Galloway returns to Parliament in sensational win in Bradford West - Labour/Coalition smashed

[nastybobby]

I lived in Bradford West for a long time and still regularly visit friends there. GG's victory isn't a massive surprise, he managed to mobilise a hell of a lot of [mostly] young people in the inner city areas. I was visiting a friend who still resides there on Tuesday and he remarked upon the fact that he looks to have had some major backing from those with the cash and the influence in the area.

Getting elected was the easy part! His position on the Afghanistan 'war' practically guaranteed it, but actually making a difference in what is a very deprived area will be somewhat more of a challenge. Bradford isn't as 'divided' a city as the media would have people believe, but it does have some 'difficulties' regarding its reputation. I hope he can improve his constituents lives, Bradford has been plagued by ineffective/incompetent MP's/Councils for far too long.

 

[Pickman's model]

I lived in Bradford West for a long time and still regularly visit friends there. GG's victory isn't a massive surprise, he managed to mobilise a hell of a lot of [mostly] young people in the inner city areas. I was visiting a friend who still resides there on Tuesday and he remarked upon the fact that he looks to have had some major backing from those with the cash and the influence in the area.

Getting elected was the easy part! His position on the Afghanistan 'war' practically guaranteed it, but actually making a difference in what is a very deprived area will be somewhat more of a challenge. Bradford isn't as 'divided' a city as the media would have people believe, but it does have some 'difficulties' regarding its reputation. I hope he can improve his constituents lives, Bradford has been plagued by ineffective/incompetent MP's/Councils for far too long.

but he's a politician. they don't really do improving people's lives.

 

[articul8]

they didn't go to eg the lib dems did they? or to the tories. so where did the previous labour votes go? can't all have stopped at home, surely.

Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.

 

[butchersapron]

Not everyone who voted Galloway was previously Labour. And not all the votes "lost" by Labour went to Galloway.

What's wrong with you? What lessons have you learnt?

 

[Pickman's model]

Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.

and your evidence for this is...?

 

[Pickman's model]

What's wrong with you? What lessons have you learnt?

as talleyrand would say he's learnt nothing and forgotten nothing - a point i made on the last page i think

 

[articul8]

differential turnout is a regular feature of byelections - which is part of what makes them prone to "extreme" swings

 

[articul8]

as talleyrand would say he's learnt nothing and forgotten nothing - a point i made on the last page i think

you attributed it to the Bourbons on the last page

 

[belboid]

Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.

any evidence for the tories bit? It actually seems unlikely, considering at the beginning of the campaign the tories were saying they thought Galloways candidature would help them win the seat. In fact, what seems to have happened is there vote collapsed because they aren't very popular in working class areas, for some strange reason.

Thus there was a real, actual, properly led, swing of 37% away from the Labour Party, to Respect.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Some analysis of the different wards here: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/03/30/bradford-west-by-election-baston/

 

[belboid]

differential turnout is a regular feature of byelections - which is part of what makes them prone to "extreme" swings

fucks sake man, stop digging

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Lots of people who wanted to inflict a defeat on Labour turned out and voted Galloway (including Tories), a fair % of Labour voters stayed at home, whilst another proportion switched. A bit misleading to talk about "swing" in relation to GE figures.

Face it, the turnout was down a little on the GE, but not much, but it wasn't the other half of the electorate voting this time - those who didn't vote in the GE will largely not have voted again; those that did vote in the GE will largely have voted again, with a few stay-at-homes. So most of those who voted Labour last time turned out again this time, and unless they did something a bit strange and voted tory or libdem, most of them must have switched to Galloway.

 

[butchersapron]

differential turnout is a regular feature of byelections - which is part of what makes them prone to "extreme" swings

Being round makes circles round. Thanks

 

[articul8]

any evidence for the tories bit? It actually seems unlikely, considering at the beginning of the campaign the tories were saying they thought Galloways candidature would help them win the seat. In fact, what seems to have happened is there vote collapsed because they aren't very popular in working class areas, for some strange reason.

[Muslim] Tories switching to a religious man who, god willing, will beat Labour - can't have happened

Thus there was a real, actual, properly led, swing of 37% away from the Labour Party, to Respect.

In order to prove that you'd need to demonstrate that there wasn't a differential turnout

 

[discokermit]

51%'s quite high for a by-election, isn't it?

i think it is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

[Muslim] Tories switching to a religious man who, god willing, will beat Labour - can't have happened


In order to prove that you'd need to demonstrate that there wasn't a differential turnout

He won by such a large margin that he probably took votes from almost everyone. But he'll have taken by far the most votes from Labour. It's impossible that he didn't.

 

[belboid]

[Muslim] Tories switching to a religious man who, god willing, will beat Labour - can't have happened

so you dont have any evidence then. the tories said they'd win the seat, they weren't giving up on it

In order to prove that you'd need to demonstrate that there wasn't a differential turnout

no, i just need to look at the actual votes cast. Which I have. There was a swing of 37%. YOur attempts to deny this demonstrable () fact are just making you look silly

 

[articul8]

Face it, the turnout was down a little on the GE, but not much, but it wasn't the other half of the electorate voting this time - those who didn't vote in the GE will largely not have voted again; those that did vote in the GE will largely have voted again, with a few stay-at-homes. So most of those who voted Labour last time turned out again this time, and unless they did something a bit strange and voted tory or libdem, most of them must have switched to Galloway.

8,000 fewer people voted, and Labour was beaten by 10,000. Is it unlikely that a good proportion of those 8,000 were Labour?

 

[belboid]

good god

 

[articul8]

no, i just need to look at the actual votes cast. Which I have. There was a swing of 37%. YOur attempts to deny this demonstrable () fact are just making you look silly

not at all - it's the use of a swing figure based on wholly proportional turnout that is silly from a psephological point of view

 

[butchersapron]

8,000 fewer people voted, and Labour was beaten by 10,000. Is it unlikely that a good proportion of those 8,000 were Labour?

And no lessons to be learned. None.

 

[articul8]

I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout

 

[butchersapron]

I thought you couldn't look more ridiculous than after AV, but look at you now. All grown up.

 

[articul8]

And no lessons to be learned. None.

sure there are. But those lessons are for Labour to speak to the concerns of Labour voters in areas like this.

 

[audiotech]

Well done George, for making Labour party hacks everywhere as miserable as sin. Made my day.

 

[Greebozz]

I lived in Bradford West for a long time and still regularly visit friends there. GG's victory isn't a massive surprise, he managed to mobilise a hell of a lot of [mostly] young people in the inner city areas. I was visiting a friend who still resides there on Tuesday and he remarked upon the fact that he looks to have had some major backing from those with the cash and the influence in the area.

Getting elected was the easy part! His position on the Afghanistan 'war' practically guaranteed it, but actually making a difference in what is a very deprived area will be somewhat more of a challenge. Bradford isn't as 'divided' a city as the media would have people believe, but it does have some 'difficulties' regarding its reputation. I hope he can improve his constituents lives, Bradford has been plagued by ineffective/incompetent MP's/Councils for far too long.

Like what you say.

Also there is no great Muslim and Arab supporter in politics. He win Bradford (Shock) A celeb parachuting in to boot. Whats all the fuss.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He won by such a large margin that he probably took votes from almost everyone. But he'll have taken by far the most votes from Labour. It's impossible that he didn't.

Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all lost share according to that LSE blog I linked above.

Tory and Lib voter retention (which relates to turnout) was down even more heavily than Labour.

UKIP were the only other party to increase their share, but by so little as to be meaningless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

8,000 fewer people voted, and Labour was beaten by 10,000. Is it unlikely that a good proportion of those 8,000 were Labour?

Of course a good proportion of those were labour. How much of a proportion were labour voters from the last election who would have voted labour again, though? Some will not have voted because they couldn't be arsed, no doubt, but others will have not voted for other reasons. Maybe they couldn't be arsed but if they had been arsed, they'd have turned out and voted Galloway. It isn't right to assume that someone who voted labour last time but didn't vote this time is a 'stay-at-home labour voter'.

 

[belboid]

I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout

so, tell us the 'correct' figure, and your workings please, or accept that everyone else thinks you are clutching desperately at straws

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not saying there wasn't a considerable swing away from Labour. I'm saying that the 37% doesn't take adequate account of differential turnout

Like the lib-dems said, the wrong damn people bothered to vote. There is something wrong with you.