October 31, 201410 yr Bloody hell, I actually am surprised! I thought motivation to vote would be so low that only UKIP voters would go out. They made the mistake of selecting an ex-copper who was on duty at Orgreave and on the force during Hillsborough.
October 31, 201410 yr Oh God, this very mediocre result is going to be an excuse for the "ostrich faction" in Labour to go back to burying their heads in the sand isn't it. Labourlist is already filled with people exclaiming how this proves UKIP are only a threat to the Tories, and how people will flock back to Labour automatically when faced with the prospect of another Tory government (apparently oblivious to the fact that simply being "not the Tories" is a rubbish unique selling point in an era where there's a variety of other parties who are also not the Tories). Edited October 31, 201410 yr by Danny
October 31, 201410 yr Bloody hell, I actually am surprised! I thought motivation to vote would be so low that only UKIP voters would go out. You may be closer to the truth than you think. The turnout was just under 15% but just 3.5% turned out yesterday. The rest were postal votes. What a waste of money.
November 1, 201410 yr "Very mediocre" is an interesting way of describing a result which almost matched two years ago despite basically everything going against it except UKIP's choice of candidate. It's proof that, while UKIP are still a threat, they can only do limited damage to Labour when fought properly.
November 1, 201410 yr "Very mediocre" is an interesting way of describing a result which almost matched two years ago despite basically everything going against it except UKIP's choice of candidate. It's proof that, while UKIP are still a threat, they can only do limited damage to Labour when fought properly. Exactly. Turnout was obviously terrible, but it's a remarkable achievement for Labour to get a result basically identical to the November 2012 one despite us losing about ten points in the polls since. I wouldn't take any broader lessons from it because of the turnout, but it would be just ungracious to deny a result like that.
November 1, 201410 yr I just can't see how winning barely 50% in one of their absolute heartland of heartlands is some spectacular result. I'm not saying it's a disaster either - I would agree the low turnout means it should be disregarded completely - but my point is that some Labour people are clinging to this as something that contradicts the raft of dire opinion polls and other indications about what a terrible situation Labour is in. Edited November 1, 201410 yr by Danny
November 1, 201410 yr I just can't see how winning barely 50% in one of their absolute heartland of heartlands is some spectacular result. We got barely 50% there when we were in the mid-forties in the polls two years ago! Let's not forget that only five out of the 38 PCC elections that could have gone to a second round were won in the first round, so it's quite rare for anyone to do it, regardless of whether it's a heartland or not. That said I wouldn't take LabourList commenters as a source of wisdom either. I doubt anybody who really matters when it comes to Labour would be looking at this as something that makes everything else irrelevant.
November 10, 201410 yr Author Watching the by-election debate on BBC News Channel at the moment. The Conservative Party candidate, Kelly Tolhurst, is literally Lauren "Am I Bovvered" Cooper.
November 22, 201410 yr sadly the lib-dems only got twice the Monster Raving Loony votes. The party of official opposition to the big parties now appears to be one who would have less cohesive policies than said MRL's. Ah well, reap what you sow and all that, on the plus side if UKIP form part of the next government it can only be a matter of time (5 years) before the Monsters and the Greens (who aren't loony's) start looking better and better to the electorate who will have tried all the rest to no avail.
November 23, 201410 yr Only a 3,000 maj for UKIP in the end though, which suggests that the Conservatives may be able to turn it around by May 2015, particularly as Reckless is totally different to Carswell (basically nobody ever sees him in the constituency and he only got over the line because of the 'buoyant' inherent UKIP support building in the area). UKIP look to have peaked with Clacton.
November 23, 201410 yr Only a 3,000 maj for UKIP in the end though, which suggests that the Conservatives may be able to turn it around by May 2015, particularly as Reckless is totally different to Carswell (basically nobody ever sees him in the constituency and he only got over the line because of the 'buoyant' inherent UKIP support building in the area). UKIP look to have peaked with Clacton. Demographically Rochester shouldn't actually have been that strong for them - in its way it's as impressive a result as Clacton. I still reckon they won't win another seat aside any more defections and possibly Thanet but it's worrying nonetheless.
November 23, 201410 yr Only a 3,000 maj for UKIP in the end though, which suggests that the Conservatives may be able to turn it around by May 2015, particularly as Reckless is totally different to Carswell (basically nobody ever sees him in the constituency and he only got over the line because of the 'buoyant' inherent UKIP support building in the area). UKIP look to have peaked with Clacton. In both seats there seem to have been people voting UKIP because the previous MP had done nothing for them. Somehow they thought that voting for the same MP with a different rosette would make a big difference.
November 23, 201410 yr Demographically Rochester shouldn't actually have been that strong for them - in its way it's as impressive a result as Clacton. I still reckon they won't win another seat aside any more defections and possibly Thanet but it's worrying nonetheless. They will definitely win Boston and Skegness.
November 23, 201410 yr Author sadly the lib-dems only got twice the Monster Raving Loony votes. The party of official opposition to the big parties now appears to be one who would have less cohesive policies than said MRL's. Ah well, reap what you sow and all that, on the plus side if UKIP form part of the next government it can only be a matter of time (5 years) before the Monsters and the Greens (who aren't loony's) start looking better and better to the electorate who will have tried all the rest to no avail. Expect for, you know, their support of homeopathy. Let's not forget that Caroline Lucas supported an early-day motion calling for homeopathy to be provided on the NHS, a fact that seems to have been conveniently removed from her Wikipedia page in recent months.
November 23, 201410 yr The Greens fucking well ARE loonies! The support for action on climate change REALLY blots out a lot of their worst moments. A properly anti-science party in the main.
November 23, 201410 yr bit of an unfair statement. There's a few questionable policies in their last Manifesto, drug-related most of them, but loonies? Nah, heart largely in the right place in terms of equality in society and looking after the planet. Admittedly they are probably a bit too left-wing for Labour's taste these days..... There's nothing about replacing the NHS with homeopathy centres in the manifesto, and as long as it stays non-taxpayer supported people are free to choose to part-believe in it if they want to, just as much as people are free to believe in religion which is entirely faith-based.
November 23, 201410 yr Author There's nothing about replacing the NHS with homeopathy centres in the manifesto, and as long as it stays non-taxpayer supported people are free to choose to part-believe in it if they want to, just as much as people are free to believe in religion which is entirely faith-based. 1. I never said that the Greens wanted to replace the NHS with homeopathy centres. 2. Whilst I cannot speak for other religions, most Catholics would heavily dispute that our beliefs are "entirely faith-based", but I have no interest of going down that particular road of conversation.
November 23, 201410 yr 1. I never said that the Greens wanted to replace the NHS with homeopathy centres. 2. Whilst I cannot speak for other religions, most Catholics would heavily dispute that our beliefs are "entirely faith-based", but I have no interest of going down that particular road of conversation. Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were saying that, it was a general statement that AS LONG AS they don't put in their manifesto as a policy, I don't care whether caroline Lucas thinks sipping dried leaves is good for her health or not (or anything similar), she has a right to think what she wants to without being labelled (by someone else) " f***ing well are loonies". I agree that pretty much all religious people don't see their own religion as entirely faith-based, and some of my closest friends are staunch in their religious beliefs, which I respect and support, but without subscribing to any of the world religions in particular myself.
November 23, 201410 yr I stand by my statement that they're faith-based loonies when it comes to a lot of science stuff. http://www.theguardian.com/science/politic...ovement-science http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchive...ience-zealotry/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchive...s-with-science/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/davidgre...ti-science.html
Create an account or sign in to comment