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

[discokermit]

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

have you had a bump on the head?

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't know how anyone can see this as anything other than a massive poke in the eye for Labour. It was fought on safe ground. Another left party took it, emphatically.

As an aside, my housemate noted this morning how angry the Labour loser seemed to be. Reminded me of LibDem reactions to the AV vote. Just dismissive or angry, no attempt to look at WHY.

 

[butchersapron]

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

Only lessons for labour. Says it all Harriet.

 

[articul8]

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

what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.

 

[butchersapron]

He really said:

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

 

[butchersapron]

what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.

What the fuck do you think DIFFERENTIAL turnout means?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.

If only all those stay-at-home labour voters had known that a load of nutters would be bothering to vote for the first time and voting in Galloway, they would have turned out to vote.

 

[belboid]

what straws? It was a desperate night for Labour. No denying that. It wouldn't be possible to produce the kind of figure you're after without a detailed comparison of the filled electoral register. But the idea that there couldn't have been a differential turnout from the GE is just plain daft.

all the figures you need are available. turnout and actual votes. people who didnt vote didnt vote. you cant say anything about them, except they didnt vote.. Hence, there votes, dont count!

We have the figures, we can calculate the swing. I make it 37%. And you?

 

[butchersapron]

Do you think it means different?

 

[articul8]

it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?

 

[belboid]

it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?

Doesnt matter. Only the actual votes matter. Everything else is irelevant.

 

[articul8]

all the figures you need are available. turnout and actual votes. people who didnt vote didnt vote. you cant say anything about them, except they didnt vote.. Hence, there votes, dont count!

We have the figures, we can calculate the swing. I make it 37%. And you?

No you need a comparison of which people turned out to vote last night with which people turned out in 2010 broken down by party

 

[belboid]

Rubbish.

 

[articul8]

Doesnt matter. Only the actual votes matter. Everything else is irelevant.

Of course it matters nob-end. Did Labour voters decide to stay at home, or did they vote Galloway? And in what proportions?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?

Even if this is true, why, though? Could it be because the last MP had a considerable personal vote that predated New Labour, but people who were happy to vote for him could not bring themselves to vote for a ghastly New Labour horror with a long record of cronyism in local politics? What lesson does that serve?

 

[butchersapron]

it means (in this instance) that Labour voters [at the last GE] were less likely to vote in the by-election than were voters from other parties (in 2010). Why doesn't this hold?

Does it? What is your understanding of differential.

 

[discokermit]

No you need a comparison of which people turned out to vote last night with which people turned out in 2010 broken down by party

show us it then. or shut up.

 

[articul8]

Even if this is true, why, though? Could it be because the last MP had a considerable personal vote that predated New Labour, but people who were happy to vote for him could not bring themselves to vote for a ghastly New Labour horror with a long record of cronyism in local politics? What lesson does that serve?

Oh absolutely. I'm not saying that this makes it any more excusable. Labour has some hard questions to answer after this performance.

 

[Delroy Booth]

You have figures for this?

It was on twitter last night I'll go hunt some if you want? Infact it may well have been Salma Yaqoob tweeting live from the vote-count last night who said it, so maybe she's bullshitting, but it's pretty hard to imagine how they'd have won with a 10,000 majority if they didn't have accross-the-board support. If anything, I suspect the Muslim vote was the most split, between the Muslim Labour candidate favoured by the bigwigs in the asian community and Galloway.

This does really show the stupidity of trying to homogenise the interests of Muslim voters in such a way, like there aren't wildly different grievances and concerns within that broad mass of people other than the fact that they're muslim.

 

[articul8]

Does it? What is your understanding of differential.

Essentially turnout on a different scale that doesn't draw proportionally from the electoral base of parties judged by previous voting behaviours.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh absolutely. I'm not saying that this makes it any more excusable. Labour has some hard questions to answer after this performance.

Thing is, they're not 'labour voters' then really, are they? Rightly or wrongly, there are people who vote for Simon Hughes, for instance, who would otherwise vote labour but like Hughes. If the last labour mp, as seems likely, had built up a similar level of personal support, if his replacement loses three quarters of them, are they still 'labour voters'? It seems complacent and wrong in the extreme to characterise people who did not vote as 'labour voters'. They have just shown for whatever reason that, at the moment at least, they are no such thing.

 

[Pickman's model]

you attributed it to the Bourbons on the last page

no i didn't.

 

[articul8]

Thing is, they're not 'labour voters' then really, are they? Rightly or wrongly, there are people who vote for Simon Hughes, for instance, who would otherwise vote labour but like Hughes. If the last labour mp, as seems likely, had built up a similar level of personal support, if his replacement loses three quarters of them, are they still 'labour voters'? It seems complacent and wrong in the extreme to characterise people who did not vote as 'labour voters'. They have just shown for whatever reason that, at the moment at least, they are no such thing.

Yes I suppose so but from the point of view of the parties, they are people who on the basis of their previous voting intentions could be reasonably expected to vote the same way again. Obviously people change their voting intentions. But what we haven't established is the proportions of those who chose not to vote or couldn't be arsed, and those who actively went out and expressed a different voting intention. And the reasons for both would contribute to the overall outcome.

 

[where to]

has anyone got a source to support the claim GG won in every ward?

 

[butchersapron]

Oh absolutely. I'm not saying that this makes it any more excusable. Labour has some hard questions to answer after this performance.

Hard questions. Like what.

 

[Athos]

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 what? Maybe those who've voted Labour in the past didn't turn out to vote Labour on this occasion because they no longer believe the party has anything to offer. And maybe people who have never been inspired to vote for Labour (or any other party) were inspired to turn out on this occasion. Which ever way you look at it, it's a massive rejection of the Labour Party. Labour lost a relatively safe seat by over 10,000 votes. To a candidate from a party with no significant national presence, at a time when Labour's traditional support are being savaged by Tory and Lib Dem cuts. You can't spin this as anything other than a failure.

 

[articul8]

Hard questions. Like what.

Like the reasons people chose either to vote against Labour or at least not to vote for Labour, at a by-election - and what would induce them to do so at a General Election?

 

[Divisive Cotton]

has anyone got a source to support the claim GG won in every ward?

it would be interesting to look at the breakdown ward by ward

 

[articul8]

So what? Maybe those who've voted Labour in the past didn't turn out to vote Labour on this occasion because they no longer believe the party has anything to offer. And maybe people who have never been inspired to vote for Labour (or any other party) were inspired to turn out on this occasion. Which ever way you look at it, it's a massive rejection of the Labour Party. Labour lost a relatively safe seat by over 10,000 votes. To a candidate from a party with no significant national presence, at a time when Labour's traditional support are being savaged by Tory and Lib Dem cuts. You can't spin this as anything other than a failure.

I'm not spinning - I'm just saying that two things could have contributed to a terrible result for Labour - 1) Labour voters voting Galloway or 2) Labour voters staying at home.

There's nothing extraordinary or controversial about this. It just doesn't show up directly from swing figures based on proportionally consistent turnouts.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

at a time when Labour's traditional support are being savaged by Tory and Lib Dem cuts

This is the key point, I think. If Labour were in office, it would be understandable, but they're not. A whole load of people in Bradford have shown one way or another that they do not feel represented by Labour. Roll on the next by-election in a labour 'safe' seat, I say, because I suspect that this goes way beyond narrow identity politics.