IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ed Milliband says they've won a clear victory? What!?
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 11:01 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



Ed milliband said that their victory (Oldham by election) had sent out a clear message to the coalition... WHAT!?

Labour won with 14,718 votes. The combined coalition votes was 16,081, a majority of 1,363. I think the coalition have sent out a message to Ed Milliband and that the people support the coalition and not his labour party (who got us into this mess in the first place).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 15 2011, 11:32 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 11:01 AM) *
Ed milliband said that their victory (Oldham by election) had sent out a clear message to the coalition... WHAT!?

Labour won with 14,718 votes. The combined coalition votes was 16,081, a majority of 1,363. I think the coalition have sent out a message to Ed Milliband and that the people support the coalition and not his labour party (who got us into this mess in the first place).

They didn't 'fight' as a coalition, so that isn't really a fair comparison. I'm not sure it is fair to blame Labour for our current predicament either, although it did happen on their watch. If the Millibands had had the guts to oust Brown, I'm not sure the last election would have finished as it did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 15 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 11:01 AM) *
Ed milliband said that their victory (Oldham by election) had sent out a clear message to the coalition... WHAT!?

Labour won with 14,718 votes. The combined coalition votes was 16,081, a majority of 1,363. I think the coalition have sent out a message to Ed Milliband and that the people support the coalition and not his labour party (who got us into this mess in the first place).


I agree, not a totally correct comparison.

However, I have seen elsewhere (unchecked) that the Lab and LD votes are pretty much as they were, but the Con vote is about equal to the drop in overall turnout. The suggestion is the Conservative voters stayed away.
No doubt there are other interpretations. Probably best it is just accepted as a confirmed Labour seat (which it was anyway) and move on.....

People often have a limited perspective on who to vote for. Are they voting for the person who will best represent them - regardless of Party, or are they voting for the geek because he will ensure a Party has support at Westminster?

Tony B Liar always wanted to be popular, and New Labour was voted in. The popular answer ain't necessarily the right one. The truth can hurt and make the messenger less than welcome, but over time they gain popularity for their outcomes.

As I have said elsewhere, look for outcomes that work, not flash inputs that we love.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 15 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 11:01 AM) *
Ed milliband said that their victory (Oldham by election) had sent out a clear message to the coalition... WHAT!?

Labour won with 14,718 votes. The combined coalition votes was 16,081, a majority of 1,363. I think the coalition have sent out a message to Ed Milliband and that the people support the coalition and not his labour party (who got us into this mess in the first place).


Labour increased their majority from the general election. They are ahead in the polls. If these were reflected in a general election next month we would have a labour government - one reason why the coalition will hold together for some time yet.

In every general election for decades the combined votes of the second and third parties was higher than those for the winners. Following your line of argument the people have consistently got the government they didn't want - until we get voting reform this will continue to be the case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 11:48 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 15 2011, 11:32 AM) *
They didn't 'fight' as a coalition, so that isn't really a fair comparison. I'm not sure it is fair to blame Labour for our current predicament either, although it did happen on their watch. If the Millibands had had the guts to oust Brown, I'm not sure the last election would have finished as it did.



The point was they still got more votes than the labour party, whether they were a pack or not. I think it is a good comparison as jointly they outnumbered labour.

And yes they must take the blame for this country being in a mess. If you read Blair's and Mandelson's autobiographies they both blame Brown.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 11:52 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 15 2011, 11:40 AM) *
Labour increased their majority from the general election. They are ahead in the polls. If these were reflected in a general election next month we would have a labour government - one reason why the coalition will hold together for some time yet.


All opposition parties always end up ahead in the polls when a new government takes over. You also must remember that people are fickle.

I agree with you about the coalition holding together.

Brown said that if he had won their cut backs would have been more severe than Thatchers. Also Ed Milliband isn't saying what they would have done if they had won the general election.

QUOTE
In every general election for decades the combined votes of the second and third parties was higher than those for the winners. Following your line of argument the people have consistently got the government they didn't want - until we get voting reform this will continue to be the case.


That maybe so, but, and my point was, that the combined votes undermines Ed Millibands comments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 15 2011, 12:00 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 11:48 AM) *
The point was they still got more votes than the labour party, whether they were a pack or not. I think it is a good comparison as jointly they outnumbered labour.

I'm not sure that means anything; no-one voted for a coalition. I do agree with you though that it wasn't a clear message.

QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 11:48 AM) *
And yes they must take the blame for this country being in a mess. If you read Blair's and Mandelson's autobiographies they both blame Brown.

If you want to believe vain works of delusion.

The way I see it is: would it have been any different if the Tories had been in power. I'm not at all sure it would.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Jan 15 2011, 01:03 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



Labour hold a seat they've always held in it's short history and the opposition party win an by-election. Hardly anything out of the ordinary.

What will be interesting is over the course of the next four years if the opposition parties take seats off the Tories or Lib-Dems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 02:01 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 15 2011, 12:00 PM) *
I'm not sure that means anything; no-one voted for a coalition. I do agree with you though that it wasn't a clear message.


I disagree and it contradicts what Miliband said; that they were sending a message to the coalition. If they were sending a message then they would have wiped out both parties, where in fact they got less than both parties.

There is also another point to be made; Oldham is a labour strong hold and if they had pinned a rosette on a donkey it would have won.


QUOTE
If you want to believe vain works of delusion.

It is not a case of believing anything other than quoting what was said. In fact I haven't read anything that disagrees with that conclusion.

QUOTE
The way I see it is: would it have been any different if the Tories had been in power. I'm not at all sure it would.


Definitely; it would have been different. Tories would have been more cautious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 02:02 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 15 2011, 01:03 PM) *
Labour hold a seat they've always held in it's short history and the opposition party win an by-election. Hardly anything out of the ordinary.

What will be interesting is over the course of the next four years if the opposition parties take seats off the Tories or Lib-Dems.


That is a possibility, but not important. What would be important is if our economy started improving.... then they will be in a strong position.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 15 2011, 02:06 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



The first big test of the coalition will be the council elections in May - I suspect that Labour will do well.

What we must remember is that the Coalition is there because the general election was inconclusive - Labour was not rejected in the same way, for instance, as Major's government was. They retained lot of public support. Since then the Coalition has demonstrated that it is not some wonderful replacement; it is unlikely that they will have gained many supporters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 15 2011, 02:51 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 02:01 PM) *
I disagree and it contradicts what Miliband said; that they were sending a message to the coalition. If they were sending a message then they would have wiped out both parties, where in fact they got less than both parties.

Which is why I wrote I agree that it doesn't send a clear message, but never mind. I also feel it is too early to properly assess the support for the coalition. The 'pain' is yet to come. I wonder if the election would have a different result if it were held this time next year.

Labour haven't done themselves any favours either with electing Ed Milliband; I'm getting fed-up with his voice already.

QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 02:01 PM) *
It is not a case of believing anything other than quoting what was said. In fact I haven't read anything that disagrees with that conclusion.

You used two people of 'questionable' integrity. Had you used more astute references, I might have responded differently.

QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 02:01 PM) *
Definitely; it would have been different. Tories would have been more cautious.

What like the last recession they let get way out of control? I wouldn't believe the hype. The Tories said nothing while this crisis was developing that suggested they saw it coming. Before Lehman Bros went bent, the economy was manageable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 15 2011, 04:34 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 11:52 AM) *
That maybe so, but, and my point was, that the combined votes undermines Ed Millibands comments.

Ed Milliband is a politician - politicians' comments should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

However, the combined votes is not particularly undermining - as I pointed out the combined votes very, very often outnumber the winner's share.

The result:
Labour 14,718 42.1% +10.2
Lib Dem 11,160 31.9% +0.3
Cons 4,481 12.8% -13.6

So the conservative vote collapsed, labour went up 10% and the Coalition failed to get 50% of the vote - not a bad day for Labour.

But, as User noted - not a great surprise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 04:39 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 15 2011, 02:51 PM) *
Which is why I wrote I agree that it doesn't send a clear message, but never mind. I also feel it is too early to properly assess the support for the coalition. The 'pain' is yet to come. I wonder if the election would have a different result if it were held this time next year.

We shall see.

QUOTE
Labour haven't done themselves any favours either with electing Ed Milliband; I'm getting fed-up with his voice already.

Agreed.


QUOTE
You used two people of 'questionable' integrity. Had you used more astute references, I might have responded differently.

The books that are available and magazines like the Economist share that view, however, if you've got any contradictory views from more 'astute references' then fair enough.


QUOTE
What like the last recession they let get way out of control? I wouldn't believe the hype. The Tories said nothing while this crisis was developing that suggested they saw it coming. Before Lehman Bros went bent, the economy was manageable.


But that wasn't your question.

The last recession, it could have been argued, could have been a lot of worse if labour had been in power. And some economist have actually stated that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 15 2011, 06:59 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



Tables in this story suggest Labour share went up, Tory share went down, Lib Dem share stayed the same. Doesn't really matter too much, Labour seat and one they should win comfortably. We did win it with a bigger majority that the 97 election though.

I will say that the Cornwall council election in Camborne North is more significant for West Berkshire. Labour this week took their first seat on the Unitary Cornwall Council, with the Lib Dem vote collapsing and the Tories finishing second. If we see that form repeated here, Labour and the people we work with will have control of the council. Fingers crossed then.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Jan 15 2011, 07:41 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 15 2011, 06:59 PM) *
Tables in this story suggest Labour share went up, Tory share went down, Lib Dem share stayed the same. Doesn't really matter too much, Labour seat and one they should win comfortably. We did win it with a bigger majority that the 97 election though.

I will say that the Cornwall council election in Camborne North is more significant for West Berkshire. Labour this week took their first seat on the Unitary Cornwall Council, with the Lib Dem vote collapsing and the Tories finishing second. If we see that form repeated here, Labour and the people we work with will have control of the council. Fingers crossed then.


Fingers crossed???

Democracy???

Would you like to be screwed by party A - B - or C!!! wink.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 15 2011, 09:31 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 04:39 PM) *
The books that are available and magazines like the Economist share that view.

And that proves anything? However, if you could give me an example of an article, then I'd be happy.

QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 04:39 PM) *
The last recession, it could have been argued, could have been a lot of worse if labour had been in power. And some economist have actually stated that.

Like who?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 09:37 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 15 2011, 09:31 PM) *
Show me?

To ask that question you are not very well read up on the current economic situation. Try reading the magazines like the Economist and other such publications.

QUOTE
Who?



See above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 15 2011, 09:38 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (GMR @ Jan 15 2011, 09:37 PM) *
To ask that question you are not very well read up on the current economic situation. Try reading the magazines like the Economist and other such publications.
See above.

In other words you are making it up. BTW I have changed the text, but it means the same anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Jan 15 2011, 09:43 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 15 2011, 09:38 PM) *
In other words you are making it up. BTW I have changed the text, but it means the same anyway.


Not at all. You can always check yourself if you had read the Economist and other economic publications.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 02:32 PM