Electoral expert says Labour overall has gone backward, despite Starmeroid spin
Keir Starmer and his spokespeople are spinning like crazy that today’s local election results are a sign of how well the public is receiving Starmer’s policy blancmange of nothingness (well, maybe they’re not using quite that terminology), while they point to a few areas where Labour had good results – such as in the Blackpool South by-election.
But Labour also did disastrously in other areas, such as on Teesside, where it failed to oust Tory Ben Houchen despite Houchen facing allegations of deeply dodgy land deals, in North Tyneside, where it lost control of the council, and in the West Midlands, where it expects to lose to the Tories.
And according to expert electoral analysts, Labour has gone backwards compared to last year, like the Tories:
Compared to polling claiming Labour’s Westminster vote share is as high as 47%, a 34% performance is disastrous – and is considerably lower that the shares achieved by Starmer’s predecessors Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband. Corbyn managed higher in 2018 and Miliband in 2012-13:
Independents, meanwhile, performed strongly, beating the LibDems in vote share and seat gains. The Greens also performed well.
With outrage continuing to grow over Starmer’s lockstep with the Tories in backing Israel’s genocidal regime, a nine percent lead does not look guaranteed to hand Starmer a parliamentary majority – and today’s results confirm it.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
There will be a proportion of those “independents” who are former Labour Party Councillors from the political right of the Party, as well as the left, who have been dumped on from a great height by the authoritarian regime of Herr Starmer over one issue or another over the past year or two.
As previously detailed last year, Starmer’s dictating from the center after last year’s local elections in which Labour Group leaders, deputy leaders and others with Council portfolio’s were ordered to resign led to the loss of control of some Councils and the formation of independent groups of former Labour Councillors.
Some of whom have contested and won seats this time around against the Starmer rump party.
What these figures don’t tell us is just how many citizens are so pissed off and alienated from the fake choice of two cheeks of the same arse that they are no going to bother voting or simply protest by spoiling their ballot papers.
Should there actually be a General Election – which is by no means guaranteed – the number refusing to participate in the charade could easily exceed the previous high number of refusniks.
Excellent reporting of honest analysis. Polling experts, like Sir John Curtice, arguing this could be Labour’s worst local election result in 40 years hasn’t stopped the MSM, though, playing-up Sir Keir’s supposed-victory.
Thanks for highlighting Starmer’s real single-figure lead (9%), Steve. It’s nowhere near the 17% that Blair achieved in 1997 and would be unable to produce a 30-seat majority.
qwertboi – YOU ARE ‘MISTAKEN’
“Polling guru John Curtice issues dire local election prediction for Tories
The pollster said the Conservatives are looking at “one of the worst, if not the worst” performances by the party in 40 years.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1895216/john-curtice-local-elections-tories
Curtice also said in that report from the Express the following;
Quote:
Prof Curtice said: “The key message from these local ballot boxes is that Mr Sunak’s project, indeed probably his principal purpose, which was to reverse the damage that he inherited, a party that was 25 points behind in the polls, that project has not made much progress, much as the opinion polls have been telling us, much as previous parliamentary by-elections have been telling us.”
Unquote.
The statement that on the basis of these local election results showing the Blue Tories nine percentage points behind the Red Tories does not represent (quote) “much progress” (unquote) from being twenty five percentage points behind is an ‘interesting’ one in terms of Official Narrative projection.
Reducing that lead by sixteen percentage points would suggest otherwise and either one of two processes at work:
Either
A. The Blue Tories are increasing their vote compared to the Red Tories
or
B. The Red Tories are decreasing their vote compared to the blue Tories.
Which do you think it might be Billy?
Dave – I don’t accept the premise of your questions.
Trying to extrapolate the incomplete results of a local election to what will happen in a general election might be a fun thing to do but it is also fools game.
Dave – I don’t accept the flawed premise of your questions.
Trying to extrapolate the partial results of local elections into what will happen at a general election may be a fun thing to do but it is also a fools game.
No, not mistaken, SteveH: A vote-share projection based on yesterday’s figures would give Sir Keir’s party a paltry NINE per cent lead in vote share at a GE this year.
POINT IS: The Conservatives have never been as disliked and distrusted as they are today. Yet even when they were more trusted, Leaders like Milliband and Corbyn projected Labour to better (see SA’s article).
Starmer as leader is a liability for Labour.
qwertboi – Well whether you like it or not the evidence is there for all to see.
So yes you were mistaken, it’s either that or you were lying.
You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing a link to Curtice arguing that this could be Labour’s worst local election result in 40 years.
With the exception of Liz Truss who looks like they are the biggest liability in this chart
https://mcusercontent.com/ceb437017cd651e33813473af/images/a80d4a07-2ffa-6736-7230-2e368d7b8c5c.png
Do we know for sure yet whether he will be standing in the next election.
Billy, a poor attempt at clouding the issue.
Which is not what Curtice said or did not say.
What is at issue is the performance of the Labour Party under Starmer.
The Blue Tories may well have had their worst performance in forty years at these local elections. However, the fact that the Red Tories are only nine percentage points ahead at the same time – “lower” then “the shares achieved by Starmer’s predecessors Jeremy Corbyn and Ed Miliband ” and sitting in the mid 30% range is hardly cause for optimism.
There is little doubt given your record of being disingenuous that if the Red Tories had gone above the 40% mark in these local elections you would be arguing the opposite that such figures could be extrapolated to a crushing General Election win for the Red Tories.
Besides which, once again you are lying through your teeth in claiming that my post of 07:17pm 3/5/24 made any reference to extrapolating these local election results can be extrapolated to a General Election.
Show us Billy where I have said that? You can’t because I never said it. You are deliberately misrepresenting what was said in that post to cloud and avoid the issue.
Here is what was actually said in the context of these local election results:
“Reducing that lead by sixteen percentage points would suggest otherwise and either one of two processes at work:
Either
A. The Blue Tories are increasing their vote compared to the Red Tories
or
B. The Red Tories are decreasing their vote compared to the blue Tories.”
The reduction of the gap from 25% to 9% which is reflected in these results is irrefutable. Clearly suggesting that either the Blue Tories are catching up or the Red Tory vote is decreasing compared to the Blue Tories.
Which is it Billy? Answer the question.
Also; I’d be obliged if you would:
A. Desist from these constant and deliberate misrepresentations.
B. Issue a post with an apology for doing so.
Dave – Billy, a poor attempt at clouding the issue.
Which is not what Curtice said or did not say.
Given that before you butted in I was pointing out qwertboi’s ‘major error’ in his report about what John Curtice said, what Curtice did or didn’t say was the issue.</b
What is at issue is the performance of the Labour Party under Starmer.
Is it an issue, Labour are doing well? The opinion poll taken on the 2nd and 3rd of May give Labour a 20% lead. Have you seen the excellent Mayoral Election results, it is very nearly a clean sweep.
For some time Labour have self evidently been doing far better than they were in 2019 when they were 11% behind the Tories in the polls (accuracy confirmed by the actual GE results). Starmer in contrast to his predecessor is predicted to lead the Labour party to victory with a substantial majority.
There is little doubt given your record of being disingenuous that if the Red Tories had gone above the 40% mark in these local elections you would be arguing the opposite that such figures could be extrapolated to a crushing General Election win for the Red Tories.
You do a lot of presuming to know what other people think, don’t you? My stance on the folly of attempting to do this has been consistent. As has John Curtice’s, who also pointed out the same thing last year.
Besides which, once again you are lying through your teeth in claiming that my post of 07:17pm 3/5/24 made any reference to extrapolating these local election results can be extrapolated to a General Election.
Before commenting further you should look up what ‘extrapolate’ means in this context
Which is it Billy? Answer the question.
Why would I want to waste my time addressing questions which are based on a flawed premise?
Also; I’d be obliged if you would:
A. Desist from these constant and deliberate misrepresentations.
I wasn’t aware that I’d made any. You’re the one who is pursuing a childish vendetta and who habitually fancies himself as some sort of cheapo Mystic Meg.
B. Issue a post with an apology for doing so.
Why would I apologise for your failings, they’re your problem?
You’re more than welcome to come back and tell me ‘I told you so’ if Labour don’t end up in power with a substantial majority after the next general election.
ps, Why do you feel the need to prop up your diatribe with childish playground insults?
Billy,
“what Curtice did or didn’t say was the issue”
And a further issue was introduced based on a statement made by Curtice in that article from the Daily Express.
Which was in relation to the gap between the Red and Blue Tories IN THIS YEARS LOCAL ELECTIONS being nine percentage points.
The point being that according to Curtice the twenty five point gap has not been reduced. When clearly IN THIS LOCAL ELECTION it has.
Even you have conceded IN TERMS OF A GENERAL ELECTION RATHER THAN THE RECENT LOCAL ELECTIONS the gap has reduced from that 25% (Curtice) to 20%
Quote from steveh 08:30pm 04/05/2024:
“The opinion poll taken on the 2nd and 3rd of May give Labour a 20% lead.”
So I’ll ask again Billy:
1. IN THESE RECENT LOCAL ELECTIONS the percentage gap between the Red Tories and the Blue Tories is 9% as reported in this thread above.
Either – IN THESE RECENT LOCAL ELECTIONS
A. The Blue Tories are increasing their vote compared to the Red Tories
or
B. The Red Tories are decreasing their vote compared to the blue Tories.”
Which is it Billy?
2. “Before commenting further you should look up what ‘extrapolate’ means in this context”
Which context Billy? The one I was talking about or the one you took upon yourself to make up on my behalf?
Because my context was very clear. It was limited to the gap between the Red and Blue Tories in the recent local elections as reported in this thread by the Skwawkbox.
So no. Your attempt to redefine my context to suit yourself does not wash. It is a misrepresentation. A lie.
There is nowhere you can point to in order to substantiate YOUR re-framing the context of the issue I introduced. As such it was a misrepresentation and an apology is still due.
Moreover, this is not the only example of your disingenuousness in this regard:
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/04/29/breaking-columbia-university-will-not-divest-from-israel/#comment-254569
I would again be obliged for you to deal with the matters detailed in the above provided link in regard to the same.
Finally;
“ps, Why do you feel the need to prop up your diatribe with childish playground insults?”
Would that be the same “childish playground insults” as “gullible fuckwit” [steveH 09:31pm 29/04/24]; “idiotic numpty” [steveH 10:12pm 29/04/24]; “condescending tw*t” [steveh 11:58pm 30/4/24] – and those are only the past week or so?
I’m merely following the example you have already long set Billy. And, as I stated in the above link to comment 254569 at 04:15pm 03/05/24:
“As for your whining regarding some kind of ‘vendetta” the common ‘etiquette’ understood by everyone is that if you cannot take it, don’t dish it out. I’m merely going to carry on attempting to obtain the kind of straight answers from you which you constantly demand of others but won’t deem to reciprocate.
Choosing instead, like all wannabe bad faith actor trolls, to misrepresent, misframe, project, insult, and avoid the substantive issues and then whining like a mardy five year old when you get called out for it.”
So the quicker you get your act together as requested the quicker I will be off your back.
Your choice Billy.
Dave – ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please feel free to write me another essay
Toffee – …….and the credible alternative that you are offering the electorate.is?
You can rant all you like but the fact remains that Labour won with a substantial overall majority of 58.9% of the vote.
It is also worth noting that in 2019 the Tories won this seat with a majority of only 3,690 (11.3%) whilst just last week Labour despite the reduced turnout won back the seat with a majority of 7,607 (41.4%) brought about by an outstanding 26.3% swing from Tory to Labour.
How did the left’s candidate do in last week’s by election, did they have one?
Who will you be voting for in the next general election, Bimpson?
You asked for the evidence Billy. Deal with it like a man rather than running away every time you get your arse handed to you.
Still waiting for the apology for your deliberate multiple misrepresentations.
Don’t want to be a pedant but your article says Labour lost control of North Tyneside council but they don’t declare until Saturday.
Local election results are a time for everybody to spin the outcome wildly and the analysis here is no different. Selective stats can propel any assumptiion but, having heard much of Curtice yesterday I can only recall him saying it was the worst Tory performance for 40 years. Labour did well but not spectacularly (which would have equated to +250-300) and the Tories look to have stayed under the cataclysmic -500 figure. The extrapolation from local to general that bigs up Milliband and Corbyn is delusional: what merit in Milliband getting c.38% that anticpates a GE split of 36.9/30.4 (Con/Lab) or Corbyn getting c.36% in the locals that births a 43.6/32.2 split in 2019 GE. The key takeaways (and yes I am now jumping on my own hobby horse) which would have been apparent if the graph of local elections had reached back further and included the as yet to be finalised 2024 results as well as those from 2023
1) the gap between Lab and Con is 9% – massive in relation to any splits shown in the graph above
2) the vote share of the parties other than Lab and Con – Lib 17%, Oth 24% which, as the graph shows will necessarily depress the percentages possible by the two main parties – as is evident in 2018 when they tie on 28%.
The inequity of the FPTP system (now mounting the hobby horse) is that the GE tracks a lot closer to the polling and the correlation between % of vote and seats is borderline nonexistent. On the splits shown above – 34/25/17/24 the seats would fall approx. thus
LAB 221
CON 163
LIB 111
OTH 156
That’s not going to happen which frustrates me because various combinations of OTH and LIB could form an alternative to the LABCON duopoly and necessarily embrace a broad swathe of perspectives. Better still, a move away from FPTP would not only track closer to this model above but most likely change the splits even more convincingly toward a non LABCON vote as it would not be perceived as a vote wasted which is very much the case at present. I’d agree that beyond candidates there’s not much enthusiasm for Starmer (his appeal goes no further than not being Sunak) and yet still the inequity of the system will drag us reluctantly to a sizeable LAB majority. Its this fatalistic acceptance of two sides of mediocrity that is baked into the current system and that’s what needs to change.
Yes, FPTP severely
+ restricts the ability of our voting system to affect change,
+ limits the ability of each vote to matter, therby
+ reducing the sacred power of each humble vote in a supposedly-democratic system.
In its presence, vote-placement and vote-share analysis is nothing more than boasting by whichever cheek of the status-quo party wins and their quasi-scientific computational analysis is nothing more than an Official Narrative created by smoke-and-mirrors The Status-Quo flourishes and we are reminded that her name is TINA.
Shamefully, Electoral Reform is more likely to be brought about by REFORM UK (rebranded UKIP) than by democratic socialists.
The problem of ‘TINA’ is not limited simply to the FPTP electoral system.
There are the twin issues of candidate selection structures and processes along with the calibre of available candidates.
Political organisations in the West are no different to any other organisation* in the way they work. Anyone who has spent any time at work over the past forty years knows the score and recognises the drill. Only those who are loyal to and parrot the official line get anywhere. A set up which extends all the way through to the personnel making up prospective candidate selection committees.
Some of the shenanigans which take place would amaze.
And just like it does in the workplace the process weeds out anyone with life experience expertise, and knowledge in favour of those considered a ‘safe pair of hands’ – ie. yes men/women loyal to the mindset which produces TINA and the associated Official Narrative and groupthink. For sure, very occasionally someone with some gumption, nous and, most importantly, integrity, gets through the system. However, that is becoming rarer by the day as anyone deemed disloyal to the status quo is managed out of and away from the system. Just like everywhere else – including the Western Militar, as this article details:
https://johnhelmer.net/canada-is-losing-its-war-against-russia-so-it-has-threatened-senior-army-officers-with-court-martial-for-disloyalty/
Which is why we are seeing more independents and smaller parties entering the fray.
Either way its next to impossible to even imagine anyone in the mould of Robin Cook, John Prescott, Mo Mowlan, Barbara Castle, or Peter Shore – never mind Eric Heffer, Martin Flannery, Joan Maynard, Dennis Skinner, Michael Foot, or Tony Benn – getting anywhere near a Party Selection Committee at even local Council level these days.
And, just like in the workplace, the military and everywhere else the end result over time is the disappearance of the necessary experience, calibre and expertise within and across the populace. A TINA system is self-perpetuating in that the entire system and everyone in it is constructed in the image of the elites. Yes, its a dead end but once a tipping point is reached in terms of the managed disappearance out of the system of that necessary level of experience, calibre and expertise there’s no recovery.
Which is why, as Michael Hudson has observed, we ended up with the Dark Ages after the very same system based on the same fundamental premise inevitably collapsed in Rome.
Ultimately, again as Hudson details, it’s a cultural problem.
*The term ‘organisation’ in this context is something of a misnomer given that organisation requires a degree of coherence which is lacking in the atomised and individualised TINA system where the normal outcome of effective organisation of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is inverted with the whole becoming less than the sum of the parts.
But that’s the reductionism of TINA for you.
Dave – Oh for goodness sake get a grip of yourself, you support the Russian, Chinese & Iranian regimes.
How many votes did the left’s candidate get? 🤔
Billy, “You do a lot of presuming to know what other people think, don’t you?”
Put your money where your mouth is and prove that statement.
Show the evidence where such statements have been made?
Once again, as previously detailed, you are misrepresenting the presentation of evidence as something that it is not.
So come on Billy, where’s the beef? Substantiate your statement or apologise for misrepresenting me.
Dave – Unless you are now claiming that you don’t support the regimes in Russia, China & Iran then I’m struggling to see your problem. I’ll tell you what, why don’t you write me another nice long essay explaining your stance and giving some specific examples so that we can all appreciate where you are coming from with this.
“Once again, as previously detailed [what detail would that be?], you are misrepresenting the presentation of evidence as something that it is not.”
Have I really, where? Please give some specific examples explaining precisely how you think that I have misrepresented what you’ve said
In the meantime I’m quite happy for others to read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.
As an addendum to yesterday’s 03:35pm post this recent analysis from the Royal United Services Institute…..
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
…..provides a relevant case study on a number of levels. The key level, in terms of this post, being that of the necessity of focusing on the objective facts – the reality – rather than emotionally ranting against that reality and anyone who raises it because it does not suit a particular narrative and ideological position.
Sidebar: “Lt Col (Retd) Alex Vershinin has 10 years of frontline experience in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan. For the last decade before his retirement, he worked as a modelling and simulations officer in concept development and experimentation for NATO and the US Army.”
These observations stand out in the above article:
– “As conflict drags on, the war is won by economies not armies.”
– “Wars of attrition are won by economies enabling mass mobilisation of militaries via their industrial sectors.”
– “High-end weapons have exceptional performance but are difficult to manufacture, especially when needed to arm a rapidly mobilised army subjected to a high rate of attrition. …..It is easier and faster to produce large numbers of cheap weapons and munitions, especially if their subcomponents are interchangeable with civilian goods, ensuring mass quantity without the expansion of production lines. New recruits also absorb simpler weapons faster, allowing rapid generation of new formations or the reconstitution of existing ones.”
Sidebar: The recent committee grilling of US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin over the 29% mission capacity of the $1.2 trillion F35 fighter (The F-35As have critical failures every 11 flight hours and airframe-only (excluding engines and systems) maintenance is 4.4 man-hours per flight hour.) where the aircraft was portrayed by one representative as a “$100 million paperweight” is a case in point.
Highlighting the process being one of production of expensive weapon’s which don’t work in the real world in order to produce mega profits for US Corporations who feed that back into the political process by buying politicians through lobbying and the revolving door.
– “Achieving mass is difficult for higher-end Western economies. To achieve hyper-efficiency, they shed excess capacity and struggle to rapidly expand, especially since lower-tier industries have been transferred abroad for economic reasons.”
Sidebar: What Vershinin is doing here – whether he knows it or not – is recognising the problem of de-industrialisation in the West which has been jettisoned in favour of the kind of parasitical financialism and rent seeking which people like Adam Smith, David Hume and others argued against some two centuries ago and which those such as Michael Hudson argue against today.
– “Added to this conundrum is the lack of a skilled workforce with experience in a particular industry. These skills are acquired over decades, and once an industry is shuttered it takes decades to rebuild.”
The point here is that whilst Vershinin’s article is mainly concerned with the military consequences of the flawed mindset he is implicitly observing – disloyal as it is to The Official Narrative – the point he makes about lost skills applies across the entire society. It is not limited to the military sphere.
Which is, again, the key point of Michael Hudson’s thesis.
What people like Vershinin is saying here – and people as diverse as Michael Hudson, Andrei Martyanov, Scott Ritter, Larry Johnson, Colonel Robert Kearney (who is getting Court Martialled for doing so) and many others are also saying – is that THIS has serious consequences.
And the term THIS in context refers to the cultural mindset which generates, drives at all costs – and it will be all costs – and maintains the system which produces those serious consequences.
Now, in terms of this post, the key point is that if those consequences are to be mitigated – because avoidance pre-supposes the tipping point has not already been passed – there is a need to recognise that reality.
That has to be the starting point otherwise those consequences cannot be adequately addressed.
If the response to that reality is going to be one of denial: of defining any such realities as “disloyalty”; or being in favour of “authoritarianism” or of some concocted officially designated enemy; or because the TINA that is producing these kinds of outcomes and consequences is ideologically considered to be the only bestest optimal way of doing things and anyone who disagrees or draws attention to the realities is a ‘stooge’ or a ‘puppet’ etc to be cancelled, outlawed, Court Martialled, sacked, vilified, verbally attacked and misrepresented – then no progress against those consequences is possible.
Because for those in such denial all learning has ended. There is only what is perceived as the best system and its narrative which must at all costs be forcibly imposed everywhere against any criticism – up to character assassination, misrepresentation and beyond – regardless of the objective reality and its consequences.
Those among us who take such a position at any level represent the real problem, the real enemy. Not just in the Collective West but across the planet as a whole.
“How many votes did the left’s candidate get?”
In which Local Authority Ward?
Or is that too hard a question?
Dave – My apologies this comment ended up in the wrong place it was intended for here
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/05/03/labours-vote-share-projection-falls-on-todays-local-results-and-is-lower-than-corbyns-milibands/#comment-254626
“Please give some specific examples explaining precisely how you think that I have misrepresented what you’ve said”
Apart from the examples already provided to you – which everyone on this site – including yourself Billy – can see there is this statement:
“Unless you are now claiming that you don’t support the regimes in Russia, China & Iran”
To which I will ask again for your supporting evidence for the claim that I have made any statement to that effect?
Where is that statement Billy?
It does not exist. You made it up. you misrepresented.
And when presented with the evidence you pretend to be bored and change the subject…
https://skwawkbox.org/2024/05/03/labours-vote-share-projection-falls-on-todays-local-results-and-is-lower-than-corbyns-milibands/#comment-254652
….to avoid the issue which in this instance, as presented numerous times, is the right of all people – including Russian speakers – to self defence which you have redefined as something it is not.
A deliberate misrepresentation with no substantiating evidence to support it because there is none.
Consequently, you still owe an apology for your multiple misrepresentations.
Man up and get on with it Billy.
“Dave – My apologies this comment ended up in the wrong place it was intended for here”
Billy – When you have apologised for your multiple misrepresentations (which you have failed to substantiate with evidence because there is none), as requested on several occasions, then maybe I might consider accepting that particular apology.
Labour’s performance in the Blackpool South by election:
Down 1,700 votes since the general election.
Wirral South by election (the last before the 1997 general election):
Labour gained 5,300 votes compared to the 1992 general election (not as severe a defeat as 2019).
Keir Starmer’s Labour Party clearly failing to inspire people to actually vote for it. And no wonder.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Wirral_South_by-election
Stacey Hart of the Women’s Equality Party takes the seat of Hatch Warren and Beggerwood in Basingstoke.
https://twitter.com/WEP_UK/status/1786362504601350583
Off-Topic: ‘Extraordinary position’ , extraordinary GS, same-old entryist shite.
Is this Tony Blair and the WEF’s movement or the Labour Movement? Not sure anymore.
“They (smarmerite labour) threw the f***ing bucket at the seat and only got 10,825 votes”
And keef says the result was: “seismic”. 🙄
Yeah, Sir Keir Constipating Starmer…
Have you noticed in interviews, Labour spokespeople never just say ‘Labour’ they have to insert “CHANGED” before the party name. “Changed Labour” = Constipated Labour
Toffee – How many votes did the left’s candidate get?
How many voters in Blackpool South were inspired to vote in last Thursday’s by election compared to 2019?
Dave – You can find a full breakdown of the results for Blackpool South here. Who was the left’s candidate?
Thought smarmerist labour was the left??
That’s what the MSM tells us
Toffee – I was referring to the pretend lefties like yourself. 🙄
Where else would 10,825 votes win a seat, plums?
So desperate for change are the electorate in Blackpool that they can’t even be arsed to get off their arses to vote for something that offers ZERO difference to what they got until Thursday just gone.
And as the quote goes…They threw the bucket at it
Remember when you told everyone that the 52% leave wasn’t a majority because 37 or so % didn’t vote?
Only 32% could be arsed voting in South Blackpool.
Maybe if they’d had a LEFT candidate…😙🎶
Toffee – I’m surprised that you hadn’t realised that by elections tend to have low turnouts, it’s not a new thing. You can find lots of examples here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(2010%E2%80%93present)#By-elections
Some idiots seem to think that Jeremy Corbyn will join forces with George Galloway. I can’t see it happening myself.
Ooops my comments above was intended to be a response to Doug’s 5:42pm comment
Doug – That’s good news.
Why do you feel the need to prop up your comments with silly name calling?
That’s good news.
Why do you feel the need to prop up your comments with silly name calling?
And yet you perpetually regale us all with tales of how keef’s supposedly dead popular and that the people want change.
And yet he cannot muster 11,000 votes, even in a dead-rubber election. Obviously not that popular if they don’t go out and vote keef.
No. The people who know that keef isn’t any sort of alternative and will bring about very miniscule change didn’t vote smarmerist. Hence the very decent showing from the greens and the independents. Likely to be replicated in the general.
That policy of gaining the toerag vote while sacrificing the leftist vote isn’t working. Nor does it deserve to.
And, given keef’s unenviable and ignominious record of backsliding on his proclamations, I’m in very little doubt he’s already got the feelers out to Swinney.
“Seismic” he says. Pfft.
The question is, who will keef shaft within his own shadow cabinet, to gain the support of the scotsnats- and what positions will be offered?
Toffee – You can rant all you like but the fact remains that Labour won with a substantial overall majority of 58.9% of the vote.
It is also worth noting that in 2019 the Tories won this seat with a majority of only 3,690 (11.3%) whilst just last week Labour despite the reduced turnout won back the seat with a majority of 7,607 (41.4%) brought about by an outstanding 26.3% swing from Tory to Labour.
How did the left’s candidate do in last week’s by election, did they have one?
Who will you be voting for in the next general election, Bimpson?
“Dave – You can find a full breakdown of the results for Blackpool South here. Who was the left’s candidate?”
“I’m surprised that you hadn’t realised that by elections tend to have low turnouts”
Billy, that was the point. This was not a stand alone a by-election but one which took place on the same day as local council elections (consequently your link was not generally comparing like with like).
It is reasonable to surmise that the fact that no genuine choice (ie a candidate representing traditional left values and policies) was available to voters in a new constituency……
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Blackpool%20South
….with around seventy seven thousand voters was a contributory contextual factor for over two thirds of the voters opting for non of the above.
Now the question arises as to whether you genuinely want some evidence to substantiate that line of thought or whether, when presented with it, you are going to pretend to be bored in order to avoid facing up to it.
An observation…….
“Doug – That’s good news.
Why do you feel the need to prop up your comments with silly name calling?”
People in glass houses should not throw stones Billy:
“gullible fuckwit” [steveH 09:31pm 29/04/24];
“idiotic numpty” [steveH 10:12pm 29/04/24];
“condescending tw*t” [steveh 11:58pm 30/4/24]
And those are only the past week or so?
…..which demonstrates the piss poor calibre of those pretending to represent what passes for the ‘best’ of the Collective West’s values and principles.
You just cannot get the staff. It’s like shooting Baldrik’s.
Context is everything
Your enemies are so few as to be statistically insignificant, yet they can safely ignore you and carry on with the Exploitation, Extraction, Never Ending War and Genocide
Howzatt
What will end this fuckery
Armageddon
Civil War
Democracy
Financial meltdown or as I prefer ‘Creative Destruction ‘
Or a benevolent populist despot, sorry Bampot like Geordie Galloway
Doug see my response above at 8:27pm
Herr Flick
Not going to happen, go watch GG interview with Aaron Bastani
Billy, do you have any information or data on these “idiots” who are saying this (your post of 08:27pm 05/0/52024)?
You know, actual evidence? Or are you making this up again? Misrepresenting the case?
Also, would it be too much trouble before your scheduled mid morning nap to provide an explanation as to why the term “idiots” in that post does not represent an example of “the need to prop up your comments with silly name calling?””
SteveH05/05/2024 AT 7:58 PM
Toffee – I was referring to the pretend lefties like yourself. 🙄
Well, go on then….Who are the REAL left?
If you are expecting any kind of answer Toffee, It doesn’t work that way.
Its called exceptionalism.
Not one instance given of how smarmerism differentiates from conservatism, despite constant requests over the last four years.
But…“Green paper…What’s not to like?”
A green paper which he has been repeatedly told is nothing to do with policy unless it’s ratified, but in any case a green paper which. has been so watered down as to be almost unrecognisable as to when it was first mooted. Not that it was much cop in its original form.
Nothing on the continuation of NHS carpetbagging.
Nothing on welfare reform…Not even a peep on how genius it was to come up with the change of name for universal credit (such is the plethora of talent within smarmers labour). Nothing about how keef intends to send out the disabled to do jobs they are incapable of doing, nor who will cover the workplace accomodation costs of said disabled.
(The toerags are saving keef from announcing that disgusting task, at least. Although we don’t hear much about any opposition towards it, do we? 😙🎶)
“Make brexit work” after years of posturing about how wrong the decision was to leave the EU.
Reform of the railways, inder the banner of “Great British Rail” ; the utilities as ‘Great British Energy’s
Just more middlemen, with neither to be owned by the British. Therefore rendering all that flagshagging as completely irrelevant.
You’ll get fuck-all difference voting keef as you would from sunak and/or any other toerags, including the far right loons.
But his dad was a toolmaker, his ma a nurse. He was DPP. He prosecuted terrorists, he has changed the party beyond recognition…
…And don’t people know it. Except one.