Oh I dont want to be an MP anymore as I have a better job offer

[Tangled Metal]

I read the majority was 3000 in stoke and 2500 in Copeland. In Stoke UKIP was second. In Copeland I'm not sure but would not be surprised if either Tories or LibDems. I know libdems are strong in Westmoreland (Kendal area).

If UKIP or libdems show strongly, even if Labour squeak through with a lower majority, it's a good show for the rest of us. Those of us who want a decent opposition but are quietly enjoying Labour fall.

[Psamathe]

The Stoke by-election should be interesting. Labour won with UKIP a not too distant second last time (correct?) and both parties have had their troubles since. Some question whether UKIP has a point after the Brexit vote. But some see UKIP as a possible replacement for Labour. I'd expect support for both to fall, but I could easily be wrong. I wonder if the real victor will be apathy and disenchantment.
...

I wonder in the case of UKIP how their finances will hold-up. Whilst spending by the candidate might be limited to levels that the Party could manage, I'm unclear about the rules on Party spending nationally i.e. they could start advertising nationally to promote their policies which would also cover the areas of by-elections. And if Nutall(?) decides to stand they might want to throw a lot at it even National promotions (if allowed) although expensive and not cost effective from a £ per vote won perspective, they would be desperate for everything.

But there seem questions about continued support from some of their larger donors, the EU looks like it is already asking for a pretty significant sum back that UKIP they spent against the rules, the party is getting very close to losing further EU money as one large member of their EU grouping (5* ?) left the group meaning virtually any more departures and they fall below the size/diversity required for a lot of EU money. so might they play things more prudently ?

Ian

[pete75]

The Stoke by-election should be interesting. Labour won with UKIP a not too distant second last time (correct?) and both parties have had their troubles since. Some question whether UKIP has a point after the Brexit vote. But some see UKIP as a possible replacement for Labour. I'd expect support for both to fall, but I could easily be wrong. I wonder if the real victor will be apathy and disenchantment.

I expect Labour to flat line right up to the next General Election, lose very badly and then possibly get rid of Corbyn and replace him with something just as unlikely to succeed. Because by then there will be few middle ground Labour Party members left. Westminster politics has gone the way of Scottish football, with one team super-dominant and the traditional opposition in the wilderness.

Nothing to gloat over. Our system requires a strong opposition and really needs a change of governing party from time to time. The Tories were in power for too long 1979 - 1997 and Labour for too long 1997 - 2010.

[reohn2]

The Stoke by-election should be interesting. Labour won with UKIP a not too distant second last time (correct?) and both parties have had their troubles since. Some question whether UKIP has a point after the Brexit vote. But some see UKIP as a possible replacement for Labour. I'd expect support for both to fall, but I could easily be wrong. I wonder if the real victor will be apathy and disenchantment.

I expect Labour to flat line right up to the next General Election, lose very badly and then possibly get rid of Corbyn and replace him with something just as unlikely to succeed. Because by then there will be few middle ground Labour Party members left. Westminster politics has gone the way of Scottish football, with one team super-dominant and the traditional opposition in the wilderness.

Nothing to gloat over. Our system requires a strong opposition and really needs a change of governing party from time to time. The Tories were in power for too long 1979 - 1997 and Labour for too long 1997 - 2010.

Funny,I thought the Tories were in from 1979 to present

[thirdcrank]

In other news the other Hunt, the subject of a Naughtie spoonerism has held on to the seat in Parliament and sold the business. ( for £millions.)

https://www.ft.com/content/a784c270-db5 ... %2Fproduct

Even then, he let's our hard-worked PM make the major speeches on his health portfolio. Why bark........?

[Tangled Metal]

If only Tories had been in since'79. Would have meant no Blair and possibly no second gulf war into Iraq and the subsequent Iraq war, deaths, Shia militias and terrorism. Perhaps no Daesh and Syria. All possibly the follow on from Blair's phoney dossier and war.

We'd probably be in no worse sh1t at home but perhaps the foreign sh1t would be better.

[reohn2]

If only Tories had been in since'79. Would have meant no Blair and possibly no second gulf war into Iraq and the subsequent Iraq war, deaths, Shia militias and terrorism. Perhaps no Daesh and Syria. All possibly the follow on from Blair's phoney dossier and war.

We'd probably be in no worse sh1t at home but perhaps the foreign sh1t would be better.

Blair was a Tory in Nude Labour clothing,nothing less.

[Tangled Metal]

Doesn't matter. He got voted in as leader of Labour party under the old system that gave unions power. Can't get more Labour than a union vote winning leader of the Labour party. Just because his policies were centre left not true blood red socialist doesn't make him a Tory. I doubt the Tories would have accepted him if he defected!

[Edwards]

Funny,I thought the Tories were in from 1979 to present

Not quite there was that extreme right wing lot for a while until Cameron and CO got in.

[pete75]

Doesn't matter. He got voted in as leader of Labour party under the old system that gave unions power. Can't get more Labour than a union vote winning leader of the Labour party. Just because his policies were centre left not true blood red socialist doesn't make him a Tory. I doubt the Tories would have accepted him if he defected!

Most of his policies were centre right.. If Ken Clarke had won the leadership election in 2001 we'd have a Tory party with policies to teh left of Labour.

BTW Iraq would have happened with or without Britain and things would have turned out little different. apparently Bush made the decison soon after 9/11.

[reohn2]

Doesn't matter. He got voted in as leader of Labour party under the old system that gave unions power. Can't get more Labour than a union vote winning leader of the Labour party.

At a GE the unions(thanks be to them)it's the people who vote not the unions.

Just because his policies were centre left not true blood red socialist doesn't make him a Tory.

Not in you'r book maybe,however.....

I doubt the Tories would have accepted him if he defected!

Doubt anyone would accept him now but he's still making millions,claiming he's a Labour man.
There goes another flock of pigs flying past my window............

As for Iraq,Pete's got it right Blair and the UK were just doing what they were told......

[Psamathe]

If only Tories had been in since'79. Would have meant no Blair and possibly no second gulf war into Iraq and the subsequent Iraq war, deaths, Shia militias and terrorism. Perhaps no Daesh and Syria. All possibly the follow on from Blair's phoney dossier and war.

We'd probably be in no worse sh1t at home but perhaps the foreign sh1t would be better.

Blair was a Tory in Nude Labour clothing,nothing less.

And broadening the re-classification (which I don't disagree with), the fervent hate (or fear?) many Conservative MPs seem to have of immigrants and immigration makes we wonder if the BNP should be seeing a resurgence. Certainly UKIP must have far more MPs "in practice" than "in name"

Ian

[Tangled Metal]

Yes at a GE the nation (or a small proportion of it) votes but i was specifically talking about the ballot that got him into a position to stand as a candidate to lead a governmentmi. I doubt you can contradict that the unions had a strong input in that leadership ballot. Unless I'm completely mistaken he got in under an old system where there was a college system in play. under that the unions had a big say in the outcome.

Of course by pre-Blair and current Corbyn standards Blair wasn't socialist enough. He still was closer to it than the Tories. Parties move about on the political spectrum but generally don't leave the range acceptable to their membership and core voters. If they do they get hammered at a GE. I personally saw Blair as left of centre but obviously YMMV. It depends on from which angle you view it. From my side of the spectrum (centre right in my opinion) i saw him as left of centre. Right of centre wouldn't have seen all the public sector spending.

[PH]

Yes at a GE the nation (or a small proportion of it) votes but i was specifically talking about the ballot that got him into a position to stand as a candidate to lead a governmentmi. I doubt you can contradict that the unions had a strong input in that leadership ballot. Unless I'm completely mistaken he got in under an old system where there was a college system in play. under that the unions had a big say in the outcome.

I think you are mistaken. The electoral college was made up of three groups, the Parliamentary Party, the Constituencies and affiliated members. Most of the affiliated members were indeed also Union members, but it was one member one vote and not the old union block vote system. The changes were made in 1993 under the leadership of John Smith.
John Smith – What a loss, to the party and the country, probably the last labour leader who could have modernised without destruction.

[reohn2]

John Smith – What a loss, to the party and the country, probably the last labour leader who could have modernised without destruction.

I'm still in mourning.
As you say,what a loss.