The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 27, 2019 10:39:22 GMT
For me personally it has to be Oldham West in 2015. A surprising choice perhaps but being the first by-election of Corbyn's leadership it was so clearly apparent that the political establishment (the media, the Tories and most Labour MP's) where predicting a huge swing against Labour and possibly even defeat at the hands of UKIP and it was going to all be Corbyn's fault. Low and behold the result came in (a mind numbingly predictable result to anyone even half sane) and the commenteriat class where clearly hugely surprised and we then had the spectacle of UKIP claiming the vote was rigged and most everyone else who just 24 hours previously had been saying Corbyn needs to own the upcoming disaster now squirming out of it claiming the result was entirely down to Labour's moderate candidate. The whole thing was a hilarious spectacle that displayed succinctly why I hold most of the Westminster bubble in such contempt. Media "highlights" included John Harris doing one of his earliest "racism safaris" and the reliably awful Rafael Behr intrepidly and bravely venturing outside his M25 comfort zone, proceeding to speak to about three people, and concluding from this that "poncified" (his word) Labour were about to suffer a historic humiliation. But did our pundits learn from their collective humiliation here? Did they f*** as like!! (Stephen Bush may be one of the few exceptions) |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 27, 2019 11:40:53 GMT
Stoke Central was similar. I'd have to disagree, Stoke Central had totally different dynamics, it was post Brexit in an ultra Leave area and a city that Lab have been floundering in for a while now not to mention by this point Labour was polling abysmally so there was every reason to suspect it would be a bad result for Labour, throughout the campaign these issues were raised by the commenteriat thus amounting to "some" analysis on how and why people might vote the way they do. In Oldham West though everyone credible had it chalked down as an easy Labour hold yet the usual talking heads that clog up our TV screens genuinely seemed to be anticipating a calamity for Labour and their reasoning seemed to amount to little more than "Corbyn's a dirty commie, the GREAT British public will never vote for that riff raff"
And lets not forgot at the end of the day the Stoke Central result, while underwhelming and anti climatic was not a good result for Labour. Oldham West actually was a good result for Labour.
Oldham West was particularly odd in that the commentariat seemed to ignore the actual Labour candidate, when even a cursory glance would show that he was very good. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 27, 2019 12:51:24 GMT
I'd have to disagree, Stoke Central had totally different dynamics, it was post Brexit in an ultra Leave area and a city that Lab have been floundering in for a while now not to mention by this point Labour was polling abysmally so there was every reason to suspect it would be a bad result for Labour, throughout the campaign these issues were raised by the commenteriat thus amounting to "some" analysis on how and why people might vote the way they do. In Oldham West though everyone credible had it chalked down as an easy Labour hold yet the usual talking heads that clog up our TV screens genuinely seemed to be anticipating a calamity for Labour and their reasoning seemed to amount to little more than "Corbyn's a dirty commie, the GREAT British public will never vote for that riff raff"
And lets not forgot at the end of the day the Stoke Central result, while underwhelming and anti climatic was not a good result for Labour. Oldham West actually was a good result for Labour.
It could've been worse. Your party lost Copeland on the same day. Precisely and I think that was the sentiment for Stoke Central and why it differed to Oldham West, Stoke C could have been worse and thus was a relief more than anything, Oldham W was totally predictable and not at all surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 27, 2019 12:55:39 GMT
For me personally it has to be Oldham West in 2015. A surprising choice perhaps but being the first by-election of Corbyn's leadership it was so clearly apparent that the political establishment (the media, the Tories and most Labour MP's) where predicting a huge swing against Labour and possibly even defeat at the hands of UKIP and it was going to all be Corbyn's fault. Low and behold the result came in (a mind numbingly predictable result to anyone even half sane) and the commenteriat class where clearly hugely surprised and we then had the spectacle of UKIP claiming the vote was rigged and most everyone else who just 24 hours previously had been saying Corbyn needs to own the upcoming disaster now squirming out of it claiming the result was entirely down to Labour's moderate candidate. The whole thing was a hilarious spectacle that displayed succinctly why I hold most of the Westminster bubble in such contempt. Media "highlights" included John Harris doing one of his earliest "racism safaris" and the reliably awful Rafael Behr intrepidly and bravely venturing outside his M25 comfort zone, proceeding to speak to about three people, and concluding from this that "poncified" (his word) Labour were about to suffer a historic humiliation. But did our pundits learn from their collective humiliation here? Did they f*** as like!! (Stephen Bush may be one of the few exceptions) Its been said a million times before but being a political pundit must be one of the easiest jobs imaginable. They say their piece, are proven to be utterly and embarrassingly wrong more often than not and then its all immediately forgotten and their wheeled out again to give another inane (and almost always incorrect) prediction. How Dan Hodges for example hasn't faded into obscurity by now is totally beyond me, I don't think he's actually predicted anything correctly and lets not forgot Janen Ganesh with his "thick as pig sh*t remark, he won Journalist of the year for that comment, in an actual meritocracy it would have haunted him forever and ended his career in journalism.
Honestly the random vox pops from punters in the street are more insightful than most of the commenteriat class.
|
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Jan 27, 2019 13:03:22 GMT
I'd have to disagree, Stoke Central had totally different dynamics, it was post Brexit in an ultra Leave area and a city that Lab have been floundering in for a while now not to mention by this point Labour was polling abysmally so there was every reason to suspect it would be a bad result for Labour, throughout the campaign these issues were raised by the commenteriat thus amounting to "some" analysis on how and why people might vote the way they do. In Oldham West though everyone credible had it chalked down as an easy Labour hold yet the usual talking heads that clog up our TV screens genuinely seemed to be anticipating a calamity for Labour and their reasoning seemed to amount to little more than "Corbyn's a dirty commie, the GREAT British public will never vote for that riff raff"
And lets not forgot at the end of the day the Stoke Central result, while underwhelming and anti climatic was not a good result for Labour. Oldham West actually was a good result for Labour.
Oldham West was particularly odd in that the commentariat seemed to ignore the actual Labour candidate, when even a cursory glance would show that he was very good. Indeed right up till the point when Labour easily won and they needed an excuse. As you said the candidate got no mention at all pre election, post election though it seemed every other pundit they rolled out was bringing him up. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 27, 2019 13:12:09 GMT
Oldham West was particularly odd in that the commentariat seemed to ignore the actual Labour candidate, when even a cursory glance would show that he was very good. Indeed right up till the point when Labour easily won and they needed an excuse. As you said the candidate got no mention at all pre election, post election though it seemed every other pundit they rolled out was bringing him up. The candidate may have had no mention in the national press, but the national press were looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. The byelection campaign actually in the constituency concentrated on Jim McMahon, and ignored Corbyn. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 27, 2019 13:57:51 GMT
I'd have to disagree, Stoke Central had totally different dynamics, it was post Brexit in an ultra Leave area and a city that Lab have been floundering in for a while now not to mention by this point Labour was polling abysmally so there was every reason to suspect it would be a bad result for Labour, throughout the campaign these issues were raised by the commenteriat thus amounting to "some" analysis on how and why people might vote the way they do. In Oldham West though everyone credible had it chalked down as an easy Labour hold yet the usual talking heads that clog up our TV screens genuinely seemed to be anticipating a calamity for Labour and their reasoning seemed to amount to little more than "Corbyn's a dirty commie, the GREAT British public will never vote for that riff raff"
And lets not forgot at the end of the day the Stoke Central result, while underwhelming and anti climatic was not a good result for Labour. Oldham West actually was a good result for Labour.
It could've been worse. Your party lost Copeland on the same day. Which more importantly was held by the Conservatives in the 2017 general election, when they lost as many as 27 seats to Labour. Like Stoke-on-Trent, Copeland was trending towards the Conservatives in the long-term. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 17:47:44 GMT
One that seemed overhyped was Newark 2014.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785 
|
Post by john07 on Feb 13, 2019 2:54:29 GMT
I recall the South Dorset by-election in 1962.
Guy Barnett (Labour) defeated Angus Maude (Conservative) by a majority of 704. This was after the intervention of Piers Debenham as an 'Anti-Common Market' candidate who took 5,057 votes, most presumable from the Conservatives.
There was also the Orpington by-election in the same year when Eric Lubbock (Liberal) had a stunning win with a 22% swing.
|
|
