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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



That maybe so, but, and my point was, that the combined votes undermines Ed Millibands comments.

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.


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.

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.

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.



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.



Definitely; it would have been different. Tories would have been more cautious.

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.

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.

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.


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


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.

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.

We shall see.


Agreed.



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.




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.

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!!!

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


Like who?

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.

Not at all. You can always check yourself if you had read the Economist and other economic publications.

Perhaps you could suggest which issue?

I don't have to, just read the last years worth.

I see; baloney then.

This morning, Ed Milliband stated on TV that up to the Lehman Bros crash, the national deficit and national debt was lower than it was when Labour got into office '97.

Here's a better measure (correct to 2008): Net debt in proportion to GDP.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm

Why is it baloney? I don't keep records of everything I read. But it is easy to check. You are obviously saying you don't read such magazines... which is fine, but you shouldn't criticise people who do.


Yes, but don't forget it was going down under labour. Brown and Blair kept it going until 2001 until they went on their spending spree. Both Blair and Mandelson say so in their book, and they should know.



In 91 it started going up because of Black Wednesday. But the Tories got it under control - as stated by Brown and Blair -but as you also see it started to rise in 2001. When they let spending get out of control.

No. I'm saying that I try to verify what I say, and qualify anything else with 'I understand'. You are renowned for shooting from the hip.


If they said it was raining out side, I'd check myself. However, yes, spending was going up, but before the crash, spending was half that which they inherited.


This is getting away from the point you made. You claimed Tory prudence, I think I have demonstrated that they couldn't be considered any more 'cautious' as you claim.

That is not true, I just don't keep records of everything I read. Also; unlike most on here or any other forum I don't rely with links to argue my case, but actually read about my subject matter.



And rightly so, but unless you can prove what I said is wrong then you shouldn't mock. That only shows your weak position.


But that doesn't change the facts; that they are responsible for the problems the Tories inherited. And don't forget that what Labour inherited from the Tories was nowhere as bad. In fact Blair and Brown said they would stick to Tory spending plans.




No, get your facts right; I claimed that Blair and Brown would keep 'Tory prudence' and broke it. Which means there was a 'Tory Prudence'. They also said (or at least Brown did) 'no more boom and bust' and what happened?


They were very 'cautious' before and after Black Wednesday.

WBC Mafia out to get him is a good example.

Allegedly.


You make an accusation, so you should back it up.


And I'm saying that I am not at all sure that had the Tories been in that it would haver been any different.


This is not what you said at all (quick, go back and change it).

Have you read the figures from 92 to 97? The bastions of prudence? The Tories exceeded Labour by some margin up until the Leham Bros crash.

Public Support from who? Freeloaders and benefits scroungers that found under Labour they were better off staying in bed till midday and then going down the Pub rather than doing a days work? And Prisoners will be getting the Vote soon...

You forgot East Europeans and Muslims.

I made a comment on how I read it and what I've learnt. Simples! The truth is out there whatever you wish to believe or not.



It is something we can never prove, but going by those in the 'know' or how I've read it by economists they would have done a better job.





I don't change anything unless it is a spelling mistake

Yes I have. But as i said, or as Brown and Blair said, when they got into power they continued the Tories prudence... and then broke it with boom and bust, which Brown said would never happen.

Tory prudence? Is that the bit where public debt continued to increase?

None of this makes any difference, historically (from the Thatcher government onwards) it is demonstrably obvious that Tory and Labour's debt policy curve looks the same, except the labour curve up to the big crash was smaller.

Where is it that shows that the Tories would have handled the bank crash any more prudently? Or indeed, wouldn't have happened on their watch?

Like I said: up to the Lehman Bros crash, the national deficit and national debt was lower than it was when Labour got into office in '97.

I certainly remember clearly that Mr Prudence announced early on in the Labour admin that they would be continuing the existing fiscal policies. It was some years before that changed.
As most fiscal policies take a few years to show their real effect, I reckon that means he knew he had nothing better to offer......

Well that is a rather blunt way of looking at it, but what labour did is continue with Tory debt policy (which had been rising since '92) for 2 years, then they started to cut it down to '93 levels. It then started to rise but more slowly than it did under the Tories and was starting to level out when the banks blew their gasket.

We then have to say: would things have been different under the Tories? I don't think so.

That is not what Dear Prudence said.


'Labour’s first term saw Brown continue the reformist policies of the previous Conservative government' Moneyweek 12/12/05

This is exactly what he said and done. They pledged to keep Tory spending policy for two years. Regardless of what they said, that is what they did.

Like I have stated already, Labour's spending policy up to the banking crisis was more 'prudent' than the one they inherited.

I did an edit, having found something on another site....

I also read somewhere that the 'banking crisis' was part(?) due to new EU accounting rules re liquidity that some banks found difficult to meet once introduced and thus had to 'declare' themselves in the do-do. I think the rules set out the liquidity level a bank had to have at close of business each day. A clever person did some analysis and found that banks (otherwise successful) conducting business to a particular pattern would never have that level but were otherwise totally sound.........

EDIT:

I think this is it, coupled with the UK adopting law:
EU Directive

I'm surprised Red Ed isn't proposing some proper socialist policies, not the stuff New Labour have borrowed from the Tories for the past 15 years.

Just out of interest, since apparently the Tories knew Labour were overspending, how many Tory M.P.s said "please don't build that Hospital in my constituency, we can't afford it",..... "please don't build us a library here, we cant afford it",.... "for heavens sake, please don't build a leisure centre / school / community centre in my area, the country can't afford it"?

None of them..that's how many.

But to get back to the sillyness of the topic,

Labours majority went up from 103 votes in May to more than 3,500 vote now. (a bigger swing than in the 1997 general election), whilst the combined coalition vote was almost halved.

Sounds like a victory to me.

Of course it was a victory, they won the seat.

Or to be more exact they held the seat which they've never lost, which doesn't make it that a big a victory at all.