*.*

Some sources are now putting the Labour vote close to, or even higher than, their 1997 vote. Even if people have switched to Labour to make sure UKIP don't win, that will be a very good result.

Great signs so far from Oldham :D

Well consider me surprised.

 

Fantastic result, turnout was unexpectedly solid as well.

Great result.

 

Farage was throwing his toys out the pram tweeting about how the postal vote was fixed last night, in one of his usual misguided rants with slightly racist undertones.

My summary of the four main parties

 

Labour - first, a relief to hold it. Second, a higher share of the vote than in 1997 makes it a far better result than they would have expected.

 

UKIP - poor. They talked their challenge up, but came nowhere near winning it. If, after the Labour leadership election, each party had been able to choose where the first by-election would be, only UKIP would even have considered this one, so their performance is pretty awful. It suggests that there are far too many people who despise them for them to make significant progress.

 

Tories - poor. They put very little effort into the seat and lost half of their share of the vote as a result.

 

Lib Dems - compared with any result in the seat before May, terrible. Compared with May, disappointing at best. As with a lot of local by-elections (not quite all), where the party had little support even before the coalition, there is no real sign of improvement.

1. Grounds for optimism, hooray!

 

2. Pollsters still crap

 

3. Farage just outs himself as apparently racist with every opportunistic begrudging soundbite. Perhaps the high turnout and support for labour amongst former or current immigrant communities lies with his alienating everyone but his fellow party members. Just a suggestion of course that's how they are perceived. I'm sure they are not remotely racist in any way...

2. Pollsters still crap

Well not really, as Oldham was never polled.

Perhaps the big Asian communities helped labour here with the whole Syrian vote being in the news these past 2 weeks.

Well not really, as Oldham was never polled.

 

change it to media hype insisting UKIP could do it and it would be neck n neck... :o

 

maybe that helped concentrate Labour voters minds :lol:

Maybe the media should stop being so anti-Corbyn?!

The Independent and the Guardian need to stop getting so excited at every potential "crisis" story. Hopefully the novelty will wear off soon because this government needs better scrutiny and the BBC aren't able to do it while the spectre of being butchered hangs over them.

Maybe the media should stop being so anti-Corbyn?!

You'll note that pretty much every leader ever has received similar levels of scrutiny. That Corbyn is fucking up more in terms of elementary party management et al isn't so much a sign that he's receiving more scrutiny as a sign that he's less capable of dealing with it.

 

That said, for the past month the big strategic failures have had Seumas Milne written all over them, so it's difficult to complain given they're all the exact kind of thing to be expected to get coverage when you appoint Seumas Milne as your Head of Comms and Strategy.

The Establishment hate Corbyn and have attacked him over wearing or not wearing a tie, of not doing a theatrical bow deep enough for the journoa, for not wanting war like just like the rest of the population etc..

 

I don't trust the right wing supporting Establishment media. It seems that Corbyn is capturing the attention of the public and the media,in its sour attempts to deligitimise him, will give us no signs of this, making everyone, well not me, surprised when Labour smashes by-elections in spite of what the media wants people to believe. If these vote levels hold, unelectable Corbyn could be coming to repeat 1997.

The excellent result in Oldham West and Royton was almost entirely down to the strong local candidate as opposed to Corbyn, though given the rubbish spouted in the MSM about how this by-election was a 'referendum on Corbyn' it is tempting to throw it back at them as proving the electorate have a strong belief in Corbyn as a competent leader (even though this would be sticking your head in the sand and ignoring his approval ratings are at worryingly low levels).

His approval levels are inly so low as the Establishment, including the army, keep throwing mud over every little thing as they are threatened by what he stands for.

If these vote levels hold, unelectable Corbyn could be coming to repeat 1997.

Bank details? I bet you £500 that Corbyn (he of -41 approval rating in three months fame) will not win the next general election.

His approval levels are inly so low as the Establishment, including the army, keep throwing mud over every little thing as they are threatened by what he stands for.

And how exactly do you think he's going to win a 1997 style landslide from that position?

As the press won't report on his popularity until he wins. Like with Daniel Craig, criticising him as James Bond, but when people saw the movies and loved him, they all changed their tune and pretended like they had loved him in the role since day one.

As the press won't report on his popularity until he wins. Like with Daniel Craig, criticising him as James Bond, but when people saw the movies and loved him, they all changed their tune and pretended like they had loved him in the role since day one.

Can you make up your mind if Corbyn is popular or not? You're saying his -41 approval ratings are because people are just responding to the media attacking him, but at the same time insisting he's popular enough for a 1997 landslide. The two cannot be true at the same time.

 

£500 bet?