eventually disgraced himself makes it easy to overlook how immensely popular he was in his honeymoon years. I haven't always voted Labour, but I was at the most ecstatic in my whole life, politically speaking, when Blair won in 1997. Labour can and will do it again, but not until it purges itself of its current leadership, and I would certainly include McDonnel and Abbott in that purge.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
If Copeland proves to be an electoral canary in a coal mine for Labour, what should they do after Corbyn?

Steady as she goes on the policy front under a different leader (McDonnell? Abbot?) or move back towards the centre?

These results really are the canary keeling over. I would be the first to say that by-elections have little to do with national politics, and yet...the swings away from Labour in both seats are pretty much what you'd expect given Labour's dire national poll standing.

Previous election results under Corbyn were not as bad as his opponents made them out to be. A couple of anaemic by-election performances, and a mixed bag of locals last year.

Copeland and Stoke are that bad. They are comet hitting the Earth, extinction-level event catastrophic. If there is a general election this spring (and you can bet that May is seriously considering one), Labour are likely to be reduced to a rump of 140-150 MPs, and the Tories will be in power for a generation. By 2022 (May will be hoping), the worst Brexit dust will have settled and our new free-trading, free wheeling economy will be motoring along. (lol)

Personally I would favour a trusted caretaker (Keir Starmer?) who understood that his/her role was to lead the party to defeat (rather than catastrophe) at the next election, whilst bringing on the next generation of leaders. Hopefully Labour would then have several viable candidates who would be able to take advantage of the next electoral cycle. No party stays in power for ever, Labour is currently going through its Ian Duncan Smith phase.

All this is best-case stuff, and is contingent on Corbyn going or being removed, I think when his union backers see how bad things are and see that there are competent left-leaning candidates who could lead the party, they may start putting pressure on him.

The above will be in May's thoughts as well, and add up to more reasons why she should go for a snap post-article 50 election whilst Corbyn is still the leader.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A question and a thought.

1. Knowing that the Coalition brought in 5-year fixed term Governments, does May have the freedom to call a snap election?

2. The huge difference between Labour's present situation and both its own in the Foot years and the Tories' in the IDS years, is surely the rise of the SNP. This means that Labour are almost inevitably doomed to lose any future national election, irrespective of leader, unless they get a 1945-style landslide. [Frown]

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Lord Desai introduced a bill to repeal the fixed-term parliament act in the Lords last September. I don't know what the story is with this, and it has yet to have a second reading, but presumably if it received full government backing it could be fast-tracked into law.

However it is done, the FTPA was very much of its time: it was brought in to prevent either of the coalition parties pulling the rug from under the other. Parliament passed it and parliament could repeal it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, yes, an Act of Parliament can repeal the fixed term act. But, at present the fixed term act is in effect - and, an act moving slowly through the Lords not withstanding I'm seeing no real desire among politicians to repeal it.

There was commentary in the summer to the effect that Parliament could quite rapidly pass a one-time exemption to allow an early election without actually repealing the act. But, that would be under extraordinary circumstances - the one under discussion in the summer was to give the voters a say on who would take forward a major constitutional change that was not included in the manifesto of either government nor opposition parties, and would not be easily reversed by future governments (ie: leaving the EU). The government rejected the option of an early general election then, it's too late to try for an early general election on those grounds now (even though I personally consider it to be a sound option). My guess would be a vote of no-confidence in the government could be quickly followed by a vote calling for an early election - but since the total incompetence with which the current government have gone about things hasn't resulted in such an outcome I would consider that to be highly unlikely.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
when his union backers see how bad things are and see that there are competent left-leaning candidates who could lead the party, they may start putting pressure on him.

Mr Prentis of Unison has already put him on a final warning. Meanwhile Momentum seems to be imploding into People's Front of Judaea-style infighting.

I understand that at a local level the Corbynistas, despite their numerical superiority, have generally failed to get their candidates into the sort of positions that would allow deselections to take place, because too many of them are clicktivists who aren't interested in the nuts and bolts of politics. Plus he has lost support from those who thought that progressivism implied a stronger commitment to Europe than Mr Corbyn offered, even though Mr Corbyn's voting record on the matter is hardly a secret or a Blairite smear.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Corbyn's days are surely numbered.

If Theresa May wants an early general election, we will have one. She strikes me as a lady who takes her time over the big decisions, but once she's decided, she gets what she wants.

There would, of course be early warnings in the form of legislative machinery to circumvent or overturn the (now very inconvenient) Fixed Term Parliament Act. This would concentrate minds in the Labour movement; there would be enough time for the union bosses to elbow Corbyn aside and install a more voter-friendly caretaker. Labour wouldn't win, but they might thereby avoid plunging into the abyss.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

One note from family in the area:

Don't underestimate the amount of people who live in Barrow and work at Sellafield. Won't help Labour one bit in the area all this.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A bit of raw realism. Under the Fixed Parliaments Act, there are two ways of precipitating a premature general election.

1. A vote of No Confidence in Her Majesty's Government. A party in power with a majority could only use this method by the bizarre notion of whipping a vote that it did not have confidence in itself. Imagine the field day that every commentator, comedian or worthwhile opposition, if we had one, would make of that. It ain't going to happen.

2. A vote that there be an early general election - i.e. that the Commons dissolve itself. This requires a special majority of ⅔ not just of those who vote, but of the entire membership - i.e. including vacant seats and presumably those Feiners who refuse to take part.

On the mathematics at the moment, that probably also ain't going to happen. Total number of seats 650. ⅔ = 433⅓ and therefore 434. Total number of Conservative seats currently (I think) 331. Shortfall 103.

Unless enough of the other parties think they are likely to up their number of seats, they are likely to say (but using more overtly principled euphemisms) 'No. You sweat it out'. The Conservatives will make capital of that. They will say 'you've all been saying ever since the referendum we should have a general election'. Unless they are very stupid, the others will carry on saying, 'You made this mess. You sweat it out'.

At the moment, the only other party that just might increase its share of seats would be the Lib Dems, but they've only got 8 seats. The SNP are only three seats short of a full house. It's not in their interest to risk it. And it certainly isn't in Labour's interest to do so.

The third option is to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. That's actually more more of a runner, but it would have to get in a Queen's Speech, go through the standard legislative programme, pass the Lords etc. The PM probably can't just suddenly throw down a draft bill on the table in the aisle of the Commons repealing the 2011 Act and say 'vote on it three times today and we'll send it to the Lords tomorrow'.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I saw an interview with Corbyn last Autumm (in the Indie, I think) in which he said that he would not use the FTPA to get out of an early election if the government called a vote.

If he sticks to that, it would be down to whether enough Labour MP's defied the whip to stop government getting the 2/3 majority. Many of them would be somewhat torn, I imagine.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm not sure that a Blairite leader would do very much. The Labour base had been ebbing away since 1997, see for example, the Labour majority in Copeland, which dwindled with each election.

11,000, 7,000, 4,000, 2,500 were the majorities for 97, 05, 10, 15.

Assuming Brexit is a fiasco, Labour could capitalize on this, with a moderate left leader, not sure who. But Mrs May can probably disguise any Brexit chaos with her smoke and mirrors.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I saw an interview with Corbyn last Autumm (in the Indie, I think) in which he said that he would not use the FTPA to get out of an early election if the government called a vote.

If he sticks to that, it would be down to whether enough Labour MP's defied the whip to stop government getting the 2/3 majority. Many of them would be somewhat torn, I imagine.

If Mrs May were to call his bluff and he didn't find some way to squirm out of it, he'd be an even bigger twerp than I already think he is.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that a Blairite leader would do very much.

And that's a bigger problem than Mr Corbyn, I think. Who would replace him? None of the slicker alternatives seem very appealing. I'm not convinced that any of them would have inspired the people of Stoke.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that a Blairite leader would do very much.
And that's a bigger problem than Mr Corbyn, I think. Who would replace him? None of the slicker alternatives seem very appealing. I'm not convinced that any of them would have inspired the people of Stoke.

Also, I'm not sure another leadership election is going to do wonders for Labour's image. Blair did successfully bring together working class and middle class voters, but some people are saying that he alienated both! Some are even saying that Blairism led to Brexit, but that's another guess.

Of course, the electoral cycle is a savage beast, and Labour are right at the bottom of it now. I am guessing that they will emerge eventually, as the Tories did.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
A question and a thought.

1. Knowing that the Coalition brought in 5-year fixed term Governments, does May have the freedom to call a snap election?

2. The huge difference between Labour's present situation and both its own in the Foot years and the Tories' in the IDS years, is surely the rise of the SNP. This means that Labour are almost inevitably doomed to lose any future national election, irrespective of leader, unless they get a 1945-style landslide.

I'm not sure that 2. is right. Boundary changes, the possibility of Labour winning Scottish seats back, and other factors make the maths rather shaky, but...

In 1997 New Labour won 418 seats. This included 56 seats in Scotland. In 2001, Tony Blair won 413 seats, again with 56 in Scotland. A party only needs 330 seats to have a majority.

However I think it highly unlikely that this can be achieved from the far left of British politics.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Is it just that the proportion of the population subscribing to core Labour values is lower now, so that there just aren't so many votes in that area of the political spectrum?

Similarly, are there now more votes in the UKIP part of the spectrum, so that a better organised party could hoover them up? Is that what the PM is currently trying to do?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Many journos are saying that Mrs May has taken over some UKIP positions, especially on immigration. The interesting question is whether she can maintain this, as various industries claim exemption, since they desperately need foreign labour. But I think she can keep the smoke and mirrors going for years.

Not sure about Labour core values, since Blair was able to form a coalition of the willing, many of whom didn't give a fuck about clause 4. At the same time, did he alienate some of the Labour base? Maybe.

As they say, it's governments that lose elections. One problem for Labour is that the electoral cycle is still against them.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

I personally believe that Labour core values are something that a majority of people in Britain are sympathetic to. Most of us benefit from decent working conditions, affordable housing, having the NHS there for us when we fall ill and having a welfare state if we fall on hard times.

Jeremy Corbyn has tried to articulate this, but he hasn't cut through, partly because of a hostile media (a problem for any Labour leader), partly through his own lack of experience of talking to people outside his left-wing bubble and poor choice of people to run his communications. According to a poll in today's Observer, only 16% of working-class people intend to vote Labour, so clearly just having a left-wing leader isn't solving the problem.

Someone I spoke to recently said that Labour should be the party of the working classes, but has become the party of the non-working classes. This is partly the product of the disgraceful media portrayal of anyone claiming benefits as a scrounger, but there may be a grain of truth in it. New Labour did not completely take the working class core vote for granted: Blair and Brown poured money into in-work benefits but this was all too easily twisted into "Labour is the party of scroungers". In the end it was a poor substitute for a proper industrial policy creating well-paid skilled jobs, and the Labour core voters became resentful.

The low-skill low-wage jobs that New Labour policies supported also proved hugely attractive to immigrants, which has I think contributed to our present mess. Rightly or wrongly, core Labour voters see immigrants as a problem, driving down wages and competing for jobs, and they see Labour apparently not caring about that.

The next Labour leader needs to be a superhero, which is why I favour a caretaker to get the party through the next few years. It shouldn't be a binary choice between a leftie dinosaur who can't find his arse with both hands, and Blair redux. There are promising left-leaning people in the Labour ranks, Clive Lewis and Lisa Nandy spring to mind, but they shouldn't be expected to deal with the current mess.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Not sure about Labour core values, since Blair was able to form a coalition of the willing, many of whom didn't give a fuck about clause 4. At the same time, did he alienate some of the Labour base? Maybe.

Well this is what I mean. In order to achieve a majority, Blair had to take a centrist position, because there are no longer enough people prepared to vote for an Old Labour position.

And a centrist position is completely reasonable and defensible - indeed exactly what I (for example) want.

BUT because this is not the traditional Labour position, this requires a lot of ... spin! This was, I reckon, Blair's eventual downfall - this perception that he was "fake sincere" a la Bob Monkhouse.

And NB! These levels of spin would not have been necessary if Blair had been leading, say, the SDP, or a Centre Party, or a Christian Democrat party. It was because the British Labour Party was attempting to be a centre party, against the grain, that this abnormal tension developed.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I personally believe that Labour core values are something that a majority of people in Britain are sympathetic to. Most of us benefit from decent working conditions, affordable housing, having the NHS there for us when we fall ill and having a welfare state if we fall on hard times.

Jeremy Corbyn has tried to articulate this, but he hasn't cut through,...

Rocinante, a fundamental issue is that there isn't unanimity that those are Labour's core values.

Is Labour primarily about those, or is it about class war, clause 4 and socialism? I know the Labour faithful are totally sold on the assumption that the second lot are essential to get the first, but that's a non sequitur. For a start, most of those aspirations come from Lloyd George, who didn't reckon much to class war or clause 4, and was hostile to socialism as an ideology.

The other major parties claim, and aspire, to represent everybody. You may not think they succeed, but they do at least claim to want to persuade everybody to line up behind them. Yes, to be SNP you've got to be Scots, but they do pitch at everyone in Scotland. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems both aspire to want to represent everyone.

Twice in my lifetime, the Labour Party has looked as though it was going to move on from being a factional and dogmatic organisation, in the 1960s and in the 1990s. Both times, the strategy was a success. It won office and held it successfully.

Each time, though, the committed have accused their own leaders, Wilson, Callaghan, Healey, Blair, of betrayal. The faithful have scuttled back into their cosy redoubt. The accusation every time is that it's all the electorate's fault for not voting for them.

It has been a big misfortune that after the First World War the Labour Party cut loose from forming a common position as a wing teamed up with the Liberals. It's been each time that the Labour Party has looked like starting to occupy the position on the political spectrum that the Liberals did before 1914, whether under Gladstone or from 1906 that it has succeeded. But in stead of building on that, each time, as soon as the political pendulum swings against them, the Radicals grab the party and hoick it off into ideological purity and unelectability. And each time, the Radicals proclaim that it's all the fault of the rest of us for not getting the message and not electing them.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

Thanks Enoch, those are all valid points. I think I described socialism as practised by Clement Attlee, from whom Corbyn is not a million miles politically. However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.

Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)

I assumed that was because they'd all decided to shut up to avoid being accused of disloyalty.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Doesn't this entail another by-election?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:

I assumed that was because they'd all decided to shut up to avoid being accused of disloyalty.

Plenty of them have been fairly vocal in the press, in print and on screen as well as on other places like twitter. Other than Listening to the Very Real Concerns of Real People, they haven't really advanced much else.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Doesn't this entail another by-election?

Yes, and one that really Labour ought to walk - majority of 25,000 odd. No other party got much over 4,000. Greens were second. There's a certain amount of incumbency effect when you're as far embedded as he was, but even so surely Jeremy can't stuff that up....

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think I described socialism as practised by Clement Attlee, from whom Corbyn is not a million miles politically. However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.

I certainly recognise some of your points, however in the case of Corbyn the impression I get (and, in politics impressions are often more important than anything else) is somewhat different.

There are idealogues on all parts of the political spectrum, of course, but for this discussion we're only talking about those to the left of centre in the Labour Party. These are the people with a vision of a "socialist utopia". Yes, there are plenty who are basically "all or nothing" - no compromise on the plan, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented through a democratically elected government, the ideological purists of your post. There are also a lot of pragmatists, who recognise that the pure vision is not going to appeal to enough voters because (in their view at least) the right have very successfully sowed the view in the public at large that it's impractical and will never work. These pragmatists are willing to compromise to a less ideologically pure version of the vision inorder to get elected, and then demonstrate by enacting left-wing policies that a move left-wards is not going to be a disaster for the nation, and hence make the pure vision more realistic because the public at large will have been shown that the right has lied to them about how left-wing policies will destroy the country.

I have a preference for left-of-centre politics, and despise Blair for effectively compromising too far and turning Labour into Tory-lite. And, I had high hopes for a Corbyn leadership, hoping he was in the pragmatist camp of the left wing of the Labour party. But, he isn't. He also doesn't appear to be in the idealists camp either. His biggest problem is that he has his political position which (IMO) is sound and electable, but he's totally failed to be enthusiastic about it. He isn't standing on his principles as moral high ground, waving the red flag and declaring "utopia is this way, follow me!", he seems incapable of expressing a clear vision for the Labour Party - either as an idealogical purist or a pragmatist. It looks like he's spent so much of his political career as a bulwark or an anchor trying to stop the Labour Party, and the nation as a whole, sliding away from the principles the Labour Party managed to enshrine in the nation (welfare state, social housing, NHS etc) that he doesn't actually know how to lead. He's spent his career campaigning against a rightward drift that he doesn't know how to campaign for something. An idealogical purist trying to achieve something impossible would be far preferable to what we have.

In summary - I admire his political views, and would love to see a PM from that part of the Labour Party. And, over the last couple of years I've stood by him (even though my vote would always go SNP) because I largely agree with his political position. But, it's become increasingly clear that he's a total failure as a leader because he has been unable to articulate his vision.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Doesn't this entail another by-election?

Yes, Kaufman's sad death will give rise to another by election. However, he had a majority of just over 24,000 at the last election, and I think there's far too many ethnic minorities (who could well be an ethnic majority tbh) in the area for UKIP to think they're going to snatch it. In the last election the Greens pushed the Conservatives into third place.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

@Alan Cresswell: [Overused]

(and I say that as a left-of-centre LibDem who once supported the SDP!)

I once heard Corbyn speak - it was on a local issue to do with a new road. That was back in about 1989, mind you, and I have no recollection of what he said!

[ 27. February 2017, 10:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)

It's going to be difficult for the right wing to acclaim neo-liberalism, privatization and cuts to welfare. So I suppose they are lurking, or biting their lips, probably complaining to each other that the left are ruinous.

In the end, there is usually a kind of inbetween person, but difficult to see who at the moment. They are going to have to distinguish themselves from Blair, I guess. Well, Starmer is a kind of well-mannered functionary, yay! <sarcasm>

It's odd when you think of Attlee, who would seem hard left today, but then autres temps, autres moeurs. (Other times, different customs). Imagine how the right wing press would demonize him.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Yes, Kaufman's sad death will give rise to another by election. However, he had a majority of just over 24,000 at the last election, and I think there's far too many ethnic minorities (who could well be an ethnic majority tbh) in the area for UKIP to think they're going to snatch it. In the last election the Greens pushed the Conservatives into third place.

Indeed. Kaufman won 2/3 of the vote, and the Greens, Conservatives, and UKIP had less than 10% each. Even factoring in a lower turnout for a byelection, a new face being less popular than a seasoned and well-respected MP, and Labour's current dismal popularity, there's no way this one's changing hands.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I had high hopes for a Corbyn leadership, hoping he was in the pragmatist camp of the left wing of the Labour party. But, he isn't. He also doesn't appear to be in the idealists camp either. His biggest problem is that he has his political position which (IMO) is sound and electable, but he's totally failed to be enthusiastic about it.

In summary - I admire his political views, and would love to see a PM from that part of the Labour Party. And, over the last couple of years I've stood by him (even though my vote would always go SNP) because I largely agree with his political position. But, it's become increasingly clear that he's a total failure as a leader because he has been unable to articulate his vision.

Alan Cresswell I think you have nailed it. Jeremy Corbyn does not create a compelling vision of any kind and nor does he lead. Those who can do both, and who support Corbyn (I'm thinking McDonnell, Abbott et al) are leading and creating a vision that Jeremy Corbyn is the saviour and have energised a lot of people behind that vision witness Momentum. But the man himself, just doesn't seem to have/do it. And the McDonnell/Abbott vision doesn't have enough behind it to sustain it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Some blunt speaking from someone who is not a member of the Labour Party, giving his own impressions on what is less likely to at the moment to encourage him to vote for a Labour candidate, come what may, and however good they may be as a candidate. This may not be what a Labour activist wants to hear, but I suspect I'm not the only person who thinks like this. If the party faithful want to win elections, it ought to be useful to be aware how the beloved leaders are perceived among some of those whose votes activists need to win - even though, the beloved leader himself gives the impression he doesn't really care. He takes his mandate from his own claque team.

There are a lot of people out here who are not Labour faithful but are deeply, deeply dissatisfied with the present government and detest the direction it is going in.

Here goes. Jeremy Corbyn comes across to outsiders as narrow, dreary, uninspiring and dogmatic. What some seem to admire as high principle, looks to others as a cold obstinate determination not to face reality. Whatever his vision is for Britain, he doesn't communicate it effectively apart from giving the impression that his spiritual home is the old East Germany of Walter Ulbricht and Erich Honecker. That is not a vision that wins friends and influences people.

I know this next point is something that the political faithful discount, but it matters to the rest of us. He also comes across as incompetent, both politically and administratively.

If he hasn't by now won over his parliamentary party, and neither manages nor inspires them, he should bow out with as much grace as a somewhat graceless person can manage. He should not be telling them he's there until 2020.

John McDonnell gives the impression of being clever but cold, likewise dogmatic and sinister.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Fake news?

Helpful summary: A report of Russian interference in the Stoke by-election. In memory of dear Rick Mayall, I'm hoping there's Russian interference in my pants, and she's wearing red lipstick and a uniform.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
However at present the Labour party is dominated by those who regard ideological purity as more important than winning, an idea which Attlee would have scorned.
Yet, in the cause of winning, their opposition within the Labour party don't seem to have many ideas (other than the fairly nebulous)

That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. If nobody in the Labour party is capable of winning in 2020, then the target must be to hold on to as many seats as possible until a Saviour Shall Arise from the PPC lists. In this respect, the section of the party represented by Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband looks better capable, on the basis of election results, of hanging on to seats, than Mr Corbyn is on the basis of polling results. It will be easier for the Coming Saviour to lead Labour into the sunny uplands of socialist Utopia from a baseline of 256 or 232 seats than from 140 seats.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Fake news?

Helpful summary: A report of Russian interference in the Stoke by-election. In memory of dear Rick Mayall, I'm hoping there's Russian interference in my pants, and she's wearing red lipstick and a uniform.

Unlikely. I think we can assume that's fake news. It would be more in Russia's interest for Nuttall to have won.

Incidentally, Mrs Arron Banks is Russian.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. If nobody in the Labour party is capable of winning in 2020, then the target must be to hold on to as many seats as possible until a Saviour Shall Arise from the PPC lists.

It would be if that were the strategy that was being followed, yet neither Smith or Eagle were making that argument in the second leadership election (or seemed remotely capable of pulling it off should they be voted in). Plus the PLP aren't really putting forward anything in the vein of Brown or Milliband, the most vocal appear to think that neoliberalism with a side order of slight racism will bring them back to power.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
I have a preference for left-of-centre politics, and despise Blair for effectively compromising too far and turning Labour into Tory-lite. And, I had high hopes for a Corbyn leadership, hoping he was in the pragmatist camp of the left wing of the Labour party. But, he isn't. He also doesn't appear to be in the idealists camp either. His biggest problem is that he has his political position which (IMO) is sound and electable, but he's totally failed to be enthusiastic about it. He isn't standing on his principles as moral high ground, waving the red flag and declaring "utopia is this way, follow me!", he seems incapable of expressing a clear vision for the Labour Party - either as an idealogical purist or a pragmatist. It looks like he's spent so much of his political career as a bulwark or an anchor trying to stop the Labour Party, and the nation as a whole, sliding away from the principles the Labour Party managed to enshrine in the nation (welfare state, social housing, NHS etc) that he doesn't actually know how to lead. He's spent his career campaigning against a rightward drift that he doesn't know how to campaign for something. An idealogical purist trying to achieve something impossible would be far preferable to what we have.

Well, it's a point of view, I suppose.

Corbyn was always going to be a disaster as Party Leader. He was one of the Bennites who nearly led Labour to a third place finish in the 1983 General Election. He was a supporter of the armed struggle in Ireland in the 1980s and a supporter Islamism in the noughties. He has never found an enemy of this country that he could not do business with. Whatever one thinks of Tony Blair - TAMWKWE* - he at least recognised that a Labour government could only be elected if it realised that most of the electorate are somewhere to the right of the average Labour Party member (or poster on Ship of Fools). Corbyn is well to the left of that position. The idea that he had a cat in hells chance of winning the 2020 Election was a delusion. Quite apart from his politics he had never run anything more complicated than a committee on Haringey Council and then, suddenly, he found himself as the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party with, frankly, no real support within the PLP. The consequences were predictable.

Corbyn was a long standing opponent of the European Union, like his mentor, the appalling Viscount Stansgate, he voted to leave the EU in 1975 and voted against every single European treaty that was subsequently put before the House of Commons. Predictably he made no attempt to make the case for the EU during the referendum, at one point going on holiday, and called for the immediate activation of Article 50 when the result was known. Since then his policy has been to hold Theresa May's coat whilst she goes for the hardest of Brexits.

It's perfectly legitimate to work for the Labour Party to be reduced to less than 200 seats in the House of Commons and for a Hard Brexit if one is Mr Arron Banks. But when the Leader of the Labour Party does it, one does wonder if entirely the right decision was made by the membership in 2015. I tend to regard Corbyn as a precursor of Brexit and Trump. Both Brexit and Trump happened, at least in part, because people decided to vote for the people who were offering them the moon on a stick, rather than policies which could be difficult or complicated. £350m for the NHS! Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it! Corbyn's shtick was that you could persuade a country that had voted against Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband to vote for policies to the left of those figures helmed by a man with the charisma of a third rate geography teacher. An end to austerity! Unlimited money for the NHS! Frankly I'd enjoy the irony a bit more if the country wasn't about to crash and burn with the Labour Party but I will enjoy listening to all the excuses when Corbyn leads the Labour Party into disaster by all the people who thought that he was the socialist Messiah.

*That Awful Man Who Kept Winning Elections

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Fake news?

Helpful summary: A report of Russian interference in the Stoke by-election. In memory of dear Rick Mayall, I'm hoping there's Russian interference in my pants, and she's wearing red lipstick and a uniform.
Unlikely. I think we can assume that's fake news. It would be more in Russia's interest for Nuttall to have won.

Incidentally, Mrs Arron Banks is Russian.

I had to google Aaron Banks and found that his name appears as Andrew Fraser Aaron Banks. For a brief second I thought he was a conglomerate of two people [Smile]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My guess would be a vote of no-confidence in the government could be quickly followed by a vote calling for an early election - but since the total incompetence with which the current government have gone about things hasn't resulted in such an outcome I would consider that to be highly unlikely.

I'd consider it highly unlikely as well, for the simple reason that many Labour MPs will be too concerned about losing their seat to risk it.

Nothing is normal about current politics, but the idea that the government might support a vote of no confidence in its own ability to govern because the subsequent election would probably give them an increased majority is one of the weirder things I've heard mentioned.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It wasn't a Government - but John Major, when Prime Minister in 1995, resigned his position as party leader in order to be re-elected and so assert his position.

He won.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Yes, but he didn't assert that he had no confidence in himself!

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Following the comments up-thread about Gerald Kaufman's death and the forthcoming election here, folks might not have come across
this.

It seems there have bee nasty insider goings-on in the constituency. Is the bogey man the local party, fighting amongst itself to see who will be the new top dog - or the central party, working out who to parachute into this safe seat? We'll see...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

It seems there have bee nasty insider goings-on in the constituency. Is the bogey man the local party, fighting amongst itself to see who will be the new top dog - or the central party, working out who to parachute into this safe seat? We'll see...

It looks like it started as the former, but now that the regional Labour office has been given oversight of the candidate selection process, the odds of a parachute might have gone up.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's a bit of a tu quoque argument. If nobody in the Labour party is capable of winning in 2020, then the target must be to hold on to as many seats as possible until a Saviour Shall Arise from the PPC lists.
It would be if that were the strategy that was being followed, yet neither Smith or Eagle were making that argument in the second leadership election (or seemed remotely capable of pulling it off should they be voted in).

Well no, if one is pitching to lead HM Opposition one can't really stand on the basis of 'I will lose less badly than the other guy'. My point is that just because no-one can win doesn't mean it's rational to treat all the candidates as having equally low prospects.

The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Regarding an early election, the time to do that was before producing the White Paper and setting out the Article 50 legislation, because I don't see how one is possible after negotiations have begun. If our European partners are irritated at British dithering, they're hardly going to react well to the prospect of a change of government (admittedly unlikely atm) halfway through.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

Elections are weird things, uncontrollable and usually the results are not what is expected months out.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.

Sure, but in order to do this they have to be capable of making criticisms that stick and arguments that have some salience to the point where they at least look like leadership material.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.
Sure, but in order to do this they have to be capable of making criticisms that stick and arguments that have some salience to the point where they at least look like leadership material.

They sound like yesterday's men to me (and women), and of course, Smith had a crack at it.

It's a bit like a nervous breakdown, things seem to be getting worse and worse, and sometimes, there is a break in the cloud, and a ray of sunshine. However, I don't know who or what that is. Probably Labour have to lose in 2020, and then go through a ritual disemboweling. Then the public may be satisfied with this, and may be willing to countenance some other leader.

[ 02. March 2017, 11:24: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

As an unaligned person, I'm just as fed up with the identification of the good of the Labour Party with the good of the country, as I am with the way Mrs May et al identify the good of the Conservative Party with the good of the country.

If it is necessary for the good of the Labour Party that it loses in 2020, then it follows that it's necessary for the good of the country that we have a different opposition party, with a new vision that can inspire voters to vote for them in 2020 rather than 1935 and a new sense of purpose.

Alas, that won't happen because too many of the enthusiasts would rather have none of their dream than some of it.

If you're either a Corbyn supporter, or one of those who regards Tony Blair as the great betrayal, you might like to read this. Think on't.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

If you're either a Corbyn supporter, or one of those who regards Tony Blair as the great betrayal, you might like to read this. Think on't.

I think very few Labour supporters would say that the New Labour years in isolation weren't better than the current government.

OTOH under New Labour a particular economic model was more or less accepted, and while declining parts of the country were supported - often by stealth - they still continued to decline - so managed decline rather than development of any kind.

To answer what I think is your underlying point; I'm not sure to what extent a New Labour government would be sustainable in 2017, or for how long it could be sustained, without fairly radical rebalancing elsewhere.

[ 02. March 2017, 12:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

If it is necessary for the good of the Labour Party that it loses in 2020, then it follows that it's necessary for the good of the country that we have a different opposition party, with a new vision that can inspire voters to vote for them in 2020 rather than 1935 and a new sense of purpose.

I agree, and will add that I would very much prefer that opposition party not to be UKIP or similar/worse.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

The charges against Mr Corbyn are that he is shambolic, uninspiring and incapable of working with his colleagues. I grant that none of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall, Eagle or Smith are colossi of British politics but all of them outshine him on at least some of those measures.
Sure, but in order to do this they have to be capable of making criticisms that stick and arguments that have some salience to the point where they at least look like leadership material.

Not sure what 'this' refers to.

Of course if the events of the past two years have not convinced you of Mr Corbyn's inadequacy, it is highly unlikely that anything said by anyone in the PLP could change your mind.

If you mean that they have failed to offer a coherent political 'theory of everything' to contrast to the Tories' vision of society, I thought that, with the exception of Mr Smith, their outlook was pretty much 'same as under Mr Miliband with minor tweaks in presentation'. Now Mr Miliband's formula was not a winning one but it was at least not a formula that put Labour thirteen points behind the Tories and losing by-elections at the point in the electoral cycle that favours the Opposition.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

If it is necessary for the good of the Labour Party that it loses in 2020, then it follows that it's necessary for the good of the country that we have a different opposition party, with a new vision that can inspire voters to vote for them in 2020 rather than 1935 and a new sense of purpose.

I agree, and will add that I would very much prefer that opposition party not to be UKIP or similar/worse.

There is, of course, a far better option available than that ...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
There is, of course, a far better option available than that ...

Baptist Trainfan, for much of my working life I was required to be apolitical and I've been glad to be so, but there have been an increasing number of times recently when I have felt drawn in their direction.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Not sure what 'this' refers to.

Of course if the events of the past two years have not convinced you of Mr Corbyn's inadequacy, it is highly unlikely that anything said by anyone in the PLP could change your mind.

'This' referring succeeding to the leadership of the opposition. Ultimately they have to convince the voting constituency of course - in this case both the PLP and the Labour rank and file.

quote:

Mr Miliband with minor tweaks in presentation'. Now Mr Miliband's formula was not a winning one

Which seems to be true only of Angela Eagle and Andy Burnham - both of whom were the weaker candidates in their respective rounds.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0