|
|
Post by Antiochian on Feb 24, 2017 11:21:48 GMT
No-one seems to think that Blair's intervention helped Labour in either of the two seats. I doubt it had more than a miniscule effect. It was a dog whistle to ardent pro Europeans like me, and a reminder that Corbyn whipped (giggle) the A50 vote. To try and blame that pair for the defeat is beyond pathetic. I'd wager it wasn't mentioned once on the doorsteps. It was a fog-horn not a dog whistle... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 11:23:23 GMT
Cat Smith. Oh dear. She will be looking for a new job on a Copeland style swing. Deep joy! |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311 
|
Post by maxque on Feb 24, 2017 11:29:44 GMT
Owen Smith was not "my side". He was on the left of the party. And there is no "Blair-clone" candidate available. You're smarter than that David and you know than politics aren't about facts, but perceptions. Because of his former job in the Pharmaceutic industry and a few other elements, Corbynites were able to paint him as a right-wing lobbyist who wasn't caring about the working class. You may believe it's true or false, it's irrelevent, what is relevent is what the electors thought. I'm honestly shocked than: 1. Anti-Corbyn people took a candidate who could be painted as that to carry their banner. 2. Honestly, I would say the campaign was incompetent. It failed to dispel the bad image of Owen Smith and it failed to make the campaign about Corbyn's failings. Let's be honest, if you're outsmarted by Corbyn, you will be killed by the Conservative machine in 2020. Sure, Corbyn needs to go, but you need a ruthless plan, not a messy disaster like last time and a good candidate, because many persons are not fans of Corbyn, but that doesn't mean they'll take anybody. You may not agree with that, but you need those people to get 50%+1 of electors. I just hope such a plan is in the works right now and having Blair shut up would help, as someone pointed out, he is less popular than Corbyn and it reminds to the anti-Corbynites who voted for Corbyn in the past why they did. Sure, you may not like it, but, if you want to beat Corbyn, you need to understand why he won first and how to take the wavering voters (which would most likely imply taking some Corbyn policies and would lead to a party slightly more to the left than under Blair), but I think it's either that or being stuck with Corbyn. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,014
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 24, 2017 11:31:50 GMT
I woupd think the LD's would be disappointed with these two. Although the vote increased in both; surely a minimum 10% would be their base line? I dunno, the LD candidate in Copeland looked remarkably chuffed to save her deposit. I think it's more because we beat UKIP which I don't think we were expecting... |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 11:33:04 GMT
I should add that the seats that the Lib Dems could win or move back into a strong second if there were a GE tomorrow are places with bigger Labour/Green votes than UKIP votes in 2015. My list for England and Wales (they stand a good chance in NE Fife and Edinburgh West as well) Bath Twickenham Kingston Colchester Cheadle Portsmouth S Brecon and Radnor Hazel Grove Lewes and Eastbourne they are close enough to have a chance too Plus they should beat Labour in Cambridge and have a chance in Cardiff Central, Burnley and Bermondsey I rate Eastbourne a better chance than most on your list. I don't see Colchester or Brecon being at all easy. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 24, 2017 11:35:46 GMT
I dunno, the LD candidate in Copeland looked remarkably chuffed to save her deposit. I think it's more because we beat UKIP which I don't think we were expecting... Nor were UKIP, it is fair to say. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 11:36:10 GMT
Yes, yes, yes! It is all a structure not proportion. If the opposition is evenly divided you can hold on in severe adversity. |
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Feb 24, 2017 11:38:27 GMT
I woupd think the LD's would be disappointed with these two. Although the vote increased in both; surely a minimum 10% would be their base line? I thought both results were disappointing... Brave face being put on it.. but comparatives to 2010 don't look good. Copeland should have had some proximity effect from the Farron epicentre of power(particularly up-country). What about the Remainers? We seemed to get only 25% of the Remainer vote unless Remainers stayed home. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 24, 2017 11:38:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 11:42:11 GMT
Blair's intervention last Friday was, by reliable accounts, mentioned as a reason for not voting Labour in both Stoke and Copeland. I'm not going to pretend it was the main reason for the latter result in particular. But it didn't help. I'm not surprised, It's almost as if was calculated to damage the leader 'Almost'?!!!! O f course it was calculated and timed to a nicety by a real politician who knows what he is about and how to effect action and results. The present mob are insignificant pygmies in comparison to him. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,903
Member is Online
|
Post by Tony Otim on Feb 24, 2017 11:43:26 GMT
I dunno, the LD candidate in Copeland looked remarkably chuffed to save her deposit. I think it's more because we beat UKIP which I don't think we were expecting... In the context of close by-elections where they weren't in contention to get an increase in vote share in both was a decent result for the lds. Apart from the tories i would have thought they would be the only ones who can feel more happy than not at the results. Ukip probably just did well enough in holding second in stoke for it not be calamitous, but not well enough to turn around the current decline. We did as badly as expected but at least we had candidates this time. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 11:44:52 GMT
It's not my job to make the Corbynites feel comfortable that they've managed to lose a seat that's been Labour for 80 years. It is my job to make them feel as uncomfortable about it as I possibly can. Love it. love it. All in full view now. Draw up a chair Blue Tem and watch the fight. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,311
|
Post by maxque on Feb 24, 2017 11:45:17 GMT
The only results of such fingerpointing (Corbynites to "Blairites", Anti-Corbynites to Corbynites) is making the average member think "Both factions are disconnected from reality and more interested in petty fights, I'm out of here/I'll let my membership laspe.". |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 24, 2017 11:49:18 GMT
The Corbynite view that is coming out (and no I'm not including The Bishop ) seems to be that the unique dependence on nuclear power killed the Labour campaign. That seems to have more than a nugget of truth in it, but that's far less comforting. Corbyn's (past?) anti-nuclear stance is part of the package of middle class leftery that is alienating the working class core voters. It's the package that should be worrying Labour, not the fact that one part of it was used effectively. The thing is though, its mainly historic. Even many younger Labour lefties are quite comfortable with nuclear *power*. (its part of a wider trend too, cf George Monbiot's conversion to its virtues) Yes. It was Monbiot's conversion to it that confirmed me in my opposition. If he is convinced of it, it is near certain to be wrong. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 24, 2017 11:52:11 GMT
He wasn't the only person to claim that. Interesting that you find this more worthy of ridicule than all the lobby journalist HOT TAKES from late last year that "NUTTALL WILL DESTROY LABOUR". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 11:55:16 GMT
The time for neutrality is ending. If you're not actively opposing Corbyn, you're now objectively a Corbynite. I refer you to Orwell's essay on Pacifism and the War. The problem is that plenty of the people "actively opposing" Corbyn - starting from ACL Blair and The Rt Hon the Lord Mandelson and working down - are having the effect of shoring him up, by reminding Corbyn supporters of what they voted against in September 2015. What is needed now is not more futile howling from the Dunning-Kruger grandmasters of Sensible Labour, but a viable strategy for moving on from JC which has a prospect of uniting at least a clear majority of members and putting us in vaguely decent shape to go to the country. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,014
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 24, 2017 11:58:06 GMT
The time for neutrality is ending. If you're not actively opposing Corbyn, you're now objectively a Corbynite. I refer you to Orwell's essay on Pacifism and the War. Sounds more like you've been reading George W Bush to me. You know, when Blair doesn't say anything the only people who really ever bring him up are hardcore Blairites, extolling his virtues. There's general indifference towards him from the public in general (bar those Millenials for whom their political direction was driven by their dislike of growing up under his government). When he speaks out though, however much some people might actually agree with him, the message is lost because he is held in distain. He damages the Remain cause because of his reputation. It's quite extraordinary that Gordon Brown has a better reputation as a person with the public than Tony Blair bearing in mind what a hash he made of being PM. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,014
|
Post by Khunanup on Feb 24, 2017 12:04:50 GMT
I think it's more because we beat UKIP which I don't think we were expecting... In the context of close by-elections where they weren't in contention to get an increase in vote share in both was a decent result for the lds. Apart from the tories i would have thought they would be the only ones who can feel more happy than not at the results. Ukip probably just did well enough in holding second in stoke for it not be calamitous, but not well enough to turn around the current decline. We did as badly as expected but at least we had candidates this time. I didn't expect much from the Greens (these are by-elections after all...) but even in that context I thought both results were diabolical bearing in mind we were level pegging with you in both constituencies last time. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Feb 24, 2017 12:12:03 GMT
To be fair, given usual by-election trends, even an idiot like Bastani would be justified in making that claim. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 24, 2017 12:20:03 GMT
I should add that the seats that the Lib Dems could win or move back into a strong second if there were a GE tomorrow are places with bigger Labour/Green votes than UKIP votes in 2015. My list for England and Wales (they stand a good chance in NE Fife and Edinburgh West as well) Bath Twickenham Kingston Colchester Cheadle Portsmouth S Brecon and Radnor Hazel Grove Lewes and Eastbourne they are close enough to have a chance too Plus they should beat Labour in Cambridge and have a chance in Cardiff Central, Burnley and Bermondsey Then Southport and (at a push) North Norfolk may well go the other way. Southport is always marginal, but the Labour vote is bigger than the UKIP vote. In 2015 the Labour vote went up 10% and the UKIP vote 11%. It would still be marginal, I would say. North Norfolk has a bigger UKIP vote and in 2015 the Labour plus others vote went up 6%, and the UKIP vote by 12%. Norman Lamb could be vulnerable on present polling. On present boundaries Leeds NW and Sheffield Hallam should be safe but on new boundaries they could change radically. Carshalton and Wallington could be very vulnerable since the UKIP vote went up 12% there last time and the Labour vote only 6%. However in all those London seats Heathrow could also be an issue to varying extents, and will be bad for the Tories. |
|
