The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[peterms]

A lot of the commentary on the Copeland result is along the lines that it's a safe Labour seat, and losing it is down to Corbyn.  The neighbouring MP, a right-winger, has jumped in to say that no blame can attach to the previous Labour government.

Looking at the results from 1997 onwards, we see a steady and pretty consistent decline in the share of the vote.

It's very plain to see that there has been a gradual attrition of the vote share, not the sudden loss of support from a constant base. 

I'm not seeing much discussion of that, or even recognition that it's a fact, in the rush to pin it all on Corbyn.  Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

[dAVe80]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

A lot of the commentary on the Copeland result is along the lines that it's a safe Labour seat, and losing it is down to Corbyn.  The neighbouring MP, a right-winger, has jumped in to say that no blame can attach to the previous Labour government.

Looking at the results from 1997 onwards, we see a steady and pretty consistent decline in the share of the vote.

It's very plain to see that there has been a gradual attrition of the vote share, not the sudden loss of support from a constant base. 

I'm not seeing much discussion of that, or even recognition that it's a fact, in the rush to pin it all on Corbyn.  Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

Something I saw, but haven't had chance to verify. The percentage increase in the Tory vote was 9%, while Ukip's decreased by 8.5%.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

A lot of the commentary on the Copeland result is along the lines that it's a safe Labour seat, and losing it is down to Corbyn.  The neighbouring MP, a right-winger, has jumped in to say that no blame can attach to the previous Labour government.

Looking at the results from 1997 onwards, we see a steady and pretty consistent decline in the share of the vote.

It's very plain to see that there has been a gradual attrition of the vote share, not the sudden loss of support from a constant base. 

I'm not seeing much discussion of that, or even recognition that it's a fact, in the rush to pin it all on Corbyn.  Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

It's not totally irrelevant, but the fact is oppositions normally massively increase their vote share during byelections. 

[peterms]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It's not totally irrelevant, but the fact is oppositions normally massively increase their vote share during byelections. 

I agree.  Oppositions don't however normally have a former leader actively working to undermine them, and a senior figure (Mandelson) admitting in so many words that he is working every single day to bring down the party's leadership.  They wanted him to lose both by-elections, so they could blame him.

And the post-Brexit landscape is pretty far from the normal state of affairs, I think everyone would agree.

These things are also part of the picture.  As is the trend of supporters drifting away from Labour in Copeland for the last twenty years.

[dAVe80]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

I agree.  Oppositions don't however normally have a former leader actively working to undermine them, and a senior figure (Mandelson) admitting in so many words that he is working every single day to bring down the party's leadership.  They wanted him to lose both by-elections, so they could blame him.

And the post-Brexit landscape is pretty far from the normal state of affairs, I think everyone would agree.

These things are also part of the picture.  As is the trend of supporters drifting away from Labour in Copeland for the last twenty years.

It seems to me that people forget that it was a New Labour that ignored and neglected its working class roots. The backlash from that has been felt in Scotland, the North, and parts of the Midlands, totally losing losing touch with its own grass-roots and the trade unions. In my opinion Labour are still suffering from a decade of neglect of its core support, and if anyone thinks a move back to New Labour, Tory light tactics is the way to go, I despair. That's not the party the members want, or the country needs. We need a real alternative to the forced austerity, and Neo Liberalism. Lets face it the right is on the rise all over Europe, and obviously in the USA. If Labour can set its self up as the party opposed to this, then there's already a groundswell of support waiting for that party. 

What Labour doesn't need it the systematic campaign by the Blairite, Progress MPs in the PLP, who still hold considerable sway in Parliament, who cause chaos for the leadership, and makes Labour look like a joke of a party, who can't stop fighting each other. A divided party is no good to anyone, let alone the voting public, who don't understand or care that a large proportion of the blame lies with those who refuse to accept the party wants to change.

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

A lot of the commentary on the Copeland result is along the lines that it's a safe Labour seat, and losing it is down to Corbyn.  The neighbouring MP, a right-winger, has jumped in to say that no blame can attach to the previous Labour government.

Looking at the results from 1997 onwards, we see a steady and pretty consistent decline in the share of the vote.

It's very plain to see that there has been a gradual attrition of the vote share, not the sudden loss of support from a constant base. 

I'm not seeing much discussion of that, or even recognition that it's a fact, in the rush to pin it all on Corbyn.  Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

I guess in its simplest form they still lost 5% of their votes since 2105 ... your chart very conveniently starts at their peak share in 1997 , it probably would have been fairer to start at 1983 where they polled 44% and steadily grew that % until the 1997 peak  .... it suggests perhaps that a fair benchmark for Labour in Copeland with an incompetent leaders is around 44 to 46 % ?

 

In terms of pinning it on someone .. I guess whoever made the campaign all about the NHS should be the one that falls on their sword  ...

 

 

[peterms]

39 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I guess in its simplest form they still lost 5% of their votes since 2105 ... your chart very conveniently starts at their peak share in 1997 , it probably would have been fairer to start at 1983 where they polled 44% and steadily grew that % until the 1997 peak  .... it suggests perhaps that a fair benchmark for Labour in Copeland with an incompetent leaders is around 44 to 46 % ?

 

In terms of pinning it on someone .. I guess whoever made the campaign all about the NHS should be the one that falls on their sword  ...

I'm not sure how similar the previous constituency was, but I gather the boundaries changed.

1997 was the high point.  The thing that some voters have been saying, and that the voting figures demonstrate, is that they have lost confidence in the LP to safeguard their interests.  In Copeland, Sellafield is a big issue because a lot of other employment has been lost.  If there were less dependence on it, and plenty of other work, perhaps it wouldn't be quite as big an issue.

There's a similarity there with the US mid-west feeling that industrial decline was allowed to proceed unchecked, against an expectation that the party identifying with the interests of workers should have defended them better.  That was very often remarked upon during the referendum campaign, all over the place.

It's not news that the Blair government seemed to have more interest in sucking up to the City than developing an industrial strategy.  I know the Blairites want to pretend that everything was fine until Corbyn, but it's simply untrue.  They are very keen to dominate the airwaves and create the narrative that suits their agenda, but the figures tell another story, in my view.  Which is not to say that Corbyn is wonderful, just that the simplistic and loaded story we are being given is both wrong, and wilfully misleading.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

I'm not seeing much discussion of that, or even recognition that it's a fact, in the rush to pin it all on Corbyn.  Doesn't fit the narrative, I suppose.

But it does fit the narrative, just not in a convenient way. The narrative being that Labour had lost it's way and that by electing Corbyn as leader, there'd be this revival of fortunes, that he was the saviour, the anti-dote to all that nasty Blairism and Tory lite business. That someone "genuine" like Corby would reconnect with ordinary voters and be the solution.

But he's not, and Labour, in opposition, to a Government hacking at everything has somehow contrived to lose a by election to the tories in a Labour held seat for 80 years.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

There's a similarity there with the US mid-west feeling that industrial decline was allowed to proceed unchecked, against an expectation that the party identifying with the interests of workers should have defended them better.  That was very often remarked upon during the referendum campaign, all over the place.

It's not news that the Blair government seemed to have more interest in sucking up to the City than developing an industrial strategy.

And so they voted for a Tory, instead!

Some of what you say is undoubtedly true, but I can't see how the solution is to vote for a party that is worse (by reputation) at looking after the interests of workers of sucking up to the city and such like. I mean how bad must labour have got, if the tories are beating them, when in Gov't in long held labour constituencies? and leading in the polls by a mile?

I absolutely loathe the tories and want them out. Corbin and Labour are just making it so easy for them. It's comical.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

Something I saw, but haven't had chance to verify. The percentage increase in the Tory vote was 9%, while Ukip's decreased by 8.5%.

Unless they started from the same baseline number of voters, that could lead to people jumping to false conclusions.

[dAVe80]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Unless they started from the same baseline number of voters, that could lead to people jumping to false conclusions.

Yeah, the context in which I saw it wasn't clear, and as I say I didn't have time to verify. It would be interesting to know if there was a swing from Ukip voters back to the Tories though.

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, blandy said:

And so they voted for a Tory, instead!

I suspect it's more a case of traditional supporters staying at home.

Some will have voted for the tories or the crazed kippers, but my guess would be the larger number of former Labour supporters just didn't vote.  Perhaps we'll see some analysis in weeks to come.

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, dAVe80 said:

Yeah, the context in which I saw it wasn't clear, and as I say I didn't have time to verify. It would be interesting to know if there was a swing from Ukip voters back to the Tories though.

By-election 2017: Copeland^[38][39]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Conservative	Trudy Harrison	13,748	44.2	+8.5
	Labour	Gillian Troughton	11,601	37.3	−4.9
	Liberal Democrat	Rebecca Hanson	2,252	7.2	+3.8
	UKIP	Fiona Mills	2,025	6.5	−9.0
	Independent	Michael Guest	811	2.6	N/A
	Green	Jack Lenox	515	1.7	−1.3
	Independent	Roy Ivinson	116	0.4	N/A
Majority			2,147	6.9
Turnout			31,108	51.33	−12.5
	Conservative gain from Labour		Swing	+6.7

2015 result[edit]

General Election 2015: Copeland^[40][41]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labour	Jamie Reed	16,750	42.3	−3.7
	Conservative	Stephen Haraldsen	14,186	35.8	−1.3
	UKIP	Michael Pye	6,148	15.5	+13.2
	Liberal Democrat	Danny Gallagher	1,368	3.5	−6.7
	Green	Allan Todd	1,179	3.0	+2.1
Majority			2,564	6.5	−2.4
Turnout			39,631	63.8	−3.8
	Labour hold		Swing	−1.2

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_by-election,_2017#cite_note-38

[peterms]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

In terms of pinning it on someone .. I guess whoever made the campaign all about the NHS should be the one that falls on their sword  ...

Just on that point, I suppose the decision of the local party to select a former ambulance driver as the candidate, and the forthcoming closure of the hospital, were related, and reflected an assessment of what to fight on.  It doesn't seem like an obviously wrong decision.

Choosing a supporter of Owen Smith and critic of Corbyn however seems not to have delivered any of the presumed benefits.  Still, I'm sure that won't be seen as a factor.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, peterms said:

Choosing a supporter of Owen Smith and critic of Corbyn however seems not to have delivered any of the presumed benefits.

Owen Smith, the man who makes Corbyn look good. How could anyone presume that would bring benefits? What a mess.

[snowychap]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

By-election 2017: Copeland^[38][39]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Conservative	Trudy Harrison	13,748	44.2	+8.5
	Labour	Gillian Troughton	11,601	37.3	−4.9
	Liberal Democrat	Rebecca Hanson	2,252	7.2	+3.8
	UKIP	Fiona Mills	2,025	6.5	−9.0
	Independent	Michael Guest	811	2.6	N/A
	Green	Jack Lenox	515	1.7	−1.3
	Independent	Roy Ivinson	116	0.4	N/A
Majority			2,147	6.9
Turnout			31,108	51.33	−12.5
	Conservative gain from Labour		Swing	+6.7

2015 result[edit]

General Election 2015: Copeland^[40][41]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labour	Jamie Reed	16,750	42.3	−3.7
	Conservative	Stephen Haraldsen	14,186	35.8	−1.3
	UKIP	Michael Pye	6,148	15.5	+13.2
	Liberal Democrat	Danny Gallagher	1,368	3.5	−6.7
	Green	Allan Todd	1,179	3.0	+2.1
Majority			2,564	6.5	−2.4
Turnout			39,631	63.8	−3.8
	Labour hold		Swing	−1.2

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_by-election,_2017#cite_note-38

Blimey, UKIP did very badly.

[dAVe80]

25 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Blimey, UKIP did very badly.

Long may that continue!

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

By-election 2017: Copeland^[38][39]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Conservative	Trudy Harrison	13,748	44.2	+8.5
	Labour	Gillian Troughton	11,601	37.3	−4.9
	Liberal Democrat	Rebecca Hanson	2,252	7.2	+3.8
	UKIP	Fiona Mills	2,025	6.5	−9.0
	Independent	Michael Guest	811	2.6	N/A
	Green	Jack Lenox	515	1.7	−1.3
	Independent	Roy Ivinson	116	0.4	N/A
Majority			2,147	6.9
Turnout			31,108	51.33	−12.5
	Conservative gain from Labour		Swing	+6.7

2015 result[edit]

General Election 2015: Copeland^[40][41]

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±
	Labour	Jamie Reed	16,750	42.3	−3.7
	Conservative	Stephen Haraldsen	14,186	35.8	−1.3
	UKIP	Michael Pye	6,148	15.5	+13.2
	Liberal Democrat	Danny Gallagher	1,368	3.5	−6.7
	Green	Allan Todd	1,179	3.0	+2.1
Majority			2,564	6.5	−2.4
Turnout			39,631	63.8	−3.8
	Labour hold		Swing	−1.2

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_by-election,_2017#cite_note-38

Do we deduce that 2015 was more a swing from Lib Dem to UKIP from that data ? 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

Just on that point, I suppose the decision of the local party to select a former ambulance driver as the candidate, and the forthcoming closure of the hospital, were related, and reflected an assessment of what to fight on.  It doesn't seem like an obviously wrong decision.

Choosing a supporter of Owen Smith and critic of Corbyn however seems not to have delivered any of the presumed benefits.  Still, I'm sure that won't be seen as a factor.

I think 'a supporter of Owen Smith' is getting way too far down into the weeds, I didn't know that and I'm somebody who actually cares and is interested in this stuff. 

Did she criticise Corbyn repeatedly during the campaign? Because otherwise Mr & Mrs Average don't know she's a Corbyn critic. 

[peterms]

29 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think 'a supporter of Owen Smith' is getting way too far down into the weeds, I didn't know that and I'm somebody who actually cares and is interested in this stuff. 

Did she criticise Corbyn repeatedly during the campaign? Because otherwise Mr & Mrs Average don't know she's a Corbyn critic. 

No, she didnt as far as I know.  Both protocol and self-preservation would prevent it.

Obviously the press know of her previous criticisms of Corbyn and are happy to relate them: whether she says these things before or during an election campaign doesn't affect the exposure they get, as you will appreciate.

I'm not at all surprised you didn't know of her right wing links.  Neither did I, and I'm also interested in this stuff.  Though I, and I guess you, don't read the Cumbian local press nor the right wing shite where this will be reported.