banjodeano Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I think that if you look at the figures you will find that Labour actually lost 2,763 votes in less than a year. 1983 Roy Mason 21,847 votes 1987 Eric Illsley 26,139 votes 1992 Eric Illsley 27,048 votes 1997 Eric Illsley 28,090 votes 2001 Eric Illsley 19,181 votes 2005 Eric Illsley 17,478 votes 2010 Eric Illsley 17,487 votes 2011 Dan Jarvis 14,724 votes It looks really strange when you consider that the previous MP had a possible jail sentence hanging over him before he was re-elected. Mind you, the new fella knew which 30 year old buttons to push in his winners speech; Thatcher, Thatcher and more Thatcher. Hopefully now that Dan Jarvis has secured his seat he will be eyes front from here on. Barnsley needs a decent MP. But the figures also state that it was an increased Labour majority, from 47% up to 60%......imagine how it would equate in a full turn out in a general election:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Labour actually lost 2,763 votes in less than a year. Is that all? Remarkable. You'd have thought they should have lost many, many more (given the backdrop for this election). Shows how low the coalition is thought of that they failed so miserably to make any progress against the backdrop of fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Just like a monkey with a blue arse would get elected in Witney. That may be true but they do have to speak english as well which doesn't apply in barnsley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Remarkable. You'd have thought they should have lost many, many more (given the backdrop for this election) I would have thought that they would have picked up many more. After all people can no longer protest vote for either the LibDems or Conservatives and if there is mass hatred of the coalition then one would have thought that there would be a massive swing towards Labour. If you look at the actual numbers of votes cast the numbers for Labour actually dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Given the pitifully poor turnout and given that it was a safe Labour seat, do the results really mean anything? Yes they could. The Economist (a strong supporter of coalition cuts) ran an article yesterday suggesting that in parliamentary seats other than solid LibDem seats (and there are a surprisingly low number of those - perhaps 15) most LibDem votes were protest votes or 'borrowed' from disaffected Labour and Tory supporters. The article suggested that core LibDem support in many seats was perhaps 5% - the 4% in Barnsley is very close to that. In fact, the LibDem strategists are aware of the possibility of a fall to 5% in the polls nationally although I don't think they thought it was really going to happen. Perhaps they hope some gerrymandering by the boundary commision will sort a few more seats for them. Vain hope though - Fianna Fail in Ireland shows what can happen if the public seriously falls out of love with a party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I would have thought that they would have picked up many more. After all people can no longer protest vote for either the LibDems or Conservatives and if there is mass hatred of the coalition then one would have thought that there would be a massive swing towards Labour. If you look at the actual numbers of votes cast the numbers for Labour actually dropped. the big two parties have never been a refuge for protest votes. i really can't imagine anything making a dyed in the wool conservative vote labour. the protest vote party currently seems to be ukip, which is very good in that the other choice for a protest vote would be the bnp and bad since nigel farage is now bouncing around like zebedee on acid telling everyone ukip's time has come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe-b-1 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I would have thought that they would have picked up many more. After all people can no longer protest vote for either the LibDems or Conservatives and if there is mass hatred of the coalition then one would have thought that there would be a massive swing towards Labour. If you look at the actual numbers of votes cast the numbers for Labour actually dropped. Look at the percentages it is a massive swing to Labour' looking at actual numbers is pointless since turnouts vary for different types of election and the time of year,weather etc. It's the percentage of votes cast which counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Look at the percentages it is a massive swing to Labour' looking at actual numbers is pointless since turnouts vary for different types of election and the time of year,weather etc. It's the percentage of votes cast which counts. Also, the turnout at 36% was not much less than the turnouts for this seat historically - usually mid-40s. The 19% fall is from an usually high turnout in 2010. All the rabid LibDem supporters have to cling to is a reduction in the number of Labour votes and they're pathetically making the most of that tiny crumb of comfort. Bless 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 As a point of order, if you were a Lib-Dem or Conservative voter would you have bothered to vote on Thursday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 As a point of order, if you were a Lib-Dem or Conservative voter would you have bothered to vote on Thursday? Why not? When you don't bother it can be clearly very damaging to your party. Then again when the party leader prefers to stay at his £1.5m London home or ski abroad than making a 15 mile trip from his home constituency maybe people think well if he can't be bothered then..... The fact is that a skiing holiday was more important to Clegg than supporting the hard working LibDem campaigners and his actually pretty good candidate in in Barnsley. It was also more important than running the country, a duty he neglected when swanning off to the pistes. Telegraph - Nick-Clegg-runs-out-of-credibility.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.