By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
With a swing of 16.5%, Chloe Smith overturned a Labour majority of 5,000+ to gain and a new Tory majority of over 7,000 in Norwich North, a so-called Labour "safe seat" in recent history.
Excuses will no doubt be made and ministers will be herded out to say to the media that this was a "disappointing" result for Labour.
But excuses and disappointment are not enough.
The magnitude of this defeat shows that this was more than just a protest vote and it was more than simply a reaction to the expenses crises - that excuse did not wash after June 4 and it will not wash this time.
Indeed, this was more than a response to the apparently unjust deselection of Ian Gibson. He, too, would have lost.
No, a swing of this proportion - not unlike the one to Labour in the Wirral in 1997 - is a sign of embedded culture change. It shows that the country is ready and willing - if not craving - to vote for a Tory government in substantial numbers.
It is our challenge now to respond to that current desire and accordingly.
Without a drastic and full recalibration of our party's policies and our party's message, without a more coherent and cohesive narrative, that Tory government and that huge and self-inflicted defeat will be exactly what we get, and exactly what we deserve.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
If someone tells you there are "too many immigrants" that doesn't necessarily mean you have to start deporting people. It could mean that community is under strain regarding resources (school places, NHS services, housing etc) or there's a shortage of appropriate jobs. These things can be addressed without recourse to immigration control.
You've got to ask why are they saying this.
Although some are racists many are just hurting and an immigrant, an outsider is an easy scape goat.
Last time we discussed this you accussed me of being patronising to the working class. My parents are working class and I hear some pretty ripe stuff being said by them. I live in Middlesbrough where I've seen the BNP vote creeping up. Ask yourself Mike how in touch are you with people who:
1. Aren't skilled workers and compete for low paid jobs
2. Live in what were until very recently fairly static unchanging communities.
I agree with you basic sentiment; I don't like immigration control either (mainly because I believe in a free market economy) but you need to think about these things because all is not well and something has to be done to address it. And I don't mean by adopting the BNPs policies; I mean greasing the wheels of social integration.
Look you've got one thing we didn't have in 1997. Websites like this where you can discuss and develop your next set of ideas. The grass roots have more power than they ever have before. You also have a lot of recent history to learn from.
I can't imagine what my local party would do if they knew I was giving comfort to Labour activists. But I've been there, I know what it's like and it sucks.
Also, talking real politik for a mo' the spending cuts after the next election will be deep. We're gonna be unpopular no doubt about it. Provided the unions to hitch the Labour wagon to an lame horse there is everything to play for. But don't expect me not to try to kick you in the crotch the minute you're back on your feet ;-)
Although, I doubt now Labour can turn it around if more people reflected on events the way you do the defeat would be minimised and the recovary accelerated. I doubt you'll have much impact though.
It's like the few Conservatives in 1997 calling for modernisation of the party while the majority wailed about the shortcomings on New Labour. There are elements in the Tories who still haven't reconciled themselves to the deserved defeat at the hands of New Labour. If Labour has any sense it will learn from it's experience in the '80s and from the Major to Duncan-Smith Conservatives. At this stage though emotion beats reason, if my 1997 memories serve me correctly.
It's not good for democracy but it's a pattern that has emerged in British politics since the 1979 Conservative victory. An unpopular government goes and any effective opposition collapses. Hold on to your hats for the Labour great swing left.
No proof of the "but there is evidence that former Labour voters voted for UKIP" comment.
You still hang on to the view that all Labout has to do is get its vote out? Seems to me that opinion polls giving the Tories a 17% lead indicate that some voters have switched to the Tories.
Which is exactly my point re. the Norwich election.
Sorry you are too dumb to underdstand that Bill, but then you are a socialist.
When they make the mistakes that Labour have done, then you can give them a damn good kicking. Labour have had three terms, and unless you believe that no other government is possible, other than a Labour one, then lets see.
Do you really believe in a democracy, of the devine right to govern being with only one party? Chloe Smith looks alright, she has reasonable credentials and was endorsed by her local constituency association. Is that democracy? My post above was about being positive, please try.
A couple of days ago there were two articles on LL in support of Brown. Then you get this piece. Quite frankly you haven't got a clue and are all over the place.
I have been giving you hints all the way so here it is. If you want to go anywhere you will have to re invent yourself. You can analyse this until the cows come home. The turnout was 45% roughly average for a by election. Those who think the Labour vote stayed at home need pills. Stop talking about the Toreez, and silly little issues. The biggest factor in the lives of the average Joe is the Economy and Labour are KILLING the people it claims to represent.
The current issues you have outside of a disastrous record are:
1. there is no credible leader.
2. nobody in the Labour party has demonstrated economic competence.
3. there is a lack of talent in the pool.
4. you haven’t shown a clear understanding of the electorate
5. the dark lord is playing the game to his own benefit
In any political movement there are extreme’s of view and love him or loathe him (Loathe for me) Blair united the party and made it electable. This looks like the direction the Purnell is taking. He's a marketeer, he knows that Brown has lost in every way. Looks like he is playing the long game starting with showing that he has thought about it. I worry about this becoming significant and what strings Mandy is pulling (based on past performance, I do not want a Labour government ever).
The question is will the labour party allow itself to self destruct under the self believing one and moreover will you standby seeing record levels of job losses and the disastrous balance of payments figures. Here is an extract from a Times article that the “Ideo-illogical” should read in full
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article6727069.ece
If there is one thing that Britain’s business bosses find more difficult than struggling through the worst recession since the war, it is struggling through the worst recession since the war when everyone is talking about green shoots.
Over the past couple of months most company bosses, outside the rarefied world of the City, have insisted that they see no green shoots. Declarations that the economy had already hit bottom have been met with exasperated scorn.
It looks as if business was right. Far from turning the corner in the second quarter, as some pundits expected, preliminary figures suggest that the economy continued to shrink. And fast. A fall of 0.8 per cent might not seem that bad compared with the 2.4 per cent drop in the first quarter. But it still represents a vast decline in activity. And it suggests that the bottom is a good way off yet.
The economy has now tumbled by 5.7 per cent since peaking in the first quarter last year. This is easily the worst recession since the Second World War, overtaking the downturn of the early 1980s, when output shrank by 4.6 per cent over five quarters.
To be fair to all the economists who were wrongfooted by yesterday’s figures, many recent signs have pointed to the economy bumping along the bottom. Indeed, some economists believe that yesterday’s figures are simply wrong and will be revised up, as has often happened in the past. The team at Goldman Sachs, who have been more optimistic than most, declared themselves “a bit bemused”.
PLEASE GORDON FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTRY HAVE YOURSELF AND THE LABOUR PARTY PUT DOWN.
Regards,
bbJ – fighting the illinformed, ideological and the intellectually imbalanced.
Getting back to this by-election ... I think Alex's take is an over-reaction, possibly once again betraying a fondness for the beaten plotters' line on Brown.
Lessons from the by-election:
1. You can't win them all
2. In current circumstances and at this stage in cycle coming second was a sweet relief
3. Our voters here mostly went on strike and did not swing
4. "The Fox gets it" and its cousin "Tories are toffs" are very wrong
5. Whatever you think of Gibson's sins HE IS A CLOWN
6. Centriste dirigiste Star Chamber's Five Go Sobbing is now spilt milk, taking out more that way is probably a bad idea
7. Positive endorsement of ALL reasonable sitting MPs and PPCs would be a stronger route with CLPs taking responsibility for bad apples
8. Lack of voter iD and regular engagement bites bottoms
9. Disunity bites bottoms
10. Expenses gate was mishandled by all concerned
BUT are the Tories going to be any better?
Chloe Smith looks to me like an apparatchik who will willingly turn into lobby fodder.
Now its time for us to take the country back and kick socialism into the long grass. Happily no-one of note will miss it.
It's not about personalities, it's not about baby-eating Tories v the righteous virtue of the Labour Party.
I have news for you, Labour are the nasty party now, they are the ones that are presiding over policy that has seen 1,250,000 people added to the dole queues, 350,000 homes repossessed and thousands of businesses go to the wall.
Every single Labour administration that has governed this country has left more people out of work when it leaves office than when it took office. For all its talk of equality, fairness and decency; this is the most damning indictment of its social justice.
It is Labour that sent men and women to die in two wars for want of equipment and then lied through its teeth to the public.
It is that public that they want to tag, watch, snoop and intrude upon for the most trivial of reasons.
It is anger that you have totally and utterly squandered the best economic legacy bestowed upon any political party for over 100 years; anger that you have almost broken this country after so many promises that it would never happen again.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me. Fool me three times?
You simply do not get it do you? New Labour has done what Labour always does; runs out of other people's money.
Gordon Brown might be the figurehead for this unpopularity but it started a long time ago when Blair was in charge and you forget the poll leads the Tories had then. The public were disillusioned then with Labour. Disillusioned with Labour's track record in office even before it wrecked the economy.
People wanted an alternative then before Brown bottled the election; Labour has no right to govern this country.
Are the Tories unpopular? Perhaps the most stupid thing I have read in this entire thread of comments. They won a Labour seat with a record swing with the youngest prospective member of Parliament, with a fine young lady of principle and charisma. It is a seismic result for the Tories.
For all of Labour's talk of equality and the bent twisted semantics of the more unhinged here; the Tories have backed and supported a young woman in a constituency where she has received a massive endorsement from her constituents. For all Labour's talk; the Tories are doing it by their actions.
If this result was carried throughout the country; Labour will be left with 98 MPs and there would be a Tory majority of 210.
Rest assured, ATT, if the Tories secure such a large mandate; they will not squander it; they will not fight amongst themselves at No.10 and No.11. They will govern for all, not by tribalism combined with divide and conquer.
They will govern as a true alternative to 13 wasted years of drift, failed ideology and economic calamity.
Prepare for opposition? Prepare for destruction because if the millions of us have anything to do with it; New Labour are finished forever.
'twas always thus.
It is our challenge now to respond to that current desire and accordingly.
but from everything I have heard on the MSM, I wonder if anyone is actually listening
That would be Nick Brown (Chief Whip) and Ray Collins (Gen Secretary), under orders from Gordon Brown.
I'm shocked to discover tonight that only 5 MPs have actually been sent to the Star Chamber: Margaret Moran, Jim Devine, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, and Ian Gibson. They were all barred from standing for Labour.
Oddly, it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that other MPs might also warrant a Star Chamber investigation - say, Hazel Blears, Alistair Darling, Yvette Cooper, Phil Hope, Harry Cohen etc. etc.. Does it smell like an almighty stitch-up to anyone else?
Lab 21,097 Lab 6243 Very Big Down* -14,874
Con 15,638 Con 13,591 Down* -2,047
Lib Dem 7616 Lib Dem 4803 Down* -2,813
Green 1252 Green 3350 UP* +2,098
UKIP 1122 UKIP 4068 UP* +2,946
Other 308 Other 2322 UP* +2014
*There you go Guy Labour has a Big Down and there are no big ups even if you add them all together.
For everyone else non-mainstream votes increased by a total of 7058.
Total mainstream loss 19,734, this of course means as Guy as mentioned that some people will have changed parties, but the non-mainstream parties have not gained singularly Labour votes as you can see as all three parties have lost support.
Even if every non-mainstream party had been Labour in the past, 8000 Labour voters would have ceased to vote.
Though of course many Tories would have moved from the 2000 lost, and many Lib dems also from the near 3000 lost.
Of course this is inclusive of people switching partied within the main and non-main.
This is no fluke, the numbers are just too dramatic for Labour.
Oh and Guy, I don't need a job from you thanks.
25,000 more will vote in the real thing in 10 months. The Labour vote was rather "on strike" in this case rather than swinging anywhere. Getting Gibson to go again - albeit at a venerable age - would win this one back at a stroke. And there are other means too.
Chloe Smith seems a reasonable human being. Reminding me of Ruth Kelly. But more left wing? (!) And to her credit embarrassed by Cameron's smearish appraisals. She might survive any challenger other than Gibson or someone annointed by Gibson. How about his daughter? She owns a London flat I believe, bought for a song? And avoiding stamp duty. So she could be cheap.
But the sheer panic at this expected result is unedifying.
Clearly Gibson is not in the same category of lunacy (perhaps literally/clinically in some cases) as Chaytor and Morley and Moron and Devine.
Whoever sent him up to the Star Chamber made a category error. I'll leave it there. In case he's a candidate again.
"You do what's right, not 'what the working class' desire".
To me that sentence epitomises what is wrong with New Labour.
As per usual, the people who know the answer to the problem will be ignored. Can't be seen to be taking advice from the electorate, that wouldn't be cricket. No, better to carry on regardless and collect the pension when it all collapses.
UKIP did surprisingly well. They are becoming - in their minds - a major domestic party. Hitherto UKIP in the main, would probably have been happy to disband once their single issue of Europe was resolved. I am not so sure that will now be the feeling going forward. That means the Tories could have a major domestic problem with UKIP, whatever path they take on Europe.
And anyone who used language such as "abject surrender of parliamentary sovereignty to the European Union" is clearly no pro-EU voice. That's your choice but I hope that the Labour party doesn't follow you
I think you mean talk and then impose controls similar to those advocated by the BNP
And yes, they may vote for another party - but what's the point in having a progressive option if they follow reactionary policy courses?
If people want Tory policies, then the logic is to vote Tory. That's clearly the position at the moment - its normal within the electoral cycle. But Labour shouldn't alter policies just to appease populist stances. In any case, exactly which 'immigrants' are to be controlled? It can't be those within the EU, so are we back to Asians again?
Agreed. Which is the best possible reason for having an electoral system ensuring that no one party can ever again enjoy the kind of massive and unrepresentative majorities that we've seen several times in recent decades. A hung parliament seems the best, and probably the only, way of changing the nature of government.
We can discuss it till the cows come home. You do what's right, not what 'the working class' desire.
In practice Labour have been no more pro EU. Still not in the Euro, opting oiy here, there and everywhere
The 'broken society' is a soundbite and extra tax relief for middle class marrieds won't change a thing
Balance to public finances is impossible - Thatcher couldn't control the money supply or eradicate debt.
Just wait until the rows start over school places ....
And until the resignations start coming in...
Governments behave like governments.
When they're gone, perhaps we can really start to reinvent a new centre left Party, without listening to these crowing voices from the right. Let them have their moment in the sun. Labour is tired and the PLP ideologically exhausted. But Cameron is less popular, and the Tories less prepared, than Blair and Labour were in 1997.
Time to go back to the constituencies and prepare for opposition. Clear out the dead wood, but don't listen to these Europhobe xenophobic Tories. Immigration and anti EU did them little good in 2001 and 2005. Labour is unpopular. The Tories are not popular. Give them a term and they're done.
In the meantime, lets discuss where New Labour failed in Labour terms, not in Tory ones.
Adieu mes vieux trolls.
Brown's paralysis (it's beyond dithering) and cack-handed approach to policy (witness the humiliation of his reform package for MPs being ripped to shreds on the floor of the Commons) is having a debilitating effect on Labour. Nobody knows what Labour is about any more, what it wants to do for the country, what a vote for Labour gets you - and when I say nobody that includes the Ministers in the government. The great clunking fist is stumbling around and swinging wildly in the air.
The PLP are too frightened to act (although of what I don't know), and the potential leaders are all biding their time preferring to fight it out over the party carcass in Opposition. What no-one has considered is that the Labour carcass may not be worth having in Opposition. It's already basically bankrupt and beholden to a single Union - Unite. It's entirely possible Brown could stretch his time in office to very max, meaning he'll fight the local elections next year and the general election seperately - the most expensive way to do it. So you'll be left with a shattered party, hemorrhaging members, a prisoner of a single trade union (and it's bully boy crew led by Charlie Whelan), and very possibly having to file for bankruptcy. In the middle of all that you'll face a really bitter leadership contest, and then the PLP will get back to electing the Shadow Cabinet, and Conference will start determining party policy again. In those circumstances real Social Democrats may wish to consider their positions and query whether they really are best off in the Labour party, and whether it is worth (or even possible) reviving the corpse.
You then go on to say that they should admit that they made mistakes over the 10p tax rate, the Bank of England, ID cards, the war in Iraq, public finances and complicated Government.
Seriously, do you really think that they can simply brush these things off as "mistakes" and expect the public to think "well, fair enough"?
Don't forget that as well as the above-listed "mistakes", we now have mass unemployment, out-of-control immigration, complete and utter subservience to European Law, the broken promise over the referendum for the European Treaty, higher taxes, children leaving school unable to read and write properly (what happended to "Education, education, education"?), a ruined pensions industry and to top it all, Peter Mandelson and Glennys Kinnock in the government.
Sorry sunshine, the by election today is just a little taster compared to the main event in 10 or 11 months. Annihilation doesn't even begin to describe what will happen to Labour next year.
Bluster, puff and twist all you like, but you're not at work now. You contradicted yourself in the space of two comments. Get over it or do I have to go back and show where you didn't mention on thing or you did mention another? Oh, better not, you may call me more names and I'm not sure my fragile ego could cope.
Read what you like into what has happened in Norwich but you're wronger than a wrong person who is, yet again, wrong. Any further rants you care to make or should we spend an hour or so calling each other names based on stereotypes and the level of our combined intellect?
I'm not getting tired of your comments incidently, just wondered if it had been a tough day because you appear to be contradicting yourself. If you're not contradicting yourself in your view, fair enough, but you are which is why I pointed it out. Not asking you to agree or concede that you're contradicting yourself.
In '97 Labour won the election because the electorate accepted that 'New' Labour had changed and offered a better alternative to a worn out, 4-term Tory government.
The Tories have learnt lessons - and have changed. They will win the coming GE for the these reasons.
BTW, for the record: I am not and have never been a Conservative.
What they have is that they are not New Labour, and the electorate have largely forgotten what complete arses they were.
So they have Come Back, and like the Bourbons, they have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
Totally agree with you. The star chamber seems to be a total joke. Both Tory and Labour have looked after their own and used these chamber/panels to try and appease the public, while chucking out a few MPs here and there.
My biggest concern is what does Labour now stand for?
I mean:
The Green party = green issues/environment
UKIP = UK independence
BNP = British purity/racist
Tory = Privatisation, deregulation, middle to upper class, business & self interest
Libs = The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity (from their web site)
Socialist = Fighting for the poor and working class
Labour = ?
This is the problem!
In Unity
MA
I think maybe his clear 'personal' vote may have helped. This statement ignores the fact that Ian was one of the people most likely to keep his seat at the next election.
As for Presbyterian Moral Compass. (Clearly that was the one he borrowed from the Rev Ian Paisly along with his galling claims to stand for Britishness). It broke in spectacular fashion the moment he so transparently lied to the massed media and live tv cameras(i.e. us the voters) about not wanting to move Darling from the Treasury.
Short of banning Christmas I don't know how any action this government takes can make it less popular.
The government need to start unequivically jettisoning the anti-British, anti-libertarian, anti-labour stuff pdq to reduce the depth of the electoral chasm that awaits the Labour Party.
A government without an effective opposition is trouble, whatever shade the government is.
England is "socialist friendly" and won't be anytime soon.
I can only thank I don't have to work with some of the pedantic ostriches that LL has as leftwing defenders.
If anyone needed further proof of the benefits of culling the public sector back as far as possible it's the quality of some of the leftwing posts on this site.
The only way to ensure your survival is a generation in the wilderness. Come back when you have developed policies and people of substance, integrity and resolve.
and
"Of the Tory voters who voted last time a few will have stayed at home etc"
etc. meaning follow from the previous line "a few will have switched allegiances i.e. UKIP, green, etc."
Which all means some Tory voters from 2005 will have stayed at home and some will have voted UKIP (who got 10% after all).
So that IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING.
"There is no evidence to suggest that any former Labour voters voted for the Conservative candidate, but there is evidence that former Labour voters voted for UKIP"
Where is that evidence? All I see is voting figures, for all you know every Tory voter stayed at home and the Tory vote was all ew Labour. Clearly that won't have been the case but the figures don't tell you that. Experience from the Euro elections says a significant number of Tory voters will have voted UKIP out of protest.
What you seem to be saying is that despite a 25% drop in voting numbers nearly all (bar 2,000) Tories came out to vote so therefore at a GE all Labour have to do is get their people out.
It is more of the dumb line that there is no real desire to vote Tory only a loss of faith in the marvellous Labour party.
That view is shifty at best and a downright fib at worst.
Can you also show me past by-election history where voting levels were up on general elections votes? I've seen some twisting about trying to avoid the cold hard truth before but this reaches new levels of head in the sand even for LL.
I'm saying that a 40% vote indicates there's likely to be quite a few amongst that 40% who do "crave" a Tory win, i.e. "there's a few of us about".
This was in direct response to "I cannot imagine great numbers "craving" a Tory government."
Now I might have thought you'd take issue with a biased comment like "I cannot imagine great numbers "craving" a Tory government", but of course not.
Non voters won hands down. Good on them. A massive defeat for Labour and a massive defeat for this sham democracy.
Reinstate the 10p tax bracket, or alternatively raise the tax allowance so everyone, from the poorest to the richest don't pay take on earnings under £15000. Done immediately, it will make a real difference to people. And please, before anyone pipes up about the time it takes, businesses up and down the country had to alter their pricing structures in a weekend because of Darling's VAT cut.
Trident - scrapped. ID cards - scrapped. 3rd runway - scrapped. Databases - scrapped.
Get rid of GB, massively alter the Party's approach to politics and it may not win an election, but it will prove to the people of Britain that they are being listened to for once. At the very least it will mean Labour MPs can go to the polls with their heads held high for once.
And if you really want to get people out for the next GE, use some brains. Offer a referendum on Europe at the same time as the GE. Give the promised referendum, and again, it may not win an election, but it will silence those who in future will say that Labour lied with regards to the referendum.
OK Brown goes. And I agree he's absolute rubbish, but the way things stand all we will get to replace him will be more of the same. A prettier younger model. Like D. Miliband. Or, with the connivence of "left winger" (? - or so he says) Jon Cruddas, something like Pur-nell.
They will promise the earth. But they won't deliver. There will be the same tired old spin, the same old passing-off Tory policies as "Labour" ones, Pur-nell, in particular is trying to pretend he has turned left, but that stance is about as genuine as his imaginary "girlfriends".
I am afraid labour needs a good long spell in opposition, and then, and only then, will remaining Labour MPs and party members see that the rightward drift has done nothing to help Labour, and indeed a lot to damage it.
I suspect "New Labour" will end up a bit like the SDP - too right wing for real labour supporters and not rightwing enough for Colnel Blimps like Guy, and they will just be a little rump party of no consequence. Given that crcumstance I have no objection to Pur-nell and Bananas Miliband leading them to oblivion.
And who paid for his entertaining of the rich and famous at Chequers? Yes, you guessed it - the good old taxpayer.
If that's a Prestyterian moral compass, I'm not impressed.
Yes, Mike you're right of course BUT and it's a big but, is it fair to deselect Gibson and yet leave the ghastly Blears McNulty et al in situ? Why were they not deselected. their actions stink more than Gibsons. And surely Morely and Chaytor should have been charged with fraud by the police by now?
This smacks very much of Cameron sacking the poor old codgers with their duckhouses but leaving his Eton pal Charlie Wiggins in situ.
It's hypocrisy whichever way you care to look at it.
No, labour behaved badly and Gibson wouldn't play the silly game of waiting till the general election to walk. I don't blame him.
That's just one reason: Also, I think the public might be a little sickened by the grubby Mandelson assuming the role of understudy PM: despite the mans previous dishonesty, he shows no remorse or modesty - he gets ever more pompous and that plum in his mouth has become a whole bagful.
And of course, there is Brown. A man who seems oblivious to any critisism and whose stuborness will ensure that the eventual general election defeat will be all the greater.
But the electorate is desperate for change, desperate for a government they can believe and believe in, desperate for a PM with leadership qualities.
We need to have the courage to change. And I don't mean the 'change' that Brown has promised 4 times now and not delivered, I mean real change.
A change of leader. A change in honesty, by admitting the mistakes of the recent past. Admit the 10p tax rate abolition was a mistake, admit that taking banking regulation away from the BoE was a mistake, admit that ID cards is a wasteful extragagence we can't afford, admit that the war in Iraq was a mistake, admit that public finances have been badly managed by Brown by his introduction of complicated government. Then commit to rectifying those mistakes - promise to bring back 10p tax rate when we can afford it, change the banking regulation regime, scrap ID cards, simplify government, and annouce plans to restore public expenditure to what we can afford (and if that means Trident has to go, so be it.)
Trouble is, to rescue Labour we need someone with courage, who is prepared to stick their head above the parapet knowing that Brown will send his Brownshirts out to crucify them. Is there a man or woman at the top of the Party with that courage? I'm not sure . . .
"I'm "craving" a Tory government and the 40% polling the Tories are getting seems to indicate there's a few of us about "
That suggests that you are craving a Conservative government and so is 40% of the people polled in regular surveys, but you then say:
"I did not say that polling figures give any indication of how many "crave" a Tory victory."
Are you reading your previous comments before replying or has it been one of those days at work? I'm not taking the micheal Guy, but you have to admit the two comments contradict each other?
"So lets repeat... of the voters who voted Labour last time out, many will have stayed at home, but quite a few will have switched allegiances i.e. UKIP, green, and yes even a few to the Tories. Of the Tory voters who voted last time a few will have stayed at home etc."
There is no evidence to suggest that any former Labour voters voted for the Conservative candidate, but there is evidence that former Labour voters voted for UKIP. There is also evidence that although the percent of the vote went up due to a lower turnout, the number of people voting Conservative went down.
Come on Guy, you're contradicting yourself in the space of two comments. One minute we have former Labour voters voting Conservative, but in the next breath they didn't, the Conservative voters stayed at home because it wasn't a GE. So which is it?
Let me guess, is it both Guy? By combining the two comments, you could avoid any contradiction and continue with this fantasy that the people of Norwich have come out in force to vote Conservative.
I did not say that polling figures give any "indication of how many "crave" a Tory victory."
I suggest therefore you take your point up with Paris Claims
What is the problem is that it looks like Ian has been a victim of the star chamber and his crimes (that’s what they were) are no word than other Labour Mps who are still in position.
I personally don’t trust the Tories (back with illegal funding from Ashcroft) and I don’t see how they can represent the poorer parts of the country (nor to the point can or have Labour).
Did they put a weak candidate forward for this local elections, maybe that’s all Labour have left!
I agree with Alex, what is Labour fighting for, what do they stand for, what is their message, who do the represent, what is their vision, how well do they communicate that message. Unless they sort these issue out it will be a return to the other side of the house, and maybe in the long run an end to this party. The left are already starting to group together and form a new workers party, that will, if done correctly, take more votes from New (and yet so old) Labour, and the day may come when New Labour is asking to join said workers party.
In the pursuit of power, the two architects of New Labour have potentially killed the 109 year struggle for a workers party, all that believe and sacrifice wasted through the obsession with power and greed (dramatic I know, yet I can’t shake the feeling).
All we can hope is that the real Labour party wakes up and remembers why it was formed in the first place, and if need be take control back. This I doubt and that is why I wonder if the Labour as we know it is finished for good.
Saying that, looking at voting history, I do think that both Tory and labour governments have only a limited time before they become nothing in the politics of this country.
In Unity
MA
It's a by election, voters stay at home for them. It's the start of the summer holidays, kids are home, the weather isn't great etc.
I suggest that fair number of Tory voters didn't come out.
- Cameron is a confirmed eurosceptic, Nu Labour are confirmed europhiles
- Cameron wants to support the family and mend the broken society, Nu Labour doesn't think anything's broken
- Cameron wants to restore balance to the public finances, Nu Labour thinks it's impossible to borrow too much
- Cameron thinks schools will do best when set free (a la the Netherlands or Sweden), Nu Labour wants to control them with targets, standards and guidelines
- Cameron thinks you should maintain as much stability as possible in Cabinet appointments so people really understand their brief, Nu Labour produces a new Defence Secretary every year.
- Cameron's preparation for government involves a task force drawing up plans on how to implement policy effectively through the Civil Service (headed up by Oliver Letwin and Francis Maude), Nu Labour's preparation for government involved a grid to ensure fun and interesting press releases didn't clash with each other.
I could go on, but I think it's clear there's more than just a fag paper between them.
Nope.
Spot on but the problem you have:
1) You have the noose of Gordon Brown round your neck - Labour had two chances to get rid of this toxic liability and they did nothing.
2) Labour has no money. Technically its bankrupt, the husk being propped up by a reluctant and increasingly vocal union. Donations and party membership is down. Elections cost money. Election campaigns run well (see the Tories in Norwich) cost lots of money.
3) The party is totally demoralised. How will you get the vote out if no one within the party thinks they can win? How will you get people on the streets to canvass when they have been ignored so much over the last decade?
4) It's the economy stupid. You could totally transform in the next 9 months. You could come up with attractive policies. You could promise every voter sexual favours and they still wont vote Labour. Todays GDP figures are dreadful, some of the worst on record. Millions are now unemployed. Government figures have been consistently wrong. The economy may start recovering by next May but the financial impact of Labours policies will be felt for decades. Spending money is easy. Spending money wisely and ensuring you can afford it is much much harder. Labour have failed.
5) I read lots about how Labour can stay in power but very little on why they should. Why should I reward failure?
Alex - the best thing Labour can do is to call an election. Changing Brown may save a couple of percentage points but the bottom line is that Labour will lose the election. Delay is not only hurting the country but it is causing incredible harm to the Labour party. So please stop the nonsense. Demand an election so that Labour can have its internal fight and then start the long road to recovery.
My guess is that there may not be another Labour government until not just Brown, but also Mandelson, Straw, Harman, Balls and all those who were seen to prosper under Brown have gone, which is roughly what happened to the Tories after Major. They were almost going backwards until they had a leader who wasn't even selected as a candidate until after the Major government.
Given your frequent comments on your statistical literacy, I'm a little surprised that that isn't self-evident.
What is obvious from Norwich is that the recent announcements, the switch around in the cabinet and for all GB's blustering, Labour is no better off now than during the local elections. The PLP don't seem to want to do anything, activists are powerless to do anything and the cabinet, well they just want an extra 12 months pay so they just keep their gobs shut. Its ridiculous.
Scary thing is that when the Conservatives enter number 10, they will no doubt reveal the off balance sheet spending that GB and Darling have been hiding. GB will be down the road enjoying the rest of his days at the expense of the British taxpayer with the photos of the many celebrities he's managed to wine and dine, but Labour will be tarred, feathered and hung out to dry.
Labour die-hards can come up with all the excuses they like about Norwich, but what will the excuse be at the next election? And what excuses will you offer those who trudge the doorsteps of the nation?
That said this government cannot simply change policy direction and expect to increase their vote share enough to win the next election. It will help but its a catch 22. Continue on the same course and Labour's doomed, abolish ID cards, cut spending to balance the budget and deal with immigration and the vote will increase but the electorate will be left wondering "why should I vote for a party that only get its act together when there's an election and why vote for a party when they admit they've been wrong for 10 years?"
Labour is doomed this time around and is only angering the public more by putting it off. I certainly see it as arrogant and wrong to put off a public vote to secure a few more months in power in the face of overwhelming public opinion.
Labour's vote has gone through the floor, UKIP are up and the Liberal Democrats went down. Whatever the percentage of voters who bothered to turn up and vote, 2000 people didn't vote Conservative who voted Conservative last time.
A change of policies and message will be insufficient - it's as clear as daylight, Brown must go for Labour to stand any chance in 2010.
1. In 1997 the Conservatives looked like an anachronistic and sleazy clique party. Labour Party candidates looked more like the average man or woman on the Clapham omnibus. The Labour party had also abandoned any pretence at Socialism. Hence my qualified support.
2. In 2009 Conservative candidates like Chloe Smith are more representative of the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus. Much still needs to change but after the next election the typical Conservative MP will be almost impossible to distinguish by accent, gender or ethnicity from those representing other parties. They will have effected the same sort of transformation process as Blair's New Labour achieved 12 years ago. Now if anything it is Labour who look like an anachronistic and sleazy clique party.
3. I am pro the European Economic Community that we originally joined but not the European political union that has been subscribed to by Labour without any process of consultation. An incredible 4,000+ UKIP voters in Norwich seemed to think that this was the overriding issue. The fact that you can call me an anti-European without any detailed knowledge of my views shows just the sort of arrogant dismissiveness of Labour towards such legitimate policy concerns that will inevitably lead to their downfall.
One thing you can be sure of Mike is that previously politically uncommitted and unmotivated persons like myself are suddenly on the march and that we have one clear aim - the total defeat and destruction of the Labour Party in 2010.
I really couldn't give a rats ass where you were a "statistician", I'm Head of Consultancy at a IT/Data consultancy and if one of my analysts tried to sell me the crap analysis you just tried I'd be handing over a P45.
I might as well compare 1992 with now as 2005. Dumb statistics and you should know it.
You are trying to ignore the difference in environmental factors i.e. general voting patterns now and in 2005.
If the Labour vote fell by 70% there is no evidence that 70% of labour voters last time did not vote, all it shows is that THEY DID NOT VOTE LABOUR.
Equally the drop in Tory vote does not show they did not vote, only that THEY DID NOT VOTE TORY. That is the only "fact" you can draw.
I suggest you go and read up on "churn", because there is always a significant amount of vote churn between general and by (or local) elections.
So lets repeat... of the voters who voted Labour last time out, many will have stayed at home, but quite a few will have switched allegiances i.e. UKIP, green, and yes even a few to the Tories. Of the Tory voters who voted last time a few will have stayed at home etc.
25% fall in voting does not equate to all 25% being ex Labour voters.
Dear me, don't apply for a job with me ever.
I hope it wakes up the PLP to the state they're in and that quite a few of them are in their last year at Westminster unless they do something about it now.
Guy tell me how many bunnies voted Labour in 2005 and then tell me how many did in 2009. Then use maths, we call it subtraction, then tell me how many Labour voters less we were. Admittedly some bunnies change but overall because of the numbers that did not vote Labour (which were very many) as you will find, there are a lot of Labour who did not vote this time around. This is called a fact.
Facts are good.
Next take the numbers of people who voted Conservative in 2005 and in 2009 and look at the difference using the maths I mentioned.
I was a ststistician for the armed forces on my last posting I was trained to identify the key figure (that means numbers to you) that are special and provide the best picture what occured. OK?
The swing is a % or a proportion of the total bunnies that put the X in the box. It is only good when we are talking about the bunnies in that context. When we are looking at change from one time to another we compare the numbers from the times that wwe are interested in, not the single "picture" of the moment. Sigh give me strength.
It is an important issue for the working class of this country. If Labour do not address it then they are likely to lose votes to the BNP.
So its just a local problem, is it? That's the view from the No.10 bunker
When will the Party wake up to real problem: poor leadership.
Your analysis supposes that all that happened is that the Tories got their vote out and Labour didn't. But all opinion polls suggest the Tory vote is up around the 40% mark and will likely hit low 40s by the election.
This is just more delusion, the idea that some voters have not transfered to the Tory party.
Gordon Brown is the end result of Tony Blair's machinations and as such represents the problem with Labour that is far deeper than Brownovitch's time at number 10.
The problem lies deep within the entrenched attitudes of the PLP which puts up some one such as John Crudas as its 'future' - the guy who will not say 'boo to the Nu Labour goose' or have the guts to say he wants to lead the party away from Nu Labour's wet blanket.
So please will anyone explain to me the difference between Nu Labour (aka Tory Lite) or Call me Dave (aka Nu Labour lite) because the reality is you can not get a fag paper between them.
With the size of the UKIP vote too; it points to Labour is in serious trouble.
But there are some things based upon fact that you should find encouraging. I have no reason to believ Labour will do better here in the General Election. If Chloe is anything like her menor Gillian Shepherd she WILL consolidate the seat. I am telling you now when I campaigned (working as a volunteer only) against Gillian Shepherd I learnt witnessed how far ahead she was of Labour in Norfolk. Where the Newspapers were predicting she would lose her seat, she in fact increased her majority (from a marginal) by thousands.
Chloe is going to be a big problem for the Norwich North Labour Party.
Again, I don't care - keep on telling people that unfettered immigration is just absolutely great for them. But don't whine when they go and vote for another party, or as happened today, don't vote at all.
before listing each. Gordon Brown is the issue.
10% UKIP vote
You think the lost 15% and the entire UKIP vote would not vote Tory?
The amazing thing in a by election like this is the scale of the Tory vote despite a 25% drop in turn out.
The Party needs to much more open, to be able to tolerate debate without crushing those of opposing views, to talk about policies for the whole population, and not just Gordon's rich and famous pals.
Brown must go as the first step to re-invigorating and re-energising the Party.
There is an assumption that the way Ian Gibson was treated would have impacted, it clearly would with some of the activists.
This is the decline in Core voters and the extra kick in the teeth of Gibson. Do not underestimate the impact of expenses on the General Election ahead. There has been NO recovery in the polls since the date that the Telegraph launched the first stories.
The data collectively marries up. The Tories have done very well and Chloe learnt from an excellent campaigner (I have experience of taking on Gillian Shepherd) and will be a big problem for us in the future.
if people want to vote for an anti-immigration right-wing party, then thats what they should do. but that is no reason for wanting to turn Labour into such a party.
When will you finally shut up and listen to people, and act on their wishes rather than trying to nanny and patronise them?
It's too late for the next election, and I don't care if labour disappears altogether, but in the interest of democracy please learn not to tell your supposed electorate what is good for them. Drop all the hand wringing politically correct cr*p.
Take a deep breath, and face up to what real people actually think about immigration for a start.
Also, 'England' isn't all the South-East!
Having said that, I feel sorry for the candidate, Chris. Firstly, there is genuine anger within Norwich about the treatment of Ian Gibson - he's somewhat of a local hero. I don't think Labour's treatment of him has been too clever. Secondly, Cameron threw everything he had at this election. He's been up there 6 times personally. It didn't seem like there was the same urgency within the senior ranks. Although having seen the video posted of all the grassroots activists, it looks like they were doing a great job - I was sorry I couldn't help out. Thirdly, the guy had Swine Flu! Not only could he not campaign or direct the campaign throughout the critical part of the campaign. If beads of sweat had significance to the 1960 Richard Nixon v. John F. Kennedy television debate... imagine what being hospitalised with a contagious flu does.
Actually, I don't think it does. I think it shows the country is desperate to vote "anything-but-Labour", rather than any enthusiasm for the Conservatives.
And, as a Labour party member, grimly hanging on in the hope of influencing the leadership and future direction of the party once the entire Parliamentary pseudo/nuLabour has been reduced to history, that's certainly how I'll be voting.
As someone who welcomed a Labour victory in 1997 the wheel has turned full circle and most of us are eagerly anticipating a similarly spectacular comeuppance for you in 2010.
"Oh God we're going to get slaughtered, please don't make me have to look for a real job, I'll say anything, I'll promise anything, the death penalty, a referendum on Lisbon, oh please please no, it was Julia, take her, take Julia...."
I don't think there is much Labour can do to stop the rot. Brown is the problem.
Before he was leader, Brown was allowed to bully and stifle anybody that had any policy that made sense. For 10 year Brown crushed all rivals for the top job and with it he also crushed what should have been a successful track record of delivery.
The people hate Brown, but his removal won't improve Labour's electoral chances. The reason being is that the track record of delivery over the last 12 years is so poor.
Labour are in a vicious circle of defeat - largely caused by Gordon brown.
Possibly the first real sign of reality drifting into LL with regard to voting intentions around the country (certainly England).
I have to say though the "significance" of this result will only last until the next "defeat of lasting significance".
Labour looks more and more like a collective of lemmings as weeks go by.