And another thing…

You carry on believing that if it’ll make the trauma of next spring easier to believe.

In general, I’d try not to deduce too much from holding one of your safest seats on a record low turnout, and instead focus on the ICM polls, which show Dave as far ahead now as Tony was in late 1996.

Oh I don’t know . .

. . . I think he’s pretty sure to be Tory Leader going into the next General Election.

I get your point but out of the last four by-elections, three have taken place in Scotland, where obviously the Tories aren’t going to win, and the one which took place in England was taken from Labour by the Tories.

All the by-election info since 1979 is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_by_elections#2001-2005_Parliament

Tom – as even the BBC pointed out last night, a donkey could stand for Labour in Glasgow NE and the dimwitted electorate would vote it in.

How are things, Tosh, up there?

In Cloud-Cuckoo Land.

Crewe and Nantwich May 2008 gained from Nu-Communist/Labour; Norwich North July 2009 gained from Nu-Communist/Labour.

First the hair starts going, then the knees, then the short-term memory.

Who’s suggesting that Cameron has ?

The Glasgow vote doesn’t show me a boost for Labour (as per the Grauniad). It shows that 67% of the electorate couldn’t support any candidate.

How much louder do people have to shout that the Commons is broken ?

Oh please, a donkey with a red rossette on it would have won Glasgow North yesterday.
I sort of agree with seal the deal point tho.

Good grief, the desperation is almost painful to witness. You are almost certainly right, Cameron is not as popular as Blair was in 1996, but what you can’t avoid is the fact that Brown is almost universally reviled as PM (even by you!!).

By all means allow yourself the delusion that this somehow equates to New Labour having a cat in hell’s chance of not losing the next general election, there’s nothing so satsifying as watching one’s opponents unrealistic expectations evaporating before their eyes.

Yes, you’ll be the official opposition at Westminster next year, you’ll probably have more MPs in Scotland than the rest of the parties put together, but come 2011 you will be seen for what you are – a failed, London-based party with no relevance to Scotland in the second decade of the 21st Century.

The lesson to Scots in next year’s GE will be vote Labour, get a Tory government. The solution in 2011 will be vote SNP and never suffer under a Tory government again.

I don’t believe Cameron has sealed anything, and I would remind anyone who does to remember that John Major was given no chance against Neil Kinnock.

Having said that, I believe Cameron will win, and Gordon Brown will have come and gone without ever winning an election to become or remain Prime Minster, (or even Leader of his party).

Cameron has most definitely not sealed the deal.

Labour seems to cling onto this view as some sort of comfort blanket, but while Brown remains in charge, this question of Cameron and sealing the deal is irrelevant.

The point is, Brown has sealed the deal with the electorate i.e. they want him out – a point you acknowledged yourself, Tom, on Newsnight after the Purnell shenanigans.

If Brown leads Labour into an election, the Tories will have the easiest election campaign ever. They just need to use Brown’s image a lot with the words; ‘Brown, five more years?’ and it’s job done.

Per wikipedia….

2001-05 Parliament 6 by-elections 4 retained by Labour and 2 lost to Lib Dem
2005-10 Parliament 14 by-elections of which:

1 retained by independent
3 retained by Conservatives
1 retained by Lib Dem
5 retained by Labour (counting Glasgow NE as Labour)
1 Labour lost to SNP
2 Labour lost to Conservative
1 Labour lost to Lib Dem

But Tom – I don’t think much of your argument… the Labour seats that were held in 05-10 were Livingston, Ealing Southall, Sedgefield, Glenrothes and Glasgow NE – absolute rock solid Labour seats. If you’d lost any of those it would have been a catastrophe. Even if David Cameron could turn water into wine, he’d never win Glenrothes so to call this proof that he hasn’t sealed the deal is specious.

Tom

The Torys dont see it as 1997 moment they imagine and want a 1979 moment….

Tom, have you ever checked their ip addresses?

A tweet:

Quietzapple
Tory Trolls cock up multiple id shennaniganshttp://url.ie/2usg cap doff @AdamBienkov @libcon

If I understand you then Wiki disagrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections#Present_Parliament_.28since_2005.29

Agreed, even his own supporters view him with suspicion.
He only trusts his own and has destroyed many of the local Tory Associations.
Look at the shambles in Berwickshire etc etc.
Poor Bubbles Lamnot…… only one job to look forward to.

Info is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections#Present_Parliament_.28since_2005.29

5 out of 9 Labour holds since 2005.

Let me correct myself, I misunderstood, you appear to be correct. Still not sure what the point is though.

Congratulations all 1,000 or so MPs over the past decade, you have collectively sullied the reputation of politics that it is still possible that a government that is showing every sign of having gone past its sell-by date still has a chance to get re-elected.

This goes way beyond voter apathy towards voter distrust.

Anyone else remember the amount of sleaze the dying tory government were involved in – a sure sign of a dying administration – and New Labour came in promising to do things differently…

EVERYBODY who believes in democracy has a duty to accept last night’s result
in Glasgow North East.

You have to believe that the people of Glasgow North East cast their votes
after looking at all the issues.

You have to believe that, after long consideration of all the options, they
used the gift of their vote with care and they chose Labour.

In spite of the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the almost daily parade of
flag-draped coffins, in spite of the fact that our brave soldiers are forced
to buy their own boots while MoD fat cats scoop up cash bonuses for their
hard work, the people of Glasgow North East chose Labour.

In spite of the worst unemployment figures since Tony Blair was elected, in
spite of the worst youth unemployment EVER, the people of Glasgow North East
chose Labour.

In spite of the fact that Glasgow North East has the seventh highest number of
people on benefits in the entire UK, they chose Labour. In spite of the fact
that the election was caused by the most shattering scandal in the history
of Westminster, they chose Labour.

In spite of the fact that Michael Martin was forced out of office as Speaker –
the first time that’s happened in more than 200 years – they chose Labour.

In spite of the fact that Mr Martin spent £1.7million of their money on doing
up his London residence, they chose Labour.

In spite of the £1,400 he claimed for chauffeur-driven cars to take him round
Glasgow North East, they chose Labour.

In spite of the £95,000 he claimed for his Glasgow home in the past seven
years, in spite of the seat in the Lords he was given, in spite of the £350
he can claim – tax free – every day he turns up there, they chose Labour.

So, really, there’s only one question left.
What would the Labour Party have to do to people in Springburn to make them
stop voting Labour?

Erm Tom that’s a bit disingenuous isn’t it?
As it happens I don’t think Cameron has sealed the deal yet but to base your view on this win is silly.
If Labour had lost this one then it truly would have been a shock but I hate to think what kind of candidate you guys would have had to put up for that to happen

I would credit the average Tory vote with a higher likelihood to vote tactically or to protest vote than a Labour voter.

The nature of Labour’s unpopularity is also a factor. They are unpopular among people who are not on benefits or employed in the state sector. Suffice it to say that most people in Glasgow are pretty happy with their lives right now.

All you sad Labour supporters aren’t ‘alf crowing from the summit of a mole hill.

You held – HELD – (with a reduced majority) a seat that could be won by a haggis with a red rosette.

The SNP candidate was a Dan Quayle type chisled jaw and sharp suits towered over the fag wizened, undernourished inhabitants of the constituency – not the greatest paradigm of “I’m local”, not to mention that bit of “local” confusion.

The result has been slewed by an abnormally high number of Social group Ds and Es and a very low turn out.

And to cap it all, police are investigating suspected fraudulent use of postal votes.

Tags: straws, clutching, at

Who (apart from Labour folk) think he’s sealed the deal? Not me.

And as for Labour holding (or winning – depending on whether you believe it to be a gain) a Glasgow seat… well whoopie do!

I was wholeheartedly supporting Labour in this by-election anyway as it seems t have guaranteed Brown as Labour leader until the election. Every cloud…

obangobang
The lesson to Scots in next year’s GE will be vote Labour, get a Tory government. The solution in 2011 will be vote SNP and get more of the same old same old – another century of abject poverty.
************************************************

Couldn’t agree more, fella, couldn’t agree more.

Record lowest turnout? Anyway, a further demonstration that our voting system is a disaster. 1 in 5 vote Labour, and the candidate is elected.

Democracy?

1. Either voting is made compulsory or
2. Re-runs until a candidate gets a majority of ALL voters.

The system as it stands is a very bad joke.

They sound pretty desperate to me.

Even Hezza (Lord Heseltine) only suggests that Chameleon will get a hung parliament.

And Tarzan is notorious for making out that black is white and so forth, just recall the Liverpool Regeneration of the mid ’80s, which added up to rather less than needed to put it mildly.

The sympathy for Gordon Brown in the wake of Sunazigate is particularly striking. When the people concentrate their minds on politics prior to a General Election once more . . .

. . . and compare genuine Gordon with PR Dave . . .

Einstein’s definition of insanity

“doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Quite

To use terminology from the pastoral care of the terminally sick, you are somewhere between denial & bargaining … refusing to contemplate the prospect of death, bolstered by small signs of life, encouraging one another to falsify the diagnosis.

We perfectly understand how you must feel Tom, and I want you to know we are here for you.

My feeling about the General Election is that a lot of people aren’t going to bother voting, taking a que sera sera attitude about whoever gets in, perhaps assuming that it’s an inevitability that it’s the Tories’ ‘turn’ to get in. And even if they’re dissatisfied with Labour, they’re not exactly fired up with enthusiasm for the Tories either.

It will probably boil down to the hard-core Labour vote vs the hard-core Tory vote. And in that sense the Tories most definitely don’t have it in the bag.

I think support has dropped for the SNP because of the release of the plane bomber.
I would be careful in your reading of it.

@ Quietzapple: Brown has indeed been mostly defended over his letter of condolence, often from people who’d preface what they were saying with ‘I can’t stand Brown, BUT …’ .

There was a very interesting edition of Feedback on Radio 4 at lunchtime, which featured listeners’ questioning of the way BBC news had appeared to follow News International’s agenda regarding Brown’s letter.

Glasgow North East voters obviously think that living in one of the poorest and crime ridden areas of Scotland is so bad they voted Labour in again: 74 years in a row I believe.

Says something about the mentality, I would say.

Nicky:

I doubt that.

Firstly “Events.”

Some we can only await.

Secondly they are so far out of the practice of winning . . .

And thirdly there are many achievements, while they remain divided, duplicitous, and Gordon’s vision and our plans are yet to be revealed to any great extent.

@Sergeant Plodder
Voting is a right, not an obligation.

Constant run-offs, enforced voting etc. all just give candidates the kind of legitimacy we really don’t want them to have.

Put DC and GB in a run-off untill one gets over 50% and you’re still going to have a leader no-one wants, he’ll just think he has some kind of mandate from the people to push his idiotic, dangerous and damaging agenda through.

Hang on, Labour have been doing that anyway in spite of teh fact less than 40% of eligible voters selected them.

Time for a box at the bottom saying: “None of the above candidates or parties sufficiently has my trust or represents my views, please do not allow them to pass non-emergency legislation without a referendum.”

Old Holborn (Friday 13 November 2009 at 12:35 pm) has it one.

What would Labour have to do any worse for Glaswegians not to vote Labour?

Glaswegians – you reap what you sow – look forward to remaining in poverty.

I agree that voting shouldn’t be compulsory (as in Oz).

It is already open to voters to spoil their ballot constructively, and some do write “none of the above.”

And, of course, we elect MPs who decide whom to support to form a ministry. In a hung parliament the need for a Government which can command support in Parliament may well be decisive.

I’ve been to Glasgow North East.

They have the MP they deserve. Just like the last one.

Quietzapple:(November 2009

“Gordon’s vision and our plans are yet to be revealed to any great extent”

Gordon Brown:(November 2007)

“Yes, I did consider holding an election. Yes, I looked at it. My first instinct, if I were honest with all of you, was that I wanted to get on with my job of putting my vision of what the future of the country was to the people of the country and deliver on it before there was ever an election.”

Do you know something? It’s been two years now, and the suspense is killing me.

Quietzapple: I think Labour needs to be much more assertive and vocal about its achievements, in the face of apathy and the right-wing media’s relentless attacks and twisting of the truth. Ellie Gellard (Bevanite Ellie) has written about how the short film Against the Odds and how it’s inspired her. She is campaigning for it to be used as a PPB.

http://www.labourlist.org/why-against-the-odds-should-be-in-the-running-ellie-gellard

Nicky:

I watched and agreed with Ellie, signed up to that proposal.

Do you know wether paying one’s LP sub via Labour Central Office means the local party doesn’t get so much as if one pays locally?

I’ve smoked Old Holborn, I deserved respite.

Come on gnats, keep straining:
8111: Declared result
8108: 3 personations
8106: 2 gnats bamboozled by Tom
2041: 6065 fraudulent postal votes
Just one more push, and the gnats will have won!

Congratulations to Willie Bain.
An excellent result for Labour.

(BTW I am a lifelong SNP supporter)

Nicky
Friday 13 November 2009 at 5:13 pm
Nobellaureatezapple: I think Labour needs to be much more assertive and vocal about its achievements,
*****************************************

I agree.

I mean they should be trumpeting those ‘Record Low Interest Rates’ for a start.

Oops, correction to my last post.
Apparently although 6065 postal votes were issued, only 3803 were cast, so the last line of the table should read:
4303: 3803 fraudulent postal votes

That might just be too big a gap to close before the result is declared final.

I think that people get confused here. No one says the next election is going to be a 1997, 1945 style landslide win. They just say the tories are going to win. They’re right about that.

Poor, p poor Sammy, obviously been smoking something more heady than old Holborn . .

. . . or is shy of objecting to the 5% av interest rates for the first 10 years of Labour’s Government, would prefer a 15% rate as per Black Wednesday . .

. . or was it MORE?

The real disater here was for the Lib/Dems.
The came 6th.

The BNP had 1,013 votes

The Lib/Dems had only 474 votes

This is a major disaster for them.

To have less than half the votes of the BNP just shows how far they have slipped.

No deal needs to be sealed, the election will not be about policies or personalities. Just revenge.

You could be right Tom. Could have another 9 years of Labour….

If you base the result on the Glasgow North East I reckon you will increase your majority.

Maybe a wee bit of a misjudgement to think that EVERY seat will be as faithful, but it’s certainly looking good, under the wise and benevolent Gordon Brown. Better lose Mandleson though… he’s bound to mess up sooner or later. Again.

No, Cameron hasn’t sealed the deal. Opinion polls saying the Tories are 10 points up on Labour are one thing, but how is that going to translate into seats? They still need about 125 to swing their way to have a bare majority in the Commons. 125 seats to be gained is still quite a hill to climb for the Conservatives.

Hat tip to Stumbling & Mumbling.

TORIES & SMACKHEADS

The Tory Party is less popular than heroin. That – if anything – is the lesson from the Glasgow North East by-election result.

The Tories got 1075 votes. The best estimate (table 3 of this pdf) is that there are over 13,000 “problem drug users” in the city of Glasgow – defined as users of heroin, methadone or benzodiazepines. If we assume Glasgow North East contains one-seventh of these – Glasgow NE being one of seven of the city’s parliamentary seats – then it has just under 1900 problem drug users.

It’s likely, then, that there are more smackheads than Tory voters in Glasgow North East.

The most significant aspect of NE Glasgow is its record low turnout of 33%.

Surely this is because there’s no point in voting for an MP who’ll not represent you on crucial issues such as Health, Education, Policing, and Social Services.

What’s the point in going out in the rain to vote for a bloke who’ll be nothing more than lobby fodder for English only legislation?

Serbeant Plodder @ 6.25am

And that’s an endorsement of the last 12 years of Labour government??!

I have only been to Scotland twice and do not recommend the gnats late Aug.

But can it really be that the Tories are the party of choice for heroin addicts?

If 33% is the lowest turnout ever in Glasgow E this will be because turnouts in by-elections are usually lower than in General Elections, because people want to feel they are electing a Government, a Leader, not a mere MP.

The argument that, because the EU has its role in how we live here, people legitimately refuse to vote has as much sense to it as to suggest that, because the USSR and USA have so many more nukes than we do, there is no sense in voting for a UK Government, because we can be annihilated by others.

We vote to have an influence and to have our say, maintaining democratic institutions. use them or lose them.

You keep clinging to this idea that the only way for the Tories to win in 2010 is for them to exactly duplicate the 1997 result in reverse. It’s the line that Labour has been pushing for months. Ooh, at this stage, Tony Blair had a much bigger lead in the polls. Ooh, no-one is enthusiatic about Cameron the way they were about Blair. Etc etc.

It takes a 1 seat majority to unseat Labour, not a 160-odd majority. Plus, after what Blair turned out to be, do you seriously believe that anyone will ever be inspired by a politician again?

Utterly mistaken SWEH,

You fall into your own trap by equating Labour having an overall majority of 1 (not required incidently, The Speaker, John Bercow, would ordinarily be expected to side with HMG) with a tory majority.

The net is full of people who much admire Gordon Brown, even Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. Politics is a high calling, and people are inspired, as well as sometimes cynical.

If the choice is between an HMG led by Chameleon or a Labour figure most Lib-Dem MPs will reject Osborne’s mate on economic policy alone, and hope for their treasury spokesman to have a hand in policy.

The recent sympathy for Gordon Brown, which is in the wake of far less nasty abuse than many tory trolls online have spat out for years, is only a small sign of the volatility of UK politics, on which the late Prof Robt Mackenzie was wont to comment on occasion.

This be the one, thanks, Tom:

Utterly mistaken SWEH,

You fall into your own trap by equating Labour not having an overall majority of 1 (not required incidently, The Speaker, John Bercow, would ordinarily be expected to side with HMG) with a tory majority.

The net is full of people who much admire Gordon Brown, even Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. Politics is a high calling, and people are inspired, as well as sometimes cynical.

If the choice is between an HMG led by Chameleon or a Labour figure most Lib-Dem MPs will reject Osborne’s mate on economic policy alone, and hope for their treasury spokesman to have a hand in policy.

The recent sympathy for Gordon Brown, which is in the wake of far less nasty abuse than many tory trolls online have spat out for years, is only a small sign of the volatility of UK politics, on which the late Prof Robt Mackenzie (Psephologist and political scientist) was wont to comment on occasion.

Quietzapple: As you’ve no doubt noticed, it’s a recurrent theme with Tom’s Tory fans that Labour are going to get wiped out at the next Election, and they get in a right excitable lather about it. (‘Slaughtered’, ‘bloodbath’, ‘dustbin of history’ yadda yadda). However, if they read today’s Daily Mail they might get a well over-due reality check. According to Peter Oborne,

An internal Tory Party document sets out the scale of the problem, stating baldly: ‘The Conservatives have never won a General Election from a starting point as weak as they face now.’

The Tory briefing note sums up the problem as follows: ‘To become Prime Minister, David Cameron must surpass the electoral achievements of both Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1227718/PETER-OBORNE-As-Brown-survives-hellish-week-dawning-Cameron-victory-isnt-bag.html#ixzz0Wq05sdSr

OK young Thomas, you keep telling yourself that!

Nicky
Saturday 14 November 2009 at 1:07 pm
David Cameron must surpass the electoral achievements of both Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.’
*********************************************

Hmm wasn’t one of Winston Churchill’s electoral achievements losing an election. Shouldn’t be too hard too at least match that.

In any case neither of these entered an election facing Captain Insensible and a completely bust economy.

Face it – there won’t *be* a Labour Party after the election.

A hung parliament is, of course, a possibility. But I still think a working Tory majority is favourite.

Mind you, the turnout may be reduced due to so many preferring a hanged parliament.

LMAO @ Liberanos.

Actually Churchill in 1945 did have a completely bust economy and faced Attlee, whom he was fond of suggesting “Has much to be modest about.”

Chameleon is no Churchill, but has soooo many trolls with broken bells to clank . . .

I rather prefer Heseltine’s opinion to “Liberanos’.”

He has fewer axes to grind, and has never claimed to be a Labour supporter/voter, while attacking Labour all the time.

Relatively straight. For a Tory.

Oh, and refuses to have a pop at Chameleon re Europe, despite obviously disagreeing with him. Loyal. Bright, Clever.

[...] Tom Harris rather obtusely compares Labour’s by-election record with the Tories’ while in office before 1997 and concludes that “Cameron has most definitely not sealed the deal”. [...]

Nicky: Admire your dedication re scouring the Dully Maul.

Hezza said much the same, it isn’t rocket science.

I liked the analogy I saw on Twitter with 1992, when Kinnock’s 10% lead became 7% and Major (minor) won shortly after Labour celebrated our prospective victory with That Rally (which made me weep at the time, such foolhardiness seemed incredible)

http://twitter.com/Quietzapple

We’ve learned, I’m not sure they have, hope the public will when they get round to considering the matter, as often is the case in the run in to a General Election.

@Quietzapple.

Hesletine eh?

I’m a Blair man, myself.