Oldham West and Royston by-election. Corbyn's big test.

[sgtkate]

With all due respect though sgtkate, that's rubbish. The simple truth is that over six thousand fewer people thought that Labour were worth turning out for.

 

I do think it is important in a democracy how the actual number of people vote. Voter share is nothing to do with voter opinion. Actual bums on seats are what count and fewer bums could be bothered to get off their seat to vote Labour yesterday.

 

Or Tory. Or UKIP. Or Green. Or Monster Raving Loony. Did any parties number of votes go up? Just looked and no they didn't:

 

Jim McMahon (Lab) 17,322 (62.27%, +7.49%)

 

John Bickley (UKIP) 6,487 (23.32%, +2.71%)

 

James Daly © 2,596 (9.33%, -9.65%)

 

Jane Brophy (LD) 1,024 (3.68%, -0.00%)

 

Simeon Hart (Green) 249 (0.90%, -1.05%)

 

Sir Oink-A-Lot (Loony) 141 (0.51%)

 

Lab maj 10,835 (38.95%)

 

2.39% swing UKIP to Lab

 

Electorate 69,009; Turnout 27,819 (40.31%, -19.32%)

 

Result in 2015: Lab maj 14,738 (34.17%) - Turnout 43,137 (59.63%) Meacher (Lab) 23,630 (54.78%); Arbour (UKIP) 8,892 (20.61%); Ghafoor © 8,187 (18.98%); Harkness (LD) 1,589 (3.68%); Hart (Green) 839 (1.94%)

 

Every single party got less votes this time around than last time. So those sour grapes we were discussing...

Edited December 4, 2015 by sgtkate

[blackydog]

There's plenty of pro Labour media output also.

 

The left media had convinced itself and those who'd listen, that the Conservatives would suffer in the last election. That was why it was a shock to them when the Conservatives actually won a majority.

 

Nothing like the same coverage though. And it was no shock at all to me that the Tories did so well against Ed Miliband. Right wing press pushing UKIP was obviously a smokescreen.

[andyofborg]

Nothing like the same coverage though. And it was no shock at all to me that the Tories did so well against Ed Miliband. Right wing press pushing UKIP was obviously a smokescreen.

 

i doubt the media coverage really had much to do with ed miliband's failure, him and the party managed that all by themselves.

 

i think basically, they managed to convince themselves that by the end of the parliament the coalition would have managed to make themselves so unpopular all they would need to do to win was basically turn up on the day and that very much proved not to be the case.

 

assuming the current government lasts the full term then labour have a couple of years to sort out a general policy position which they can then firm up as the election approaches. if the party can come up with some convincing centre left policies and make people believe that they can deliver them then they stand a very good chance of winning, or at least doing well in 2020.

[blackydog]

i doubt the media coverage really had much to do with ed miliband's failure, him and the party managed that all by themselves.

 

i think basically, they managed to convince themselves that by the end of the parliament the coalition would have managed to make themselves so unpopular all they would need to do to win was basically turn up on the day and that very much proved not to be the case.

 

assuming the current government lasts the full term then labour have a couple of years to sort out a general policy position which they can then firm up as the election approaches. if the party can come up with some convincing centre left policies and make people believe that they can deliver them then they stand a very good chance of winning, or at least doing well in 2020.

 

No disagee. Ignoring the right wing media which is self serving, Corbyn is possibly very popular with left wing and other voters who are sick of the current crop. This is yet to be proven as Oldham could just be the beginning. Labour moving towards the right may help them win an election but then we have "Tory light" again and as someone who has never voted Tory but doesn't always vote Labour either, that is not what I want.

[andyofborg]

No disagee. Ignoring the right wing media which is self serving, Corbyn is possibly very popular with left wing and other voters who are sick of the current crop. This is yet to be proven as Oldham could just be the beginning. Labour moving towards the right may help them win an election but then we have "Tory light" again and as someone who has never voted Tory but doesn't always vote Labour either, that is not what I want.

 

what do you want?

[999tigger]

if the total vote for labour went down but voter share went up then that suggests there were a large number of non-labour voters who didn't bother to vote for some reason or other.

.

 

Its completely within expectations that voter turnout is lower at by elections unless its contested or important. This was a safe Labour seat that they had little risk of losing. Its not of much consequence because the tories have a working majority. Completely understandable and rather surprised you cant see it. It would happen if the roles were reversed and it was a safe Tory seat.

 

---------- Post added 04-12-2015 at 15:49 ----------

 

No disagee. Ignoring the right wing media which is self serving, Corbyn is possibly very popular with left wing and other voters who are sick of the current crop. This is yet to be proven as Oldham could just be the beginning. Labour moving towards the right may help them win an election but then we have "Tory light" again and as someone who has never voted Tory but doesn't always vote Labour either, that is not what I want.

 

There is nt enough of a left wing in this country to win a majority, so if Tory light as you put it, is not what you want, then you will have to get used to being in opposition where nothing can be achieved.

[Mister M]

I've not seen the reportage on telly of Labour's victory, yet. Will watch the 6 O'clock news to see if there are any disclaimers that Labour were never going to lose Oldham anyway, that people in Oldham voted for Labour in spite of Corbyn, not because of him, or other sour grapes from journalists.

[WiseOwl182]

Using the new left wing logic to elections, Labour's Jim McMahon has no mandate to represent Oldham West and Royton because he only got 25% of the votes (62% of a 40% turnout). That means 75% are anti-Labour.

[Manlinose]

i doubt the media coverage really had much to do with ed miliband's failure, him and the party managed that all by themselves

 

Of course media coverage is important - it is where most of the electorate get their information and from which they form their general viewpoints

 

If they see a constant drip drip drip of negative stories about someone it seeps into their sub conscious and affects what and how they think about that person generally

[Bob Arctor]

With all due respect though sgtkate, that's rubbish. The simple truth is that over six thousand fewer people thought that Labour were worth turning out for.

 

I do think it is important in a democracy how the actual number of people vote. Voter share is nothing to do with voter opinion. Actual bums on seats are what count and fewer bums could be bothered to get off their seat to vote Labour yesterday.

 

Aren't by-election turnouts generally lower than general election turnouts? The turnout in Manchester Central at the last GE was 52.7%. In the by-election in 2012 in the same consituency the turnout was 18.2%, the lowest post-war turnout in any parliamentary seat. The same person was elected both times.