The result has just been declared
Oldham West & Royton: the result. Labour HOLD. pic.twitter.com/h8gs97mHoa
— Britain Elects (@britainelects) December 4, 2015
Jane Brophy and her team ran an energetic campaign and the party owes them a huge debt of gratitude. It’s not easy facing a by-election in these circumstances and they did so with great spirit and energy.
This was supposed to be a big UKIP moment. Didn’t go so well for them.
It was a disappointment for us, of course. At least our vote didn’t fall, unlike the Tories.
Best moment of the declaration: A lot, Sir Oink. Long may his career continue.
UPDATE: Another thought on this, last week there were all sorts of stories in the paper about Labour panic, how they saw their vote melting away and how they feared they might lose to UKIP. Well, it seems that Jeremy Corbyn can now go back to face his MPs next week with a highly unexpected vote increase under his belt in the first parliamentary by-election. That isn’t going to get the Blairites to suddenly fall in love with him, but it’s a sign that they may have to grin and bear him a little longer.
To all the Lib Dem team there I’d say don’t be disheartened. The entire party owes you many drinks at Conference for years to come. I know what it feels like to slog your guts out at by-elections and lose your deposit, the biggest memory of that being the 77 days we spent in Glenrothes in 2008 for 2.5%, and that was before the coalition. The team in Oldham did a lot of valuable work in terms of testing new stuff for the future and training a new generation of activists and Jane as candidate was spectacularly good.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers' Diary: My new friends with the webbed back feet and scaly tails
Investment, investment, investment.
Definitely a Lib Dem conference!
Ed Davey tries to name all the Lib Dem MPs while on a roller coaster
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Nigel Jones
Roland
Joe Bourke
Matt (Bristol)
55 Comments
Well done to Jane. I would have voted for her. Watched the result come in live, I had prepared myself for a horror vote in the hundreds like the Greens – it seemed it was a two-horse seat between Labour and UKIP.
Always hard work to be a candidate so thanks to her and to the activists also.
Hang on Corbyn’s Labour increased share by 7.5% not bad for a vilified terrorist sympathisers but you guys know best
Great campaign Jane Brophy and team, RESULT LibDems narrowed gap on Conservatives by 4026 votes & increased lead over The Green Party by an extra 25 votes compared to May’s General Election, well done!
@Michael Beckett
I can’t tell if your post is sincere or sarcastic. Comparing the number of votes per party in the seat at a general election and a by-election with a much smaller turnout seems irrelevant.
It is difficult to draw too many conclusions from a single byelection, but sadly, despite the undoubted hard work of local Lib Dems and those who travelled to help campaign, there is no evidence here that Lib Dems, having polled 19-20% in this seat in 2005 and 2010, have changed their fortunes or recovered support lost to other parties since 2010.
The message I picked up in Oldham was “We don’t like Jeremy Corbyn and we are voting Labour.” Labour clearly got their candidate selection right. Presumably somebody is looking at the box counts. My impression is that the Asian communities are less diverse than in some other Northern towns and some polling districts may well have recorded 90% plus for Labour. It would also be interesting to know where the late surge in postal votes came from. Don’t think we have nothing to learn from this one. It was a Labour triumph at a time when Labour are hopelessly split. Let’s see what the first Scottish by-election brings!
Geoff Reid 4th Dec ’15 – 8:28am………………… Don’t think we have nothing to learn from this one. It was a Labour triumph at a time when Labour are hopelessly split. Let’s see what the first Scottish by-election brings!…………………
Oh, dear! Prior to the vote it was ALL about a Labour disaster (to be blamed on Corbyn, of course)…A 10% drop in the Labour vote would have been hailed by the media ( and LDV) as a sure sign of Labour’s doom….Now, after an increase in their winning margin, it counts for nothing and we’ll cross our fingers and hope they’ll do badly next time…
Let’s face it; there is NO LibDem revival…What we have is a long hard road to undo the damage done by of 2010-15…, If the votes lost by our ex-partners didn’t come to us where will we get them?….
Our high point in the first decade of this century was built on hard working local councillors (the same ones we sacrificed in 2010-15)…Thankfully it looks like we can regain lost ground there….It’ll just take a long, long time….
The main thing in northern cities is to keep the Tories out – so the labour vote has consolidated around that. Very difficult for the competitor opposition parties to attract votes away from the main opposition party. Well done to Jane and her helpers for their hard work against the odds in such grotty weather.
Our unique selling point – policy apart – was that the Lib Dems were different.
Unfortunately, we lost our USP under the Coalition and we need to think about how to get it back.
Dave Orbison 4th Dec ’15 – 1:26am “Hang on Corbyn’s Labour increased share … ”
JC was not the Labour candidate.
Their new MP has been a councillor and seems to be a local, Labour activist.
Whether he can remain normal when he gets into the Westminster bubble they will see in due course.
Psephologist and expert pollster Professor John Curtice said that Jeremy Corbyn is now safe until the new year.
@Dave Orbison
“Hang on Corbyn’s Labour increased share by 7.5% not bad for a vilified terrorist sympathisers but you guys know best”
The last think that anyone I know would describe Jim McMahon as is a “terrorist sympathiser”. I assume you are thinking of certain people currently at or near the top of the Labour Party when you say that.
On one level last night was a disastrous night for Labour. That’s certainly so if you believe they are doomed for however long Corbyn remains as Leader, on the basis that the Oldham result makes it a lot more difficult to get rid of Corbyn quickly.
Isn’t that a shame!
It’s unusual when winning a by-election easily and gaining what appears to be an excellent young MP is bad for a party, but it does appear to be the case with Labour. Anything that gives Corbyn more time as leader could be seen as a bad thing for most Labour voters. However, it does give their MP’s more time to organise the best way to get rid of him. The longer he stays the better for the Tories, I doubt it will make a lot of difference to the LibDems because – at the moment – you are in too much of a mess to take advantage.
Simon Shaw – just to clarify – It was Cameron who attempted to label those against bombing of Syria – such as Corbyn and by implication Jim McMahon who was against bombing as “terrorist sympathisers”.
Your position, one to which you cling, is that Corbyn is great for the Tories and bad for Labour. Corbyn has been on the receiving end of unprecedented campaign of vilification in the Press. It will wear thin I believe and certainly is not sustainable for four years. But if you are so convinced of your own analysis why was the Tory votes slashed? And equally how come Labour increased their share by 7.5% If you think by any measure that is a disaster I can only wonder what adjectives you would use for Tories and LibDems? Do you think it was a triumph?
@ Caron ” It was a disappointment for us, of course. At least our vote didn’t fall, unlike the Tories.”
Oh come on, Caron, The vote FELL from an extremely poor 1,569 votes to 1,024. At least let’s be honest and not try to gloss it over. I don’t blame Jane personally but don’t let’s kid ourselves. Just four years ago we polled 32% in a by-election in the next door constituency.
I hope the party now does the honest sensible thing with some in-depth post by-election polling on the subject of why people didn’t vote for us – including on the issue of the Syria vote…………… or are we just seen as an irrelevance ?
David Raw – I think you know the answer
@Dave Orbison
“Simon Shaw – just to clarify – It was Cameron who attempted to label those against bombing of Syria – such as Corbyn and by implication Jim McMahon who was against bombing as “terrorist sympathisers”.”
Why “by implication” Jim McMahon? Only in your mind, perhaps.
“Your position, one to which you cling, is that Corbyn is great for the Tories and bad for Labour.”
I think that is a view held by most sensible people. including a large number of Labour politicians. My concern is that the Lib Dems should ensure that he isn’t ONLY good for the Conservatives but for us as well.
Labour cried “UKIP” and it worked – this time. It was always going to be difficult in the circumstances to persuade even the many disillusioned Labour voters to support us coming from 4th place with 3.7% when they were being bombarded with warnings about UKIP, and they even managed to squeeze the Tory vote. It will be much harder for Labour to pull off the same trick in the next by-election given how little progress UKIP actually made even with the whole of the media and Labour talking up their chances. The reality is that in most constituencies 80% of the electorate will never vote UKIP.
@ Simon Shaw I see you’re still hooked on Corbyn is the red under the bed that’s going to drive voters in our direction, Simon.
You say, “My concern is that the Lib Dems should ensure that he isn’t ONLY good for the Conservatives but for us as well”.
You know fine well that “don’t vote Liberal, you’ll let Labour in” is the oldest page in the Tories hymn sheet, and has been ever since 1924. Just out of curiosity, and knowing you are the chap for asking questions, can I ask you a question ? Have you ever voted Conservative or do you intend to in the future ?
YouGov tells us:
YouGov’s latest survey for The Times shows a sharp fall in support for air strikes within Syria . In just seven days, five million people have joined the ranks of those opposed to air strikes in Syria. The gender gap has widened. Now men favour air strikes by more than two-to-one (58-26%), while women divide evenly: 39-36%.
Jeremy Corbyn still has support of Labour members – but half think he won’t be PM
@David Raw
“I see you’re still hooked on Corbyn is the red under the bed that’s going to drive voters in our direction, Simon.”
A few points:
1. Corbyn’s not under the bed; he’s very much on top of it – at least for the moment.
2. I don’t think that fact alone is going to drive voters in our direction. We need to work hard to convince them to come to us rather than the Conservatives (or are you happy that they vote Conservative?)
3. Corbyn’s main problem is that he associates with some fairly disreputable individuals.
“You know fine well that “don’t vote Liberal, you’ll let Labour in” is the oldest page in the Tories hymn sheet”
Which is why we need to make it clear to voters that we are just as opposed to Corbyn as the Conservatives are.
“Just out of curiosity, and knowing you are the chap for asking questions, can I ask you a question ? Have you ever voted Conservative or do you intend to in the future ?”
No and No. I dislike the Conservatives and Labour equally. Just out of curiosity, David, do you also dislike the Conservatives and Labour equally?
Simon – I see you believe that your views are shared by sensible people. I salute your self-belief but as we near the Pantomime season the phrase “oh no they don’t” comes to mind. The difference between us being I am prepared to accept my views are just my opinion whereas you appear to believe yours are fact.
Did you think the Coalition was a good thing? Did you think The LibDems would be wiped out in the last GE? Did you predict Corbyn would win the Labour Leadership so emphatically? Or were you and all the sensible people right in each case?
It is so sad just how many commentators take their views from what the newspapers constantly trot out.. can we not get it into our collective heads, please, that the press message is drip-fed brainwashing of the masses. ‘Everyone knows..’ because the papers keep telling us, but whether it is TRUE is an entirely different matter. We would never do well in a seat such as this(and the seat next door can be chalk and cheese), particularly because of our two-party voting system. The voters need to perceive that you are in with a chance for you to be in the top two, then you have to fight to beat the other one. If you are not in the top two then you can only hope to hold your core vote position, which we did. Well done Jane and team.
interesting that Cameron chose to have the Syria vote on the day before. Was that a cynical attempt to undermine Corbyn? Did it actually have the opposite effect of rallying a sympathy vote?
Why are we pretending that the Commons were ‘fooled’ by Cameron’s lies? If WE all knew that the 70,000 ‘moderates’ were untrue so did they…..
Cameron and the media turned the decision into ‘A vote against, is a vote for Corbyn’ ….Not only Tories, but a large section of the Labour party, see Corbyn’s beliefs as more dangerous to the ‘status quo’ than this misbegotten military adventure…..
We are going into a conflict without any idea of, not just what the outcome will be, but even what we want it to be…..
@peter tyzack
I would see it as just as likely to be a cynical attempt to undermine Labour by boosting Corbyn. With Oldham West having a significantly higher than average Asian vote Cameron may have calculated that Corbyn’s stance on Syria might well boost the Asian Labour vote.
From Cameron’s point of view the longer that Corbyn stays as Labour Leader the better.
@expats
“Why are we pretending that the Commons were ‘fooled’ by Cameron’s lies? If WE all knew that the 70,000 ‘moderates’ were untrue so did they…..”
Do we all know that? If it’s untrue what is the true figure?
“Cameron and the media turned the decision into ‘A vote against, is a vote for Corbyn’ ….”
Did they really do that? I must have missed that.
“Not only Tories, but a large section of the Labour party, see Corbyn’s beliefs as more dangerous to the ‘status quo’ than this misbegotten military adventure…..”
The ‘status quo’ is that we have a Conservative Government with nearly 100 more seats in the Commons than the Labour Party. If you really think that the Tories see Corbyn’s beliefs as dangerous to their majority, then I would suggest that you really need to read a bit more widely. From all I have read they see the position as exactly the reverse, as do most serious politicians in the Labour Party.
“We would never do well in a seat such as this(and the seat next door can be chalk and cheese), particularly because of our two-party voting system. The voters need to perceive that you are in with a chance for you to be in the top two, then you have to fight to beat the other one. If you are not in the top two then you can only hope to hold your core vote position, which we did. Well done Jane and team.”
We would have won a by-election in Oldham West in 2003-4 – and probably through to 2010.
Two of the parties three by-election gains in recent years have come from third place – Brent East and Leicester South. The third, Dunfermline 2006 we were only second by a few hundred votes. We also came very close in three others (Bromley, Hartlepool and Hodge Hill). The claim that we can only do well in by-elections when we start second is an extremely shakey proposition!
Simon Shaw – so you really think Cameron’s cynical cunning plan was to ensure that Labour won Oldham (because of the higher than average Asian vote) so as to keep Corbyn in place. Speechless!
@ Simon Shaw,
Whilst one I would have agreed with the final paragraph in your last post. I am no longer sure. Jeremy Corbyn is offering trenchant criticisms of Conservative policies that we have not heard for a long time, if at all. My experience is that he is slowly garnering respect from middle class professionals that I am in contact with.
He is also garnering respect for some of his stances from very unlikely sources such as Matthew Parris, and if you look today’s mailonline, Peter Oborne.
When one uses descriptive terms like ‘moderates’ ,or ‘serious’, it would be helpful if everyone defined their terms first.
Truly awful result for us as lib Dems – is this fight-back|??
Jayne Mansfield – I agree. To the list you can add Simon Jenkins and Peter Hitchens. Not quite the Reds under the beds that Simon fantasises over
The Labour vote figure shown in the tweet is wrong/ The declaration of the result was rather messed up by Oldham Council but it has since become clear that Labour got 17209 votes. 74 papers were spoilt. The other figures are correct.
@Dave Orbison
“So you really think Cameron’s cynical cunning plan was to ensure that Labour won Oldham (because of the higher than average Asian vote) so as to keep Corbyn in place. Speechless!”
I think you need to ask yourself firstly whether Cameron considers having Corbyn rather than someone else as Labour Party Leader is in the Tories’ selfish best interests. When you’ve answered that question you need to consider which of the following three scenarios in Oldham West would be most likely to keep Corbyn in place for as long as possible:
(a) Labour win by 11,000 with increased share of the vote
(b) Labour win by 1,000 with a significantly reduced share of the vote
(c) UKIP win by 2,000 votes
@Simon Shaw
So if the Labour result had collapsed spectacularly, would you be claiming that it had been a GOOD result for Labour?
If not, and if increasing their share isn’t good either, perhaps you could explain what a good result for Labour would actually look like?
@Stuart
I think what I said above was fairly clear, which was this:
On one level last night was a disastrous night for Labour. That’s certainly so if you believe they are doomed for however long Corbyn remains as Leader, on the basis that the Oldham result makes it a lot more difficult to get rid of Corbyn quickly.
On that basis, a good result for Labour (looking at the medium term) would be (c). It wouldn’t have been good for Corbyn of course, but Corbyn and Labour’s interests are in opposition – at least that’s how I see it. And, according to Jayne Mansfield’s Matthew Parris the majority of Labour MPs think the same way. In fact today Parris writes that “at least two thirds of the parliamentary party” consider that “their present leader is wholly unfit for office and would make a disastrous prime minister”.
‘Corbyn has been on the receiving end of unprecedented campaign of vilification in the Press.’
Not unprecedented as those who remember how Nye Bevan and Michael Foot were treated.
expats
Let’s face it; there is NO LibDem revival…What we have is a long hard road to undo the damage done by of 2010-15…
Yes, and you and the other “nah nah nah nah nah”s greatly contributed to that damage by undermining those of us who were proposing a realistic alternative to the way our party was being pushed by those at the top of the party in that time. Instead of giving us support, you just jeered at us and accused all of us of being keen supporters of the most right-wing opinions that were being expressed by those we were actually trying to argue against. Instead of accepting what we said about why we reluctantly agreed to the coalition, instead of agreeing that there was a genuine difference of opinion between you and us over what the alternative would be, and accepting what we said at face value, you just accused us of saying what we were saying just as an excuse to hide what you claimed was our real position – uncritical support of the Tories.
I believe the party now would be in a much better shape had it not been for the way those of us who were on its left when arguing our position internally turned round looking for support, and all we got was “nah nah nah nah nah” jeering at us from people on the left outside the party.
@Simon Shaw,
Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote – not the same thing at all.
@Jayne Mansfield
“Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote – not the same thing at all.”
I’d also ask you to read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.
When I said “And, according to Jayne Mansfield’s Matthew Parris …”, that’s merely an alternative way of saying “And, according Matthew Parris (as referred to by Jayne Mansfield) …”
Well done, Jane. Despite a lower turnout than the GE, she maintained our share of the votes cast. Her detractors should try standing instead of carping.
@ Simon Shaw,
He is not my Matthew Parris, he is far too sneery for my tastes.
I have read the Times article you mention,’ It’s obivion for Labour’s spineless moderates’. I may be wrong , but I read it being more complimentary to Jeremy Corbyn than to the parliamentary Labour party members who oppose him.
I actually think that there is a possibility you might get your wish that he is leader at the next election.
Jeremy Corbyn needs to be taught leadership skills and how to do politics better. He is in danger of looking incompetent. But I do believe that he is in with a chance of regaining the 4 million Labour supporters that were lost during the Blair years . Many of the left wing policies that he proposes, seem, according to the polls, to be popular with the electorate.
Couple of points. One, Rome wasn’t built in a day. And after being razed, didn’t recover until… well, let’s just say its a long, long slog to restore something that has been damaged and leave it at that.
Second, the Corbyn fans using this as triumphant confirmation of their views need to look at their candidate – A Liz Kendall man.
Third, the anti-Corbyn people who are trying to find seeds of doom in this should drop it for now. This was a good result for Labour.
And finally, this is pretty much what a lot of people have been saying about Corbyn’s Labour. He will stack up larger majorities in the sort of places that Labour is already strong in. This demonstrates that quite nicely. Whether he will be able to build them up in areas where they are only just in contention is still an open question. Corbyn’s chances, or rather, the chances of a Labour Party presenting as ‘Corbynite’, depend on electoral reform in the long term to end the tyranny of the safe seat and the swing constituency.
@ T-J,
The Oldham Labour candidate might have been a Liz Kendall man, but he was opposed to the bombing in Syria. If only matters were clear cut.
Wouldn’t it be in Labour’s best interests for the Liberal Democrat’s to regain their seats in areas where Liberal Democrats are in contention with the conservatives, i.e the seats lost at the last election? Isn’t it in the best intersts of Labour that there is a strong Liberal Democrat Party?
I really do not understand the hostility shown to Jeremy Corbyn in some posts. He’s the sort of chap who used to persuade me to vote Liberal.
@Jayne Mansfield
“I really do not understand the hostility shown to Jeremy Corbyn in some posts.”
Then you don’t understand how a lot (I would say a clear majority) of UK voters view him, which is that they think that most of his political positions over his 30 years in politics stink, and that, since becoming Labour Party Leader, he has surrounded himself with some similarly dubious characters.
But I’m not sure “hostility” is the correct word. Why be hostile to someone whose continued presence as Leader could lead to the break up of the Labour Party?
@ Simon Shaw,
Well, Simon, lets see what happens during the london Mayoral elections. Sadiq Khan is no Corbynista despite being responsible for his name appearing on the ballot paper.
For me, Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has risen without trace, but I like what I see – SO FAR. I have never agreed with all of the policies of any party. I accept that under a system of first past the post, they are all to some extent coalitions . I like his quiet way of articulating his position, and I like the idea of a politician who has a value system and coherent political philosophy underpinning the policies which challenges those espoused by the so called political centre, i.e like the way he opposed the tory welfare cuts unlike the so called Labour moderates.
I really think that the Liberal Democrat Party needs to examine how the electorate view its own party and leave labour to do the same.
I also, automatically take against what I feel is unfair treatment, and I believe that the media treat him unfairly.
He reminds me of you, Simon, someone who has his beliefs and sticks to them. Nothing wrong with that. The people of Islington and Stockport obviously have no issue either..
Apologies, I meant Southport. My brain said one thing, my hand did something else!
@Jayne Mansfield
“Well, Simon, lets see what happens during the london Mayoral elections. Sadiq Khan is no Corbynista despite being responsible for his name appearing on the ballot paper.”
Indeed. I’ve previously highlighted on LDV that as a problem for Labour (in terms of getting rid of Corbyn ASAP). Because the 2016 local elections are disproportionately taking place in London and the 6 Met County areas, I always thought that Corbyn wouldn’t do disastrously in 2016, as I perceive it to be those sort of areas where a lot of support for him lies. The 2017 local elections which cover much more of the country (where I think he goes down like a lead ballon) could well be bad for Corbyn, but it might be getting too late for the Labour Party to dump him.
“I also, automatically take against what I feel is unfair treatment, and I believe that the media treat him unfairly.”
Really? Do you think what the media say is untrue/unfair or is it that you don’t like them being nasty about him? For example consider what the Sunday Times (a paper whose politics I personally happen to dislike) says today:
“Mr Corbyn, whose head of policy has backed Class War, whose head of communications is an apologist for Soviet communism and whose shadow chancellor is an IRA sympathiser and supporter of direct action, will not change. He will be attending a Christmas fundraising dinner hosted by Stop the War, whose latest gem is to compare Isis with the international brigades which fought fascism in the Spanish Civil War. “
Is that unfair?
P.S. Southport is not Stockport
@Jayne Mansfield
“Well, Simon, lets see what happens during the london Mayoral elections. Sadiq Khan is no Corbynista despite being responsible for his name appearing on the ballot paper.”
Indeed. I’ve previously highlighted on LDV that as a problem for Labour (in terms of getting rid of Corbyn ASAP). Because the 2016 local elections are disproportionately taking place in London and the 6 Met County areas, I always thought that Corbyn wouldn’t do disastrously in 2016, as I perceive it to be those sort of areas where a lot of support for him lies. The 2017 local elections which cover much more of the country (where I think he goes down like a lead ballon) could well be bad for Corbyn, but it might be getting too late for the Labour Party to dump him.
“I also, automatically take against what I feel is unfair treatment, and I believe that the media treat him unfairly.”
Really? Do you think what the media say is untrue/unfair or is it that you don’t like them being nasty about him? For example consider what the Sunday Times (a paper whose politics I personally happen to dislike) says today:
“Mr Corbyn, whose head of policy has backed Class War, whose head of communications is an apologist for Soviet communism and whose shadow chancellor is an IRA sympathiser and supporter of direct action, will not change. He will be attending a Christmas fundraising dinner hosted by Stop the War, whose latest gem is to compare Isis with the international brigades which fought fascism in the Spanish Civil War. “
Is that unfair?
@ Simon Shaw.
As you will see, I corrected myself re- Southport.
I meant what I say, I automatically take against someone that I believe is unfair treatment in the media. Try reading Matthew Parris’ Spectator article . ” What Jeremy Corbyn, like David Cameron, understands about the cold , dark heart of the British people’. It is articles like this that sneer, in this case, at the Liberal Democrats that caused me to say that I find Matthew Parris too sneery for my tastes.
I am not interested in how people tackle a bacon sandwich or even if they eat their peas off the back of a knife. I am interested and disgusted when people take someone’s words out of context and distort of the meaning of what is said.
We take the Sunday Times , so I will read the article that you mention. What I would be interested in knowing, is whether he had much of a choice in the matter, many in the Labour Party were saying they would not support him before he had the opportunity to choose anyone!
Matthew Huntbach 5th Dec ’15 – 5:33pm…..expats…………Let’s face it; there is NO LibDem revival…What we have is a long hard road to undo the damage done by of 2010-15…
………………..Yes, and you and the other “nah nah nah nah nah”s greatly contributed to that damage by undermining those of us who were proposing a realistic alternative to the way our party was being pushed by those at the top of the party in that time. Instead of giving us support, you just jeered at us and accused all of us of being keen supporters of the most right-wing opinions that were being expressed by those we were actually trying to argue against…………
MH, Again you seem unable to post without at least one “Nah, nah, etc”….Do you disagree with my “long hard road..” bit?
You seem to have your own interpretation of my views…I never criticised you and those like you demanding change; I argued for the same change…However, trying to blame me for our 8 MPs …Oh dear; were I that powerful….
Politics is about those in the limelight, not in the chorus line. The public saw only what was being done by our leadership and our erstwhile supporters voted with their feet…The average voter doesn’t read LDV; they read the headlines and watch the news….From the NHS through Tuition fees on to Bedroom tax and Secret Courts they watched promises being broken by a leadership who had pledged “No more broken promises”….None of that was my doing
On the Libdem revival, we just dont know & wont know for another 5 months. Oldham & the Polls say one thing – that we are flatlining. Results of Local byelections suggest a modest recovery. We dont know which is a better guide.
Matthew Huntbach.
I think too many people see politics in terms of games, plots and positioning. Unfortunately too many of them also end up in charge of campaign strategies.
@ Simon Shaw,
Try reading the article you took an extract from and try reading it with a critical eye.
The first four paragraphs describes how a ‘hard core ‘group of anti war protesters who had remained behind when other protesters asked a labour MP how he voted. It then goes on to describe how a young women, thrust her face into his demanding ‘hit me, hit me, hit me – you murderer’. There is no evidence that this woman was a Corbyn supporter but it is linked to the fallout from Corbyn splitting labour. Quite frankly she sounds like a member of the ‘Confused Masochists against War Party”.
I have been on demonstrations against far-right groups and those of us who oppose them are a mixed bunch. I actually resent that the Socialist Workers Party are there with banners and megaphones, making political statements, when most of those protesting are a politically diverse group. One cannot assume the politics of the protestors.
In my opinion, the article which took up one side of a broad sheet, had one aim that of justifying its headline. However, It did have some interesting facts that Stella Creasy who did sterling work against Wonga ( not mentioned in the article) was a distant relative of the Duke of Carlisle! That should come in handy for any reader who might one day participate in a TV game show.
@T-J
“Second, the Corbyn fans using this as triumphant confirmation of their views need to look at their candidate – A Liz Kendall man.”
I find this funny, whenever it comes up. The progression of this story is thus:
*Byelection is scheduled*
ALL THE MEDIA: “This is a judgement on Corbyn’s leadership!”
POLITICOS: “This guaranteed by-election loss will be an indictment against Corbyn!”
BLAIRITES: “We will lose to UKIP by a mile, and it’s all Corbyn’s fault!”
*By-election is held, and Labour does thumpingly well*
ALL THE MEDIA: “This was not a judgement on Corbyn’s leadership. He had nothing to do with the win.”
POLITICOS: “McMahon is a Kendallite! Corbyn had nothing to do with the win here.”
BLAIRITES: “Let’s bomb Syria!”
Well, Colin, if all you want to do is throw crude caricatures around I’m sure you’ll have a lot of fun. If you read what I wrote though, you’ll see that my view was and remains that Mr Corbyn will be able to attract more votes in the sort of places where Labour is already strong but will find it difficult to reach beyond that base. Long story short, he’s an ideal leader for a socialist party standing in a proportional democracy. If only we lived in one.
This result helps confirm half of that idea. And it brings the alternative idea that the North of England might abandon a very ‘Islington’ platform for UKIP into question. But by-elections generate a great deal of noise while ultimately signifying very little. Sometimes the impressions they give save flagging leaderships. Sometimes that is the last thing a political party needs, though, as comfort is taken from something ultimately meaningless.
Paul Barker – I have explained to you on several occasions why our council by-election results are very poor and indicate a further decline next May. Do you not read them?