On 14 Jan 2011 at 6:26pm Red Ken wrote:
Great by election result in Oldham. They have obviously realised what a dreadful mistake the electorate made last year.
A distant third, 7000 votes down on the general election, even with the grinning fool PM personally campaigning.
ho ho ho.
On 14 Jan 2011 at 6:52pm drone wrote:
Even better that the BNP vote collapsed in area where they once had a power base.
On 14 Jan 2011 at 7:22pm Newmania wrote:
Unremarkable result showing nothing .The main interest was the extent to which Conservat8ives were wiling to support Liberals against New Labour .
On 14 Jan 2011 at 7:48pm jrsussex wrote:
Ignore the result, it tells us nothing. History shows that invariably when a by-election follows shortly after a General Election the Government of the day lose votes and/or seats. 2015 will show the will of the people. Too far away to form opinions on but let's thank our lucky stars that Labour lost last May. Had they not God only knows where the UK would be now. Very likely to be applying for registration as a third world country.
On 14 Jan 2011 at 11:12pm Clifford wrote:
It really is too early to tell anything about anything. Wait till the cuts begin to bite and, combined with the VAT rise, overall demand falls, unemployment rises and people really begin to see the impact of the damage the small clique of bankers have wrought throughout much of the world. They, of course, are laughing as they realise the Con-Dem government is going to be as much in their pockets as New Labour were.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 9:57am jrsussex wrote:
Ed has promised not to gloat over his "election victory", what victory? Labour have retained a seat with an increased majority, the Libdems increased their vote and it is accepted that the Tories did not really invest much time or effort into the by-election.
Shades of the Kinnock era, if I were a Labour voter I would be getting concerned about my new leader, we all know his brother was the winner had the unions not stepped in and we can see where their militancy is taking the country.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 10:07am rosebud wrote:
i agree with everyone and I agree with no-one. It really is time for a radical change. I listened to PMQ's on wednesday and wondered about the exotic world in which they are living. Certainly not the one that we inhabit. In short I'm thinking of starting the Rosebud Alliance. A new political party which tries to put a break on the headlong rush to lunacy. Where bankers are treated just like everyone else and if they misbehave they will be showered with rose petals and taught to see that there is beauty in the world other than in the shape of five pound notes. They and any other transgressors will be persuaded to listen to at least twenty minutes a day of Nick Drake, one of our spiritual leaders, until they see sense. They will also be made to watch a Peter Cook sketch from the sixties in order to try and salvidge a sense of humour which was sadly beaten out of them at an early stage. The Rosebud Alliance will not be a dictatorship and anyone with other ideas for spiritual leaders can put them forward where I will ponder them and then disregard them if they don't pass muster.Politicians who disagree with any of the above will be locked in a small cupboard with Jeremy Paxman who will ask the same question repeatedly. It's not water-boarding, but it's close. At this moment I'm still formulating policies in other areas. Anyone interested in the Rosebud Alliance can make themselves known through these posts. Although I' m nowhere near wealthy I will offer anyone who joins a free videotape of Audrey Hepburn's screen test for Roman Holiday.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 10:25am rosebud wrote:
ps sorry, I meant "salvage". Misspelling is tolerated in the party.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 11:13am Clifford wrote:
jrsussex - I'm no fan of the Labour party (as you may have guessed) but how would David Miliband (the heir to Blair) have been more of a 'winner' than his brother. Surely Labour lost in 2010 because Blairism and Brownism had been totally discredited. An if Ed is a leftwinger than I'm - as David would say - a banana.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 11:56am Cynic wrote:
Rosebud I've heard that a breakaway New Rosebud Alliance has been formed in Ringmer.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 12:18pm Clifford wrote:
Here's an interesting reflection on the by-election: 'Eight months ago the Liberal Democrat and Conservative candidates, both of whom fought this seat again this week, took nearly 26,000 votes ? 58% of those cast ? between them. On Thursday those figures shrank to less than 16,000 and 44%.'
On 15 Jan 2011 at 12:39pm rosebud wrote:
Thank you for the information Cynic. Today Ringmer. Tomorrow.......... Oh and by the way Clifford and anyone else interested- there will be no room for statistics in the Rosebud Alliance." 58 %, 26.000", blaahdiblahdiblaah !! And remember this-I love you all.x
On 15 Jan 2011 at 1:04pm Red Ken wrote:
The fact is that this current government is already discredited and the electorate have seen the light. By the next election the Tories self serving ways will have once again made themselves unelectable for another generation. So it's not all bad news.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 2:01pm Newmania wrote:
Red Ken Red Ed`s hope at this by election would have been a Lib Dem vote implosion such as to de-stabliise the coalition. Failed. Recording a result below the levels reached by Kinnock with vastly more reason for discontent is on the disppointing side ,if just about good enough to brace his weak leadership.Dull.
Rosebud ..(.was my sledge )... - The Banking industry contriburtes about £50 billion to the exchequer and competes internationally. The £7 billion of bonuses is a good deal as is ownersghip of banks bought at a fire sale. More profit for the tax payer to come there. The structure of banking, which obviously has barriers to entry and monopolistic tendencies,( hence shambolic management and employee control) does need to be evolved .The pay structure is the symptom not the problem.
If anyone is interested in the real story was the tactical voting. If you look at the churn Lib Dems moved to Labour but Conservatives backed the Lib Dem. This caused a collapse of the Conservative vote and an unremarkable result overall. Nationally the under story has implications though. There are about ten Labour seats that would fall form a similarly shifted vote where Liberals are the best hope of keeping the high tax Party out.
What about when Liberal are competing with Lib Dems though ? Somerton, Eastleigh , Hazel Griove , Kingston , Sutton Chippenham even ,could it be , Lewes ? Here a loss of Lib Dem votes to Labour could gift the seat to the Conservatives . Why should they not benefit when it is quite plausible that a Norman Baker having benefitted form Conservative neutrality could back Red Ed and his bully boy Union money men. A deal is required .
It looks as if AV will lose and that will increase the pressurre to formalise the coalition which is popular with Conservatives whose top priority is to stop the socialists.
That will leave Conservatives and Liberal s committed to Democracy Free Markets , Individual Freedoms and Small State solutions ie modern politics opposed to the Marxist remnant of the 20th century with its top down quotas bureaucratic edicts secret data stores class war and entrenched poverty.
Suits me , to that end I was wondering about a COALITION CLUB , a place for Liberals and Conservatives might meet to find common ground and iron out honest disagreements. Anyone who agrees that this administration whilst imperfect is infinitely better than the years of waste might be intrested.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 2:31pm Clifford wrote:
Newmania: '... I was wondering about a COALITION CLUB , a place for Liberals and Conservatives might meet to find common ground and iron out honest disagreements.'
Good idea. Once the cuts begin to bite they'll be able to get together at the Jobcentre.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 2:43pm Newmania wrote:
I mean what about when Conservatives are competing with Liberals ... oops.
Clifford - We know whose fault the cut`s are and in order to gain any traction on the Economy Ed has had to admit New Labour` responsiblity for the structural deficit. Did you not notice ?
I happed think the COALITION has a positive identity and spirit neither Liberal or Conservative and many people will want to vote for it again.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 2:43pm Clifford wrote:
Newmania: 'If you look at the churn Lib Dems moved to Labour but Conservatives backed the Lib Dem. This caused a collapse of the Conservative vote and an unremarkable result overall.'
What did you think of the figures in my earlier post? 2010 - Tory and Lib Dem combined vote 26,000 - 58% of votes cast. 2011 - Tory and Lib Dem combined vote 16,000 - 44%.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 4:15pm Newmania wrote:
Very low turnout , unusually so for a by election Conservatives ( usually the highest turners out ) abstained to assist or out of neutrality. We know the National position,which, as I say, is in sub Kinnock territory for New Labour . Not only that but on competence issues which count higher in GE`s the Labour Party are nowhere and on the Economy especially.
You may not agree that New Labour are not currently electable but it is pretty clear from the statements made by Ed and his appointments that he does.
The National picture however does not show what really happened here and this shift of loyalties may point to a quite new picture . In many ways I hope
it does . Thats why I was thinking of a coalition club
BTW I have a letter in the Express this week right under Norm`s. Yay me !
On 15 Jan 2011 at 4:55pm Clifford wrote:
National opinion poll figures: Labour 42%, Tories 34%, Lib Dems 12%. And that's before people have experienced the cuts the Con-Dem government are imposing on us on the bankers' behalf.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 6:44pm rosebud wrote:
Unfortunately my turnout on the day was only17%. I had a mild hangover which accounted for33% and the other 50% was taken up by premature apathy. A condition I have suffered from since birth. Please can somebody find me a cure with something that works at least 78% of the time. I would be extremely grateful.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 7:14pm Cynic wrote:
Rosebud - you're not Newmania on drugs are you? You certainly make more sense.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 7:23pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford - Not being a Labour supporter I can only be guided by the media and those I know who are Labour voters. The general consensus at the time of the leadership election was that his brother was preferred to Ed, and that he only won due to the trade unions. All sections of the media expressed that view as did the Labour supporters I discussed the result with. They, almost to a man, expressed disappointment at Ed's victory.
I agree as to the reasons you state for the Labour loss at the General Election but it simplifies it to say it was the fault Blair and Brown as men. The reason was their truly awful performance, over a 13 year period, as politicians in controlling the UK Treasury, or not controlling it, depending on your viewpoint.
On 15 Jan 2011 at 8:01pm rosebud wrote:
Oh Cynic, as a young woman of some insight I can tell that you're itching to join the Rosebud Alliance. Was it the free video of Audrey Hepburn that swung it? After all I haven't formulated all the policies yet! By the way I'm NOT Newmania on drugs and nor do I intend to be (at any stage).
On 16 Jan 2011 at 1:28am Applecart wrote:
Blah blah blah!
Can't you all just go into politics and give us all a break?
On 16 Jan 2011 at 9:34am 'ere be monsters wrote:
All the figures re % of vote, increased majority etc. Fact is Labour got 500 more votes than in the general election. 9670 fewer people voted. Nobody can tell who voted for Cons or Libs in the general election and changed their vote to Lab in the by election. Either 9600 Con/Lib voters didn't bother to vote as it doesn't make a jot of a difference to the Government, or 9600 Lab voters didn't turn up and all Con/Lib voters turned. I know which scenario I'd go for.
On 16 Jan 2011 at 10:05am Newmania wrote:
Clifrord is refferring to the Coms Res Poll I think which shows Labour support benefitting from cuts as you would expect but not at levels that would imply anything like an election victory at this stage . It also shows a Labour dead in water on the Econom. 1992 ....
Two interesting reactions
Pritchard Leader of the Tory Back bench 1922 comittee has supported a formal co-alition going to forward as I predicted . That is a very different voice to Nick Bowles and ultra Cameroons who have previously posited the idea
Ed Milliband has retreated form his frank admission that he was responsible for the structural deficit emboldened by the Poll . He has just been on Andrew Marr telling a pack of lies and I feel this is precisely the mistake he had to avoid . Short terms gain but long term protect group status he has re-iterated his unwillingness to work with Nick Clegg
On 17 Jan 2011 at 3:21pm Ed Can Do wrote:
I'd hate to see a formalisation of the Coalition, if only because it would invariably lead to this country getting the same sort of nonsense, two-party system they have in America. Whilst some people are very doom and gloom about coalition governments in general and use them as a way to argue against a PR election system, I'd much rather see a large party being tempered by their association with a more minoriity group than end up with an us-or-them system whereby you're either Labour or Conservaliberal. I honestly believe that if the Cons had gone in on their own this time out, the cuts would have been much worse for the poorest folk out there and far lighter on big business.
Once you get into a two party system you get people running for election on the basis of "A vote for a third party is a waste" (Which to be fair, Norm has been using in Lewes for years) which leads to ideas other than those held by the two main parties never getting a public airing which I believe stifles innovation and reform.
On 17 Jan 2011 at 5:55pm MC wrote:
Even with the Lib Dem party in existence our electoral system promotes a state of affairs best described as biploar, with one party rectifying what they see as the damage caused by the last lot each time they gain power. This stops our country progressing efficiently in many ways. The senseless confrontation and childish nature of the relationships within the house of commons is also the result of this system.
Give me discussion, consensus and continuity any time. That'll only come with a a good PR system (not the proposed AV).
Unfortunately I don't think real PR is unlikely to happen as it's not in the interest of the two main parties and too many of the electorate think of themselves as Tories or Labourites and so don't have sufficiently open minds to embrace real meaningful change (sorry).
On 17 Jan 2011 at 11:00pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
And unless we have true PR (not AV) the only type of coalition rule is the sort we have now with the smaller party desperate for power enabling an extreme government.
A true coalition would have include politicians and parties of every hue and really would act as a temperance on the most extreme loony ideas (like those of the current Tory government), instead of propping them up as the Lib Dems are currently doing. When are the LD's going to show some cojones and rip up the agreement ? They might reagin some of their fan base....
On 18 Jan 2011 at 9:17am 'ere be monsters wrote:
All pie in the sky BB, nothing will work as politicians are there for their own slot in history and will lie and change colour at the drop of a hat to stay in work. Please you are too intelligent to make out the Tories have the monopoly on loony ideas.
On 18 Jan 2011 at 10:48pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
You're right ebm, the Tories don't have the monopoly on loony ideas but at the moment they are the only ones with the power to carry them out.
On 19 Jan 2011 at 9:47am 'ere be monsters wrote:
That means it's ok to have loony ideas that can be voted in later when we get rid of the current loonies.