By-election in Oldham West and Royton

I see its all gone over your head, Burton.

Turnout was lower BB - always is in by elections. Labours share of the vote was up from 54.8% to 62.1%.

Awful result for UKIP and they know it - Labour in disarray nationally and they still held the seat with ease.

Burton-Brewers
Burton-Brewers 27 Nov 15 19:41 Joined: 01 Feb 12 | Topic/replies: 14,166 | Blogger: Burton-Brewers's blog
at our last meeting the message we got from HQ was that if we could keep the gap to around what it was in May then that would be classed as a success. There is hardly any money being thrown at Oldham, just old fashioned canvassing. If the early polls are correct the result is going to be classed as very pleasing, because it keeps the momentum going from the GE which is always difficult.

I see its still all gone over your head, Burton.

Tyson Fury is a UKIP supporter.
Tyson Fury no friend of Labour is against gay marriage and paedophilia,a family man.

I like Tyson Fury,I like his views.

I don't like the gentlemen that reintroduced servitude into Britain.
I don't like the gentlemen terrorising old people in Ireland.
I don't like the gentlemen bleating for ethnic status so they can sue the state more often.

I have sympathy for fantasists who think they worked on the pyramids,employed hundreds in Australia and no matter where the shoot out is in America they were there.

And the turnouts were ?

Not really surprised although I thought the turnout might have been higher in the present climate. Still only about 23% actually voted Labour but only 17% voted for anyone else!

I'm disputing all your inventions.

You are a dole drawing Dale Farm activist who wouldn't work in an iron lung.

I'm not quite sure why the views of a 27 year old sportsman,who doesn't seem to be of above average intelligence are of any great import. However his Wiki entry says that in Sept he was talking about standing as an Independent because the govt was focusing too much on immigration and not enough on homeless people and those with drug and alcohol problems. Hardly sounds like a typical UKIP supporter. Could anybody clarify ?

Dec 4, 2015 -- 8:16AM, Burton-Brewers wrote:

Oldham West & RoytonPOPULATION 72000MUSLIM 24.6%.http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/oldhamwestandroyton/

It would be embarrassing to have c*cked it up in this thread. He went on to create three other threads making the same mistake.

Sometimes it's impossible to believe the level of stupidity on some of the posters here.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 10:35AM, salmon spray wrote:

And the turnouts were ?

40.3% remarkably high and if I remember rightly 25.3% of the 27,706 were postal votes.

That postal vote figure is from memory as I can't find the number this morning.

The postal vote figure was 25.6%

On this showing, there is little the other parties can do in the North of England in those constituencies where the Peace-Loving block vote (via post) can be used to such devastating effect. Don't forget, Labour held BOTH Rotherham and Rochdale at the General Election, with BIGGER vote shares - results which were unimaginable to anyone with a sexually-underaged white daughter.

So… was this Oldham by-election result effectively a 'protest vote' about the killing of Jihadi John ?

Block voting is a feature of the religion of peace.

Rotherham will forever be a stain on the British electorate.

However that only accounts for part of it,Corbyn is proving himself electable.
Whatever way you look at it its a stunning day for Labour and a major setback for Ukip.

BB thinks UKIP has done ok wildman - they haven't as you have realised. After Farage was banging on about

how UKIP were going to wipe Labour out in the north this has come as a massive blow. I take no joy in this

because I want Corbyn out as Labour leader and this result sure isn't bringing that day closer.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:05PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

BB thinks UKIP has done ok wildman - they haven't as you have realised. After Farage was banging on about how UKIP were going to wipe Labour out in the north this has come as a massive blow. I take no joy in thisbecause I want Corbyn out as Labour leader and this result sure isn't bringing that day closer.

You have to take into account turnout. It was a particularly unpleasant day and still turnout was at 40% much higher than expected.

I suspect we won't be able to find out as Oldham's website isn't very good, but I hazard a guess that % in UKIP friendly areas were low, while high in Lab areas.

If thats true its still bad news for UKIP because they've been unable to get their vote out.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:18PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

If thats true its still bad news for UKIP because they've been unable to get their vote out.

Not unexpected considering the weather in the evening was terrible and UKIP voters are more likely to be voting after work.

UKIP draws disproportionate support from the retired - they wouldnt have been working.

However you spin it this is a bad result for UKIP.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:25PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

UKIP draws disproportionate support from the retired - they wouldnt have been working.However you spin it this is a bad result for UKIP.

I disagree. In this constituency UKIP would have been looking at B, C1 & C2 all coming out for them.

Maybe thats what they were looking for but they didn't get it did they ?

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:33PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

Maybe thats what they were looking for but they didn't get it did they ?

Revert to my post 12:22.

nobody from UKIP, including Nigel Farage, said we would win Oldham West. It has been a Labour seat since the 50's, the only people that were saying labour would lose were the media. Oldham West is in Labour's top 10 safest seats, with their council leader standing for them, do you seriously think we would say he would be over turned? The momentum from May has been carried forward with spending no money, this is what we hoped for. They may not have the luxury of defending such a safe seat the next time around and I will be there to help them again.

Denial's a good place to hang out BB.

CJ - the UKIP vote must be very soft if a bit of bad weather stops em coming out.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:39PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

Denial's a good place to hang out BB.CJ - the UKIP vote must be very soft if a bit of bad weather stops em coming out.

Err? Google weather conditions and turnout ratios.

Durr - weather affects everyones votes. Labour turned out but UKIP didnt because of the weather - is that what you are saying ?

Also the turnout was high for a by election - how does your weather argument tally with that ?

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:55PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

Durr - weather affects everyones votes. Labour turned out but UKIP didnt because of the weather - is that what you are saying ?

No.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 12:55PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

Also the turnout was high for a by election - how does your weather argument tally with that ?

No-one can tally why the turnout was unexpectedly high. Tellers on all sides were expecting around 20%

Thanks for clearing that up

On your second point you dont have an answer but you are happy to blame weather for a low UKIP vote despite the fact that there was a high turnout.

You're tying yourself in knots on this thread.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 1:04PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

On your second point you dont have an answer but you are happy to blame weather for a low UKIP vote despite the fact that there was a high turnout.You're tying yourself in knots on this thread.

I could be tying myself in knots, or you not be reading or understanding what I'm saying.

As you were though.

*could

I'm not sure anyone reading this thread would understand what you are saying - why dont you have another go and try and put your points in

a clearer fashion ?

Dec 4, 2015 -- 1:07PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

I'm not sure anyone reading this thread would understand what you are saying - why dont you have another go and try and put your points ina clearer fashion ?

I think you do a lot of posters on this site a disservice by judging them at your levels.

Im just amazed that people seriously thought labour could lose or come close to losing a seat where a quarter of the population are foreigners of the type that Corbyn and Labour have gone out of their way to court.

The media and pollsters seem to get more clueles by the day and Farage seems to have been conned into believing he had a chance.

Unfortunately its the same old story from you isn't it ? You construct an incoherent argument and when it falls to bits

you start calling people thick.

To CJ ^

Dec 4, 2015 -- 1:13PM, Dotchinite wrote:

Im just amazed that people seriously thought labour could lose or come close to losing a seat where a quarter of the population are foreigners of the type that Corbyn and Labour have gone out of their way to court.The media and pollsters seem to get more clueles by the day and Farage seems to have been conned into believing he had a chance.

This was the only by-election I can remember which didn't have public polling. Apparently UKIP did private polling, but I guess that will only tell you so much with the difference in demographic here.

CJ Are you saying all the stories in papers like the telegraph were just based on journalists opinions and nothing else?

Dec 4, 2015 -- 1:16PM, Captain Wurzel wrote:

Unfortunately its the same old story from you isn't it ? You construct an incoherent argument and when it falls to bitsyou start calling people thick.

Only to those who are a bit thick.

It's the same with your dopey mate, errytay in the other thread. He didn't even know where the by-election last night was held despite it being the title of the thread he was posting in.

Sometimes I'm generally amazed at how stupid some people on here can be.

Dec 4, 2015 -- 1:21PM, Dotchinite wrote:

CJ Are you saying all the stories in papers like the telegraph were just based on journalists opinions and nothing else?

Well yes & no. The media narrative was from canvassing Labour voters by Lab personalities/MP's and the media. They all universally said the same that Corbyn was a loser and they couldn't vote for Labour.

At the end it seems they seemingly just didn't bother to vote. Although that being said the turnout was much higher than expected, so how do you tally the two?

The people are against immigration yet they won't vote UKIP

The people of South Thanet voted in a dodgy dealing pro immigrant Tory in preference to Nigel Farage,hard to credit.

Diane James one of the most impressive women in politics can't get elected to Westminster.

I think the smear campaign has worked,people not interested in politics won't vote UKIP as they are afraid,afraid of being labelled racist,that's how deep the constant propaganda has gone.

Everything Nigel Farage said about the refugee crisis was correct,he alone saw the danger yet he gets no credit for it.

people not interested in politics won't vote UKIP as they are afraid,afraid of being labelled racist,that's how deep the constant propaganda has gone.

i was under the impression that there is a secret ballot in England.

Its not a secret ballot.

houses with 12 all voting the same way ha ha ha ha

it should be stopped, but it wont be, as it upsets them

Im just amazed that people seriously thought labour could lose or come close to losing a seat where a quarter of the population are foreigners of the type that Corbyn and Labour have gone out of their way to court.

The UKIP result was pathetic. If they can't do better than that with an immigration crisis across europe and immigration in the UK at an all-time high, a recent terror attack, and a media that loathes Corbyn then it is over. Winning the seat was a longshot, finishing over 10,000 votes behind is a massive failure.

Calling it now: UKIP is dead. The party will implode.

what I would be more concerned about is the muslim take over of oldham and other towns and cities

Bad news for UKIP but the momentum to pull out of Europe is gaining pace.

With or without a successful UKIP, this country is slowly waking up to the problems of mass immigration and open borders during times of international terrorism.

According to Tom Watson the talk on the doorsteps was not immigration or the divisions within Labour but tax credits. That just about sums up how small minded people can be.

One could argue last night was bad news for Labour. Corbyn remains unelectable as a PM and now they're stuck with him for a while longer.

One could argue last night was bad news for Labour. Corbyn remains unelectable as a PM and now they're stuck with him for a while longer.



Thats how I read it Injera. - Labour have got no chance of winning a GE with Corbyn and his crew at the helm. This result was good for the Tories,

keep Corbyn in and UKIP down. I know BB thinks UKIP have done ok here - they haven't it was a shockingly bad result for them.

According to Tom Watson the talk on the doorsteps was not immigration or the divisions within Labour but tax credits. That just about sums up how small minded people can be.

Shocking that people chose to talk about the issue that concerns them most rather than what you think they should.

Good luck in finding any report from a canvasser that tax credits were the main issue on the doorstep.

People vote out of self interest shock

Mighty Whites 2008
04 Dec 15 18:34
Shocking that people chose to talk about the issue that concerns them most rather than what you think they should.


Agreed. Focus on taking other peoples' money. That's the way to run an economy.

Many of the houses in that constituency will depend on tax credits.

If only 40% voted in a by election that had so much publicity, heaven help democracy. Mind you, if "none of the above" had been on the ballot, it might have been 75%. I reckon the cahance to say I don't want any of that shower representing me would attract half of the population.

the whingeing and whining on here is so silly, accept the democratic result , we were told by the right wing foriegn owned billionaire press that Labour were finsished and that ukip would destroy Labour in its northern heartlands, no such thing has happened and never will, do the tory press believe that whether it is the white working class or immigrants that they will turn to farage to defend them from the the most right wing tory government ever, never in a million years.

you need to be more worried about the serried(sorry), make that segregated, ranks of muslim labour - that is where the power will grow.

To reconcile the competing views it seems we must accept bits from each sector of the debate. On one hand it is true that Farage has put his finger on some quite basic problems in society and that by and large the people agree. On the other it seemingly steadfastly refuses to transform into enough votes to ratchet up the pressure on the established parties.

Similarly the Westminster bubble and media giants have bombarded the public with an anti Corbyn narrative and yet to be fair to him whenever he is interviewed he just seems quite normal and logical. This was pointed out by the wife. She was undecided on Syria strikes and then heard Corbyn on the radio and concluded that he was putting forward a strong case unlike the Cameron car crash.

I doubt the door will ever be much more ajar for UKIP and they are unable to walk through the opening. Maybe our people whine and bellyache when it suits ad that is all it is?

If only 40% voted in a by election that had so much publicity, heaven help democracy.




By election turnouts are often way lower than 40% in fact thats a pretty good turnout. Also I would say that this wasnt a by election with

massive publicity as other events took it out of the news.

I doubt the door will ever be much more ajar for UKIP and they are unable to walk through the opening.





That is exactly why this was such a shocker for UKIP. The conditions were ripe for them to make a big advance and they

achieved nothing.

Despite all the anti Corbyn stuff from the media, one has to look at the issues prevalent and how those will form people's opinions and thus their voting intentions.

Most people on benefits and the lower waged and that includes all those with a household income of sub £35,000 per year in my opinion, will need to come into some contact with the state. The lower your wage, the more likely this is.

Some generalisations but if you are in this bracket, then you could be or someone well known to you is in need of an element of affordable housing, you or they need the NHS, you or they are trying to get your children into a local non fee paying school.

If those services have been reduced and that reduction is seen to be because of the policies of the existing government party, you will still vote for the opposition. In this case, Labour who you feel more supports you and your current situation because you beleive they will give you a better deal.

It does seem that the Corbyn story is media driven. The only people I have personally heard treating him with disdain are Tory voters I know and Labour supporters who are in very well paid work. Interestingly, at the other end of the social spectrum, again just from conversations with individuals these last few months, I hear very little about Corbyn. The working class view seems neutral on him.

One by election is really too early to give an assessment. We needs 2-3 more plus the results of the elections coming up in May. A lot in the melting pot that can stir it up along the way as well. Europe, ISIS, housing crisis, NHS. A terrorist incident in this part of the world could also bloster the UKIP vote as well.

'twas you introduced personal abuse.

I don't believe you ever worked,this constant looking for sympathy,the tales of work across the world makes you a dreamer as do your views.

As for these grave consequences well that has put me saying me prayers.

I don't believe you ever worked



You are entitled to believe what you want of course but do you have anything to back this belief up with ?

His background,he's a Pavee Point activist.

No stranger to courts either,always suing.

He has threatened to sue me in the past.

Forgive me - I dont know what a Pavee Point activist is.

That's my fault.

Pavee Point is a Dublin based organisation,it receives large swathes of tax payers money to enable them to sue those same tax payers.

The are a lobby group for travellers and The Roma.
They help them access benefits and bring court cases on their behalf,should some unfortunate publican decide to decline their business or ask them to leave when they start getting violent they will be sued.

When they demand houses they require it in certain areas and need six or seven acres with each free house granted,this is for their horses an essential part of their tradition.

Thanks wildman.

jumper
05 Dec 15 08:26
Joined: 17 Jun 02
| Topic/replies: 464 | Blogger: jumper's blog
If those services have been reduced and that reduction is seen to be because of the policies of the existing government party, you will still vote for the opposition.
In this case, Labour who you feel more supports you and your current situation because you beleive they will give you a better deal.



Isn't that the whole Labour agenda in a nutshell?

They seek to create a huge public sector that millions (not just 'the poor') then become reliant on.

The electorate then become used to a Conservative party that seeks to wean people off state subsidies and be more self sufficient.

Meanwhile the Labour party that gives them more money despite the macro implications of that, becomes their ally, and they say 'yes please, where do I sign?'.





Isn't that the whole

Btw, these two killers in SB had legally- obtained military weapons. Do ye condone that law?

What business is it of yours if the Yanks want to blow each others eyebrows off sean? Like many on the left your obsession with America is envy derived. You can't stand the fact that the greatest and most successful country man has ever known happens to be in love with something you disapprove of which is capitalism. Of course the sensible ones amongst us note you don't have much to say about some pretty dodgy regimes.

As for said Yanks it's generally swings and roundabouts in relation to guns but one thing is for certain and that is that this is true democracy in action. They wanted the right to bear arms so much to protect them from the evils the state could inflict upon them that they took the very sensible step of including it in their constitution.

ET, pal,

I realise ye are sore after your party got trounced and ye having taken time off here to try to aid them at home, but,
please get a few facts straight:

I love the USA.
I don't think killers like these two should have been able to get military weapons so easily and legally. That sort of thing never helped my own country.

I am nothing to do with this thing ye call the "left".

And, btw, are ye behind this constant removal and censorship of my stuff on here?
I'd be shocked if ye are one of the "luvvies" or whatever, but something is going on.

I remember ye trying to say that I was imagining things and must have pressed the wrong button. Then, not long after ye yourself got the hump and jacked ( for a day or two) bc of the censorship.

Even this post is my 2nd attempt. I don't suppose 'twill be here long.

Dec 5, 2015 -- 12:21AM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:

To reconcile the competing views it seems we must accept bits from each sector of the debate. On one hand it is true that Farage has put his finger on some quite basic problems in society and that by and large the people agree. On the other it seemingly steadfastly refuses to transform into enough votes to ratchet up the pressure on the established parties.Similarly the Westminster bubble and media giants have bombarded the public with an anti Corbyn narrative and yet to be fair to him whenever he is interviewed he just seems quite normal and logical. This was pointed out by the wife. She was undecided on Syria strikes and then heard Corbyn on the radio and concluded that he was putting forward a strong case unlike the Cameron car crash.I doubt the door will ever be much more ajar for UKIP and they are unable to walk through the opening. Maybe our people whine and bellyache when it suits ad that is all it is?

I'm not sure quoting him is really providing an anti-Corbyn narrative. He is just that bad.

If anyone rational is still on the Corbyn bus they simply are in denial or don't know where that bus is headed.

to eternal victory billy eternal victory , every time you make a judgement on Jeremiah billy he comes back to give you a good slap

Deep Treetop[:happy:

Sorry don't know where the happy came from

keep smiling tonks,remember all this is just noise as we pass through life into heaven !Younever know the boro might get promoted again,ATB

CJ,

I cannot fathom why ye are still harping on about loser Jeremy, or, indeed, loser Nige.
None of those dudes will EVER hold power in GB, no matter what about the fkn bus.

Local Irishman Jim MCMahon was the winner; one reformist, ineffectual party beat all the other equally bad ones.
That is a non-event.

Here, yet again, are three important issues:

Global Climate Change
Cyber Warfare
Superbugs


These are three problems that threaten us all. These ye should be bothering your ar se about.
See the light, and join us with the best principles. The old ways do not work.

Dec 7, 2015 -- 9:04AM, sean rua wrote:

CJ,I cannot fathom why ye are still harping on about loser Jeremy, or, indeed, loser Nige.None of those dudes will EVER hold power in GB, no matter what about the fkn bus.Local Irishman Jim MCMahon was the winner; one reformist, ineffectual party beat all the other equally bad ones. That is a non-event.Here, yet again, are three important issues:Global Climate ChangeCyber WarfareSuperbugsThese are three problems that threaten us all. These ye should be bothering your ar se about. See the light, and join us with the best principles. The old ways do not work.

The new way took a bit of a beating last night in Venezuela ;)

That is NOT the new way, CJ.

That's folk trying to run capitalism in a way that cannot work. Old Chavez did a better job, but, obviously, with all the corruption, violence and poverty it could never last.

These are the REAL global issues:

Global Climate Change ( Dave is over-topped)

Cyber Warfare ( gchq can barely cope, bc of dave's cuts)

Superbugs ( dave's mates investments in big drugs coys has meant a ridiculous over-use of anti-biotics as folk try to live up to old thatcher's silly unsutainabledream)

Join the boys who will do something about it!

Forget the futile reformists with their silly little walls and never never schemes. They always get over-topped.
They are like King Canute.

There is only one real problem that is causing all of the others. The number of human beings on the planet. No politicians are willing to address that one.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao had a go sageform.... no one up that standard nowadays

That is abit extreme and ISIL are doing their best in Syria but a change in tax and benefits would help. Higher rather than lower taxes on couples with children of school age. It would be dangerous to have a sudden drop in births but a 1-2% fall in each of the next 20 years worldwide would at least stabilise and then slowly reduce the population. Otherwise mass starvation on a scale we heave never witnessed is bound to happen eventually.

Ah yes the warnings of Rev Malthus.

Sage,

No, not yet: there is still plenty of capacity, but
it will take a good system to use our planet properly.

My own land had millions more folk, hundreds of years ago. That we starved and migrated was not entirely the fault of Nature.
Our land actually EXPORTED FOOD  to places like England during the Famine. Several in Ireland grew fat on the profit.

Malthus and all that were proved wrong by history.
Nowadays, western Europe is weak bc our people have a low-sperm count and are not breeding properly.

I can't accept that the earth can feed an unlimited number of humans. If the population continues to expand at its present rate, we will run out of food. It may not be in any of our lifetimes but it will happen. Before that we might well run out of fossil fuel but that is trivial compared to food.

Actually sageform if we run out of fossil fuel our current agriculture system would collapse.

Correct, but if enough people were willing to do manual work, we could still produce food on the land so long as it has not been concreted over.

I feel back pain coming on.

Birth rate falling like a stone already, sage, among the english "middleclasses".

Nothing ever continues at the same rate. There will be plenty of disasters, wars, and superbugs.

All this was pointed out decades ago.

Yes, the food we eat may have to change, but under modern capitalism, OBESITY is a bigger prob than famine.

And, yes, western Europe will see a bit of hunger - for some, a novel experience. Some folk will prove more adaptable. These will be the survivors.

Burt Sean, When a developed country is short of food and developing countries are not willing to sell it voluntarily, war would be inevitable. We saw export embargos on rice, wheat and soya in recent years to protect domestic markets in producer countries and the only reason why food is cheap at the moment is that growing conditions have been unusually good recently. As far as birth rates are concerned, immigrant populations given generous child benefits will continue to overproduce.

Sage, 'tis true that GB cannot support itself with food, despite agriculture getting record crop yields ( of admittedly sub-standard produce compared to say Ireland where the food is more natural and clean).

This is why despite what Nige and Dave may spout, the english NEED JohNny Foreigner. 'Twas ever so, since capitalism took over. IMPORTS and EXPORTS became the game, hence the importance of the ROYAL NAVY and MERCHANT NAVY.
'Twas a driving force behind your huge Empire, for which ye are now paying the price as a legacy.

Yes, Catholics and mos lems have bigger families than some english folk ( huge gay and DINKY elements).
Not sure about all the Chinese and Vietnamese whose takeaways feed ye, but I expect they have more than the now discontinued "one kid policy" of capitalist "red" China.

Sean,the UK controlled agriculture in many countries so ensuring a plentiful supply for export. Now we rely on countries like Brazil for soya etc, and they have populations rising much faster than food production

Agriculture in north west Europe was far better when it depended on GRASS ( a natural plant that thrives on rain).
Meat production that is not grass-based will not be sustainable.
For modern uk farming to be so dependent on oil products is a weakness that lies behind many wars.

At present the vast majority of the british rely on supermarkets who, in turn , rely on ripping the farmer from any land. "Cheapness" keeps the populous alive, even if the bulk of what they scoff being junk.

A poor and dangerous situation, engineered by the bean-counters and wizzards of modern global capitalism.
The poor old Chinese are now getting billed in restaurants for "clean air"!

I never thought I'd see the day.

You are right about meat. In the medium term, it will not be economic to feed anything that a human can eat to a farm animal. Pigs and poultry will become relatively expensive compared to grazing species. There will still be by products from human food production but feeding good quality grain and soyabeans to pigs will not seem acceptable when they become very expensive relative to todays prices. That is why I quit livestock farming in 2000.

Thank you, sageform.

I oft times heard old farmers say a sheep will feed itself from what is there by nature, but a pig needs feeding.

The old days there seemed to be more space and land; even hens could forage running wild, though foxes were a problem.

Nowadays everything seems to live in a big shed, while the foxes live in the city! There are scores of them near Chelsea's soccer ground - all along the railway.

I used to think grazing was the most natural thing in the world. Now the experts tell us that Ireland ranks badly in the green eco charts, bc of all the livestock giving out gases!

Btw, ye did well to last till the change of the century.
Farming is so different now; we used to get plenty of work off the farmers. 'Tis all a thing of the past, but we still need food.