Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A strange aspect of the result is that Labour received no apparent "protest" votes. The coalition is unpopular, Labour scores well in the opinion polls, but does badly here.


At least UKIP didn't win the seat, unlike George Galloway last year (at Bradford)

LibDems control the whole council so they are clearly popular there. Considering Huhne's demise and the Renard scandal they can give themselves a pat on the back this morning. They mobilised impressive levels of ground staff and got out their vote. Social media etc have a part to play but the LibDems proved that focusing resources can still do the business.


UKIP should be gutted. Yes they finised second, but this is not a good result for them. The coalition is plummeting in the opinion polls, the LibDems were scandal ridden and UKIP are a perfect protest vote outlet. Yet still they lost. And by some margin. This wasn't close, it was by over 1,000. Compare this to the SDP in the 80s who used the protest vote movement to take by-election victories from both Lab and Con and yet still failed come the general election. UKIP will try and talk this up but they should be terrified of the fact that if they can't win here they won't come close at the general election to winning seats.


The Tories should be worried though. They abandoned the centre ground, put up Sarah Palin as a candidate, aped UKIP and still got beaten into third. Their vote got split. Cameron gambled that taking a tough stance on Europe would stop this from happening and it's failed. The right wing of this country isn't big enough to support one party let alone two. They abandon the centre ground at their peril.


Labour should also be disappointed. Whilst no one expected miracles, a (minor) celebrity candidate, decent opinion poll ratings and people looking to protest against the coalition should have garnered a better result that 4th. It's far from a fatal blow for EdM's One Nation brand of Labour but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement either. Lessons to be learnt.

Because you can judge parties on their performance at a stand alone election without extrapolating the numbers across the whole country.


Although if you like that sort of thing, the last time Tories won a general election (1992), they won Eastleigh with a majority of 18,000.

The minor celebrity was one who had previously wished that Margaret Thatcher, the democratically elected PM at the time, had been killed and blown up by terrorist. Fine for woodrot et al but someone who wants to be an MP??


Really only a goodish result for the Lib Dems and, I suppose encouragingly, reflects some type of interest in local rather than national issues. I still reckon that we are in for a hung parliament again with a rise in smaller party (protest) voting..Labour has two issues it needs to convince on:


1) It won't be irresponsible on Public Spending and really will be 'one nation' - as the voting part of the electorate by and large understand this far more then in the past - and it is very very unconvincing on this among floaters, which, much to the chagrin of my Labour friends on here no doubt, is people like me.

2) Ed, who has done far better than I thought he would, but still when it comes to actually voting at a GE i still think a fair few voters will not choose him. Sad that personality/charisma is important but it is - Atlee wouldn't have got in nowadays for e.g.

Oh jesus Quids - really?! If you can't tell that when a COMEDIAN writes that in a book, to treat it with a degree of levity, then you've jumped the shark. He wasn't campaigning on a platform of blowing up a house on the Dulwich estate, was he?


You're correct on point 1) - closer to the election you'd expect more detailed economic plans from Lab and they'll be judged on them. It would be strategically incompetent to publicise those economic policies now, not only because the Tories could spend 18 months dissecting them but because the economic situation could change in the meantime.


On point 2) I think as we progress towards a GE the party leaders will become more publically visible and voters will "get to know them" more. I think this will play into Ed's hand - slow and steady wins the race. I think he's becoming more sure of himself as we progress whilst Cameron and Clegg become more unlikeable. If Major can win a GE whilst being charisma free then I think EdM could too.

Labour failing to make any ground, Tories self destructing and the LibDems holding a core vote. Personally, I think this result points to another hung parliament next election.


The question will be: which out of Labour and the Tories will woo the Lib Dems. After all the whining the Labour grassroots have been making about the 'traitorous' LibDems, how quickly will they be singing a different love song when the smell of power enters their nostrils?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The coop of Forest Hill Road is very different- cheerful and helpful staff 
    • Would you expose your young people to 'that man'? That is apparently a real question. 'That man' is in fact a retired Oxford Professor of Moral & Pastoral Theology who wrote a book setting out to provide a moral reckoning on the vexed subject of Britain's Empire and its history. What might formerly have been a purely academic matter has become highly contentious, and according to one Cambridge academic "serious shit" that needed to be CLOSED DOWN. It's all rather amazing, the stuff of satire or nightmare but not of the real world. Anyway, Lord Biggar accepted an invitation to visit Peckham and speak to and with a small audience that was due to include young Black students ... who in the end didn't come on the day! Having set the whole thing up to facilitate this encounter for them, the outcome was a disappointment. The conversation with Lord Biggar and audience was not:   
    • Entertaining a visitor from Philippines, she's been here before but I've promised lunch.  Somewhere a little different maybe, quirky?
    • Surely a very simple: "how much does the council receive from the organisers of the Gala festival for payment for use of Peckham Rye" would smoke out a response. The "commercial sensitivity" could be because the council are giving it away or it could be because Gala don't want others to know how much they are paying - it is really tough to make money from any type of festival these days and Wide Awake in Brockwell, for example, sent out a plea for people to buy tickets via a reduced price "Tell a Friend" special offer because (they said much of it linked to the problems Lambeth were having with the High Court) things were entering "squeaky bum time"  and they were struggling to hit their break-even point. It does make me wonder whether expansion is baked-in to the agreements the council has with the organisers for events like Gala as the organisers have to be able to scale the size of the event each year to try to make money. I do also how much of the "revenue" from these events might be swallowed up by the provision of the "free community" event element of them. The comment piece in the Guardian sums it up quite nicely: The heart of this issue seems to be how cash-strapped councils are becoming increasingly beholden to commercial interests to the detriment of the public. A weekend festival that welcomes 50,000 people can expect to raise about £500,000 for local authorities. Councils argue that this money goes back in the public purse, allowing them to continue funding free community events such as Lambeth’s beloved Country Show, though there doesn’t seem to be much transparency over exactly how much cash is raised or where it is allocated.   The issue for councils may well be that if people found out how much was actually being raised by these events that the community would say the disruption is not worth it and I do wonder how much of the revenue is being swallowed up by the provision of the "free event" using the same infrastructure. Any time a council doesn't want to share something openly very much suggests that it is because they think constituents won't like the answer.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...