Oldham West and Royton

[Andrew_S]

I've put in a request to Oldham council for the individual ward turnout figures for the by-election.

[johnsmith]

Dec 7, 2015 19:25:12 GMT Andrew_S said:

I've put in a request to Oldham council for the individual ward turnout figures for the by-election.

That would be fascinating.

[No Offence Alan]

Dec 7, 2015 19:25:12 GMT Andrew_S said:

I've put in a request to Oldham council for the individual ward turnout figures for the by-election.

They will probably tell you, correctly, that the marked register will be available at some point and you can work the figures out for yourself.

[Rural Radical]

Dec 6, 2015 23:21:19 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 6, 2015 22:59:00 GMT thirdchill said:

The women of the Greenham Common peace camp would be too gun-ho for you

But lots of Labour party members would be reluctant to vote for him. Particularly the membership as it now stands

I doubt that

[Merseymike]

Dec 7, 2015 20:46:30 GMT Rural Radical said:

Dec 6, 2015 23:21:19 GMT Merseymike said:

But lots of Labour party members would be reluctant to vote for him. Particularly the membership as it now stands

I doubt that

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

[Rural Radical]

Dec 7, 2015 22:37:24 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 7, 2015 20:46:30 GMT Rural Radical said:

I doubt that

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

You have your view and I have mine

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2015 22:37:24 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 7, 2015 20:46:30 GMT Rural Radical said:

I doubt that

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

Your party managed to (in my view) make the wrong call on both Iraq and Syria.

Anyone in Labour who agrees with my position (at all?)

[johnsmith]

Dec 8, 2015 0:02:57 GMT joe said:

Dec 7, 2015 22:37:24 GMT Merseymike said:

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

Your party managed to (in my view) make the wrong call on both Iraq and Syria.

Anyone in Labour who agrees with my position (at all?)

I do actually.

We were wrong to go into Iraq, which was really all about regime change and a simplistic moralistic desire on our leader's part to remove a very bad man, with little real thought for the consequences, whilst for the USA there were very thinly disguised motives of economic imperialism from the start. And yet Iraq posed no threat to us and all the talk of WMD was just an excuse. We had neither UN backing nor local muslim support or a strong international coalition. Many of the major players in the world were openly against us.

But ISIS poses a much more real threat to us and the rest of the world, we have UN backing, local muslim support and potential participation, and most of the major players in the world are onside now. We cannot let this regime, openly aiming for regional conquest and regarding all non-muslims as enemies who deserve to die, alone to get ever stronger. We need to take it down, and I believe that sooner or later troops on the ground are going to be necessary - if not ours then somebody's.

[The Bishop]

Dec 8, 2015 0:02:57 GMT joe said:

Dec 7, 2015 22:37:24 GMT Merseymike said:

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

Your party managed to (in my view) make the wrong call on both Iraq and Syria.

Anyone in Labour who agrees with my position (at all?)

Yes, there are a few opponents of the Iraq war who back military action now.

[john07]

Dec 7, 2015 22:37:24 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 7, 2015 20:46:30 GMT Rural Radical said:

I doubt that

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

Usual bullshit.

I repeat what I said previously that the Syria vote will be largely forgotten by all but a few obsessives long before there is a vacancy for the Labour Party leadership.

It is something of a non issue as it will have next to no impact on anything.

[The Bishop]

Well, we shall see. I think there are a few people who now view Jarvis less favourably, for sure.

[carlton43]

Dec 4, 2015 16:06:49 GMT obsie said:

Dec 4, 2015 14:46:08 GMT tim said:

The trouble with the expectations game is that UKIP had to raise expectations to say this was a two horse race. And considering the conservative vote fell from over 8,000 to 2.596 then there does appear to have been some tory to UKIP tactical voting. However it looks like a two horse race on the flat where one horse is clearly quicker. So the result in 2020 already looks a fairly predictable Labour first…ukip second…

If UKIP were only able to boost their vote by 2% in a high-profile by-election, I wouldn't assume that they'd hold onto second place at the next election. There were plenty of by-elections in the 1980s where the Alliance moved into second place in safe Labour seats and then dropped back at the subsequent general election.

One can read so little into by-elections under any circumstances that i feel your comment to be invalid and not just because UKIP is involved on this occasion. Events  and local/national mood will determine as they always do. UKIP is very much a mood and surge type party rather than a steady nut-and-bolt build-up party like the LDs. We need the focus of events (Euro Elections, GE, Referendum, Immigration Figures) or a pronouncement by Farage or one against him or the party. We are in 'dull zone', partly of our own making, but mainly because the focus has been on the more interesting Labour situation and some 'big votes' on Syria and welfare policy. I was very sceptical about a high poll let alone being anywhere near winning. We had no local nor national traction, but we were 'the' opposition and dominated the non-Labour campaign. That has to be enough at present.

[Deleted]

I am struggling to see any particular reason why Jarvis should be the anointed one other than the fact of his previous career. His political career to date has been an exercise in studied blandness.

[Deleted]

Because studied blandness would be a big improvement?

[Deleted]

Not if it doesn't get you elected leader (which it won't unless he changes his approach).

[Merseymike]

Dec 8, 2015 4:33:52 GMT johnsmith said:

Dec 8, 2015 0:02:57 GMT joe said:

Your party managed to (in my view) make the wrong call on both Iraq and Syria.

Anyone in Labour who agrees with my position (at all?)

I do actually.

We were wrong to go into Iraq, which was really all about regime change and a simplistic moralistic desire on our leader's part to remove a very bad man, with little real thought for the consequences, whilst for the USA there were very thinly disguised motives of economic imperialism from the start. And yet Iraq posed no threat to us and all the talk of WMD was just an excuse. We had neither UN backing nor local muslim support or a strong international coalition. Many of the major players in the world were openly against us.

But ISIS poses a much more real threat to us and the rest of the world, we have UN backing, local muslim support and potential participation, and most of the major players in the world are onside now. We cannot let this regime, openly aiming for regional conquest and regarding all non-muslims as enemies who deserve to die, alone to get ever stronger. We need to take it down, and I believe that sooner or later troops on the ground are going to be necessary - if not ours then somebody's.

It may indeed, but that military action will have to be Sunni Arab led.

However, if the issues of 1) the porous border into the Isis region, 2) the fact people are willing to buy their oil 3) the giving of ammunition to them 4) the training of Wahhabi imams and funding of maddrassas, are dealt with, it may not survive at all

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2015 11:09:49 GMT john07 said:

Dec 7, 2015 22:37:24 GMT Merseymike said:

I don't. The next party leader - whenever that election takes place - will not be someone who voted for Syria.

Usual bullshit.

I repeat what I said previously that the Syria vote will be largely forgotten by all but a few obsessives long before there is a vacancy for the Labour Party leadership.

It is something of a non issue as it will have next to no impact on anything.

You are giving mboy a run for his money for my vote in personality of the year john.

[Merseymike]

Dec 8, 2015 11:33:07 GMT The Bishop said:

Well, we shall see. I think there are a few people who now view Jarvis less favourably, for sure.

The point is that it will be raised as an issue - and linked with Iraq and other aspects of liberal interventionism, which most party members are clearly against.
Iraq undoubtedly made an impact in David Miliband losing.

[Merseymike]

Dec 8, 2015 12:07:40 GMT joe said:

Dec 8, 2015 11:09:49 GMT john07 said:

Usual bullshit.

I repeat what I said previously that the Syria vote will be largely forgotten by all but a few obsessives long before there is a vacancy for the Labour Party leadership.

It is something of a non issue as it will have next to no impact on anything.

You are giving mboy a run for his money for my vote in personality of the year john.

Well, they are equally wrong on just about everything - I hope thay will appreciate support from a libertarian Tory

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2015 12:08:59 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 8, 2015 12:07:40 GMT joe said:

You are giving mboy a run for his money for my vote in personality of the year john.

Well, they are equally wrong on just about everything - I hope thay will appreciate support from a libertarian Tory

I would put you in the top 5!

I don't see a great deal politically between mboy and myself.