Join the Labour Party and save your country!

1…128129131133134…509

Comments

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    mrfpb wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Come on Labour - we need Jezza to stay :)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-by-elections-paul-nuttall-ukip-tony-blair-a7587371.html

    Clearly UKIP and Labour are trying to out do each other like junkies at an NA meeting -

    Labour: "We self destructed faster than you - our leftie Corbyn habit dragged us to the gutter",
    Ukip: "No, we picked a scouser who managed to pee off everyone in liverpool by posturing about Hillsborough, and a party donor who outrright insulted them. We sank lower!"
    Thursday should be a good laugh whatever happens.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Come on Labour - we need Jezza to stay :)

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-by-elections-paul-nuttall-ukip-tony-blair-a7587371.html

    Clearly UKIP and Labour are trying to out do each other like junkies at an NA meeting -

    Labour: "We self destructed faster than you - our leftie Corbyn habit dragged us to the gutter",
    Ukip: "No, we picked a scouser who managed to pee off everyone in liverpool by posturing about Hillsborough, and a party donor who outrright insulted them. We sank lower!"
    Thursday should be a good laugh whatever happens.

    Can't believe that I actually want Labour to win a by election.
    Funny ol' world eh?
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Tories 44%
    Labour 26%

    https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/

    Are we sure Jezza isn't a Tory?
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Tories 44%
    Labour 26%

    https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/

    Are we sure Jezza isn't a Tory?
    Pretty sure, although some of the people who voted for him are :D
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Calling all voters in Copeland and Stoke.
    Do your duty. :lol:
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Calling all voters in Copeland and Stoke.
    Do your duty. :lol:
    Well some of them did.

    The last time a party in government took a seat from a rival party was 1982...well done Jezza. Although holding Stoke might allow the leftiebollox experiment to stagger on for a bit longer - ideally until May 2020 :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Calling all voters in Copeland and Stoke.
    Do your duty. :lol:
    Well some of them did.

    The last time a party in government took a seat from a rival party was 1982...well done Jezza. Although holding Stoke might allow the leftiebollox experiment to stagger on for a bit longer - ideally until May 2020 :)

    yep make hay when the sun still shines :lol:

    the only thing Labour can take away from last night is they knocked ukip into 3rd and well done for the Tories for doing the same in Copeland and of course winning, a remarkable achievement.
    Perhaps people are starting to see through these ukip nutters.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,620
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Calling all voters in Copeland and Stoke.
    Do your duty. :lol:
    Well some of them did.

    The last time a party in government took a seat from a rival party was 1982...well done Jezza. Although holding Stoke might allow the leftiebollox experiment to stagger on for a bit longer - ideally until May 2020 :)

    You're very cheerful given the man you paid £3 to vote in as leader has suffered an abject humiliation!
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    edited February 2017
    mamba80 wrote:
    the only thing Labour can take away from last night is they knocked ukip into 3rd and well done for the Tories for doing the same in Copeland and of course winning, a remarkable achievement.
    Perhaps people are starting to see through these ukip nutters.

    It says a lot about British politics that we can celebrate UKIP only coming third, rather than being horrified by it.

    Nevertheless Tories gained 8% over 2015, UKIP lost 9% in Copeland. So no swing from working class Labour to UKIP there!

    34a9c593-30c5-44aa-9b79-41618768e2fd.jpg

    I haven't seen the Stoke breakdown though.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Did I read that right 36.7% turnout in Stoke? Wtf! Just over a third voted? Copeland was 51.27%, not good but at least over halfway.

    I'm sorry but has it always been so bad? Is voting really so unimportant to people?

    I sometimes wonder if you can call it ac win if the turnout is so low. Labour gets 37% of the vote with 7853 votes. If my maths is right 21,224 people voted with a 36.7% turnout. Constituency must be about 57,832 people eligible to vote. About 36,607 people didn't vote. That means something like 49,979 people did not put an x next to the labour candidate. 6 to 1.

    Not really relevant and probably similar in other constituencies for other parties. Copeland had a much bigger turnout though. Does that mean Labour aren't able to get their people out? What does it all mean?
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    Did I read that right 36.7% turnout in Stoke? Wtf! Just over a third voted? Copeland was 51.27%, not good but at least over halfway.

    I'm sorry but has it always been so bad? Is voting really so unimportant to people?

    I sometimes wonder if you can call it ac win if the turnout is so low. Labour gets 37% of the vote with 7853 votes. If my maths is right 21,224 people voted with a 36.7% turnout. Constituency must be about 57,832 people eligible to vote. About 36,607 people didn't vote. That means something like 49,979 people did not put an x next to the labour candidate. 6 to 1.

    Not really relevant and probably similar in other constituencies for other parties. Copeland had a much bigger turnout though. Does that mean Labour aren't able to get their people out? What does it all mean?

    why the surprise? look how few people comment on political threads on here? lots of posts but by the same people!
    when i go down the pub, at work or at the cafe stop, no-one talks politics and no one is particularly interested, most people i know are managing quite well and therefore dont care, people who are struggling, tend not to vote at all, referendums aside!

    it means labour, who ever is their leader are finished for the time being, will that change post brexit? no, because they supported brexit/A 50, the lib/dems could be winners here, of course if brexit turns out to be succesful, then the tories are home an dry.
    If Labour cant win in Copeland where a local issue on their hospital closure could nt secure a win, they ll struggle anywhere, they only won in Stoke because of that idiots false brags.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    mamba80 wrote:
    they only won in Stoke because of that idiots false brags.
    You have to marvel at how hard he worked to throw it away (with sterling support from the estimable Arron Banks). If they'd done absolutely nothing for the whole campaign they might have got more votes.
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    Why the turnout was so low in Stoke compared to Copeland? That's what makes me wonder most about what's happening in UK wide politics. Copeland was Labour since its creation in the 80s. Before that it was also Labour as part of the Whitehaven constituency. Stoke is similarly Labour stronghold for almost as long i think.

    The Copeland went against common sense because of the single issue of the NHS/local hospital closure didn't work for Labour. Did Corbyn's anti-nuclear past really become the main single issue there?

    Stoke hold but not by that much. That gurning idiot Nuttal lost it for UKIP? Doubt it. Referendum result did more damage to UKIP IMHO.

    So much going on with these two results. What does this mean in the longer term through to 2020? Anything?

    One thing for sure, Tories won't be running the usual mid-term party of government line that by elections are a protest vote and not relevant to a GE. Their win is just too significant not to crow about a little bit.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Decent night for the lib dems.
    _
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    bompington wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    they only won in Stoke because of that idiots false brags.
    You have to marvel at how hard he worked to throw it away (with sterling support from the estimable Arron Banks). If they'd done absolutely nothing for the whole campaign they might have got more votes.

    There appears to have been a modest swing towards UKIP in Stoke- about 2%, equal to the drop in Labours vote. Not a great result for them given the high profile campaign there, but still worrying.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Decent night for the lib dems.
    Copeland: 4th place behind UKIP with 3.5% of the vote, a 6.7% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000647#constituency_result_headline

    Stoke: 5th place behind UKIP and an independent with 4.2% of the vote, a 17.5% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000972#constituency_result_headline

    Long may the Libdems 'decent nights' continue :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Calling all voters in Copeland and Stoke.
    Do your duty. :lol:
    Well some of them did.

    The last time a party in government took a seat from a rival party was 1982...well done Jezza. Although holding Stoke might allow the leftiebollox experiment to stagger on for a bit longer - ideally until May 2020 :)

    You're very cheerful given the man you paid £3 to vote in as leader has suffered an abject humiliation!
    He'll survive for now..,best 3 quid I ever spent :D
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Decent night for the lib dems.
    Copeland: 4th place behind UKIP with 3.5% of the vote, a 6.7% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000647#constituency_result_headline

    Stoke: 5th place behind UKIP and an independent with 4.2% of the vote, a 17.5% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000972#constituency_result_headline

    Long may the Libdems 'decent nights' continue :wink:

    Meant more on the local council side.

    The day lib dems do even remotely well in stoke and copeland is the day they have a landslide victory.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Decent night for the lib dems.
    Copeland: 4th place behind UKIP with 3.5% of the vote, a 6.7% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000647#constituency_result_headline

    Stoke: 5th place behind UKIP and an independent with 4.2% of the vote, a 17.5% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000972#constituency_result_headline

    Long may the Libdems 'decent nights' continue :wink:

    Meant more on the local council side.

    The day lib dems do even remotely well in stoke and copeland is the day they have a landslide victory.
    You might have thought they'd pick a few more votes than 2010 on account of Brexit? Look on the bright side, it was a crap night for Labour and UKIP as well.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Decent night for the lib dems.
    Copeland: 4th place behind UKIP with 3.5% of the vote, a 6.7% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000647#constituency_result_headline

    Stoke: 5th place behind UKIP and an independent with 4.2% of the vote, a 17.5% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000972#constituency_result_headline

    Long may the Libdems 'decent nights' continue :wink:

    Meant more on the local council side.

    The day lib dems do even remotely well in stoke and copeland is the day they have a landslide victory.
    You might have thought they'd pick a few more votes than 2010 on account of Brexit? Look on the bright side, it was a crap night for Labour and UKIP as well.

    I wouldn't have.

    The main story from Stoke is it was widely considered to be the most likely seat to fall to UKIP, and the centre of voter defections from Labour to UKIP.

    Clearly, what a lot of people hadn't banked on, is now that the Tory party are essentially UKIP in spirit - pushing for the hardest brexit possible - that there is no need to vote for a bunch of mouth foaming loonies, 'cos they can just vote for the swivel eyed ones instead and get the same result.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    'cos they can just vote for the swivel eyed ones instead and get the same result.
    Not so - Labour really didn't do too well :wink:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Decent night for the lib dems.
    Copeland: 4th place behind UKIP with 3.5% of the vote, a 6.7% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000647#constituency_result_headline

    Stoke: 5th place behind UKIP and an independent with 4.2% of the vote, a 17.5% reduction in vote share from 2010.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000972#constituency_result_headline

    Long may the Libdems 'decent nights' continue :wink:

    Meant more on the local council side.

    The day lib dems do even remotely well in stoke and copeland is the day they have a landslide victory.
    You might have thought they'd pick a few more votes than 2010 on account of Brexit? Look on the bright side, it was a crap night for Labour and UKIP as well.

    I wouldn't have.

    The main story from Stoke is it was widely considered to be the most likely seat to fall to UKIP, and the centre of voter defections from Labour to UKIP.

    Clearly, what a lot of people hadn't banked on, is now that the Tory party are essentially UKIP in spirit - pushing for the hardest brexit possible - that there is no need to vote for a bunch of mouth foaming loonies, 'cos they can just vote for the swivel eyed ones instead and get the same result.

    Or because we have had a referendum and voted for Brexit, UKIP are now an irrelevance.
    They are a one trick pony. They have shot their bolt.
    But still managed to out poll the LIbdems :wink:
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    Clearly, what a lot of people hadn't banked on, is now that the Tory party are essentially UKIP in spirit - pushing for the hardest brexit possible - that there is no need to vote for a bunch of mouth foaming loonies, 'cos they can just vote for the swivel eyed ones instead and get the same result.

    Or because we have had a referendum and voted for Brexit, UKIP are now an irrelevance.

    That's what I said? We're not disagreeing there.
    _
  • bendertherobot
    bendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    I've not checked the thread today/media.

    Presumably there are a handful of people left who support Corbyn?
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    bendertherobot wrote:
    I've not checked the thread today/media.

    Presumably there are a handful of people left who support Corbyn?

    Well, John McDonnell thinks the loss is Blair's fault.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,620
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Clearly, what a lot of people hadn't banked on, is now that the Tory party are ... pushing for the hardest brexit possible...

    This is b*llocks. The government's stated position is to negotiate the best access to the single market that they can get, given that free movement of people and ECJ supremacy is not going to happen post-Brexit. The end result might be "the hardest Brexit possible" but that's no what is being pushed for.

    And if you don't believe the above then why would the Tories be pushing for the hardest Brexit possible? If that is the desired endgame then they just tell the EU to f*** off after triggering Article 50. There's no pushing required to achieve that!
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Clearly, what a lot of people hadn't banked on, is now that the Tory party are ... pushing for the hardest brexit possible...

    This is b*llocks. The government's stated position is to negotiate the best access to the single market that they can get, given that free movement of people and ECJ supremacy is not going to happen post-Brexit. The end result might be "the hardest Brexit possible" but that's no what is being pushed for.

    And if you don't believe the above then why would the Tories be pushing for the hardest Brexit possible? If that is the desired endgame then they just tell the EU to f*** off after triggering Article 50. There's no pushing required to achieve that!

    People voted to leave the EU but we dont know their levels of "leaving the EU"
    so given the levels of immigration needed to keep our economy/nhs running and that we can control non working migrants even if we stayed in EU, then by saying we wont accept FOM or ECJ, then we are in effect telling the eu to FO and going for the hardest poss brexit.
    this isnt what Norway has done, so there are options, TM has chosen not to even explore them.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,429
    Whatever people think the govt is pushing for, it hasn't done them much harm at the polls.

    Although I could have sworn there was another thread somewhere for this sort of argument :)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,620
    mamba80 wrote:
    ...by saying we wont accept FOM or ECJ, then we are in effect telling the eu to FO and going for the hardest poss brexit.

    With respect, this is also logically flawed. The EU knows that FoM and the ECJ are "red lines" for the UK yet are still lining up to negotiate. What are they going to negotiate if the hardest Brexit possible follows axiomatically from the UK's "red lines"? Similarly, if the UK government actively wants the hardest possible Brexit then why are they fannying around with White Papers etc? If this was their aim then they'd be proudly telling everyone that once the A50 bill had been passed then they'd be sending Boris over with the notice letter to hand it over and insult JCJ, Barnier, Merkel etc. in person.

    It makes a good headline to portray the Tories as actively pursuing the hardest possible Brexit, but it's no more true than the one about Freddie Starr and the hamster.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,620
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    Whatever people think the govt is pushing for, it hasn't done them much harm at the polls.

    People are clearly answering the pollsters' questions incorrectly then!

Categories