Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Friday, 30 November 2012

LibDems utterly destroyed in by-elections

Watching that egregious little waste-of-space Clegg's performance in the Commons yesterday, nothing gives me more satisfaction that totting up yesterday's by-election results;

Rotherham Middlesbrough Croydon N TOTAL
Labour 9866 10201 15898 35965 57%
UKIP 4648 1990 1400 8038 13%
Conservative 1157 1063 4137 6357 10%
LibDem 451 1672 860 2983 5%
Turnout 21330 16866 24458 62654

(Apols for the early mis-post)


Durotrigan said...

Yes, this set of three by-election results continues the process of the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats that was witnessed at play earlier in the month in Corby, Manchester Central and Cardiff South and Penarth. How 'sorry' must Nick Clegg be feeling now?

Span Ows said...

That's a handy little table, the whole 'triple Labour win' doesn't really tell us much though except that I am guessing the percent vote is in direct proportion to the time and money spent by each party trying to win votes! (certainly in Rotherham).

Anonymous said...

In these constituencies I have a feeling that if (say) Jane Collins had been standing for Labour, but campaigning for UKIP, she would have still won for Labour.

But in another less (red) constituency, it might be a bit of a problem for UKIP as it looks like the CONservatives are splitting the UKIP vote :)...

Weekend Yachtsman said...

They still beat the Tories in Middlesbrough, though.

G. Tingey said...

Didn't UKIP also come third in one of the other bye-elections?

Do we expect some of the "Main" parties people to be expecting changes of underwear, real soon now?

Or will the tories try to "trim towards UKIP?
Ditto some sections of Labour?

Postman Pat said...

Pity you can't identify the postal votes at these places.

Anonymous said...

I doubt Labour or Cons would currently consider adjusting policies to counter an increase in UKIP support. Such is their arrogance and contempt of public opinion.

Anonymous said...

To be frank if the BBC was the impartial broadcaster we pay them to be I don't think Labour would be getting elected anywhere again.

If Cameron continues as he is then Ukip will wipe the floor with him at the European election in 2014.

The Liberal Democrats are finished as the third party.


Span Ows said...

Steve (Anon 09:58)

"To be frank if the BBC was the impartial broadcaster we pay them to be I don't think Labour would be getting elected anywhere again."

Yep, I am still unsure why Cameron et al don't even try to highlight the obvious bias, it's like 2010 is year zero and if they have to go back further it's Thatcher's fault. New Labour and Gordon Brown are hardly ever mentioned and to rub salt in ex New Labour ministers and advisers are on EVERY DAY (not an exaggeration)

Anonymous said...

Impartial BBC????

FFS, reading the news snippets by using the text button - dunno what you call it these days - not ceefax anyway.
On it, p101 the Beeb reported that Labour had upped it's majority vote in all of its by-election victories.

Could a simple report get any more biased than that?

Objective? to a T is the BBC.

Blue Eyes said...

Not sure the Tories' 10% total is much to get excited about either. Roll on the stupidity*-induced Labour Landslide in 2015.

*voters are stupid because the pain they are feeling is mostly Brown's fault; the Tories are stupid for not fixing the deficit early in the Parliament and by failing to do so have prevented a decent recovery in time for the election.

mikebravo said...

The mind boggling bit of the whole thing is the 57% vote for the effing labour party.
The turkey's are voting for an early christmas!

Wildgoose said...

I was the Liberal Democrat candidate who got nearly 30% of the vote in the 1994 Rotherham by-election. This time I was the English Democrat candidate who got 50% more votes than the losing Liberal Democrat candidate.

Principles and beliefs matter. Lib Dem voters and acivists have been let down by a leadership which fundamentally cares nothing for England and is now paying the price.

After the last Election the Liberal Democrats could have had everything. The Tories had won big in England, but lost overall. There was even talk of a "grand anti-Tory" alliance of all the nationalist and non-Tory parties against them. All Nick Clegg had to do was to offer his support for a minority government in return for a devolved English Parliament to stand alongside those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That's it.

How could the Tories refuse? Their vote was in England and their vote was being over-ruled.

And an English Parliament would be voted in by PR, the precedent having already being set by those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would also mean the need for a new federal upper house - which would mean House of Lords Reform as well.

Not only that, a new federal UK would even undermine the SNP in Scotland. It would be in keeping with the professed (if not actual) belief of federalism within the Party. It would be seen as being principled.

But Nick Clegg wasn't interested.

This is the result.

G. Tingey said...

This perpetual rant about "biassed" BBC really gets my wick.
I can remember when Harold Wilsundra (As "Private Eye" called him) was convinced the Beeb were an ultra-tory plot .....

Budgie said...

GTingey - as a matter of principle it is impossible for the BBC not to be biased - it is crewed by ordinary human beings. Same for every other news outlet.

Whatever your own stance it is easy to see what axes the BBC is grinding. Abortion; CAGW; the EU; Greenery; Immigration; N.I; Thatcher; religion; UKIP - the BBC view is always on one side. Even if someone failed to detect the bias itself, it is revealed by the extraordinarily heavy use of Guardian journalists.

The biased/not biased argument could easily be sorted by selling off the BBC. It would then have to stand on its own feet commercially as a pay-per-view media corporation. Then if you like the BBC you can pay for it. And those of us that don't, would still be able to watch other TV without subsidising you.

Ian Hills said...

Nice to see the anti-apartheid vote going UKIP's way instead of Griffin's.

Anonymous said...

Amen to privatising the BBC!

G. Tingey said...

I am of the opinion that the Beeb is soft on religion - ANY religion.
Of course, I only listen to Radio 3 & 4 ... bu there we have "emotion of the day", choral evensong, the daily unction etc.
I dsiagree about some of thothers.
CAGW is probably real, GW is certainly real - what is a fake is the stance guvmint is taking to rip us off - what a suprise.
"Abortion"? Uh? No business of ANY male, & anyway, abortions have always exceeded live biths. Which gloriously fucks the evil RC church's stance, doesn't it?

ANd where would you get real reporting?
Faux News?

Don't make me cry .....

Wildgoose said...

Abortion absolutely is the business of fathers - and last I noted fathers are male. If the man gets no say in whether his child is killed, then neither should he have any responsibility to pay for a child's upkeep. Women shouldn't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

The tv licence would still be required. The licence is paid to operate a broadcast receiver for ANY channel.
The BBC is no more biased than many, if not all, newspapers. One suspects than Cameroon makes little of the BBC in case some comment on the bias of the vast majority of the print media (and their TV offerings) towards the Conservatives.
Read what you like into the elections...mid-terms are representative of nothing. The turnout was abysmal...barely higher than the PCC election/scam. Come the next election the LibDems will be higher, UKIP will be lower and it will be nearly 50/50 for the larger two. Hence the Cameroon veiled insults towards Scotland.. (-41 Labour seats if voting for independence)Oh, and Labour ran a quite tight budget, until the bankers decided to buy a dollars debt for a thousand dollars and then sell it for ten thousand, with the inevitable result.
Even then things are not that bad...the "bailout" bought back over 300 billion of bonds, so the interest won't need to be paid...and they got a 30 billion profit out of it. Gov debt is some 670 billion. PRIVATE debt is several trillions and the estimated indebtedness of the unmentioned derivatives market, is in the order of between seven and 12 trillion pounds (or more).
You need to widen your viewpoints...the elected government of the UK represents only those who pay them, and that is not us. They are the elected representatives of the City of London.


Budgie said...

Both GTingey and Anon 09:52 (JohnM) - you have entirely missed my point. It is irrelevant what you think about the issues I cited. It is indeed irrelevant what I think about the issues I cited.

The issue is that the BBC is always, taken as a whole, one sided on these issues.

But all this can easily be sorted by the BBC becoming an independent, commercial pay-to-view media business. Then those that like the BBC can continue to pay for it (as they do now) without the dishonour of requiring people like me, who loathe the BBC, subsidising them.

Anonymous said...

If you seriously consider the gov letting billions slide away by the BBC becoming another commercial channel, I suggest a rethink.
All that will happen is that the licence cost will be reduced, but stay.
Ignoring the news and current-affairs slant (which tends to be intermittent anyway), the rest of the programming is ok (if you ignore the soaps as well)
Sorry, the sound of axe-grinding is getting a bit loud here, so I may be hearing the wrong message.....the one I'm getting is that we shut-up left-biased reporting but let the massive amount of right-biased reporting continue ?
How many news/nudes papers have we ?
And how many slant left ?
Two ?
The right have the Sky organisation ?
And I'm anon because I'm fed-up with having to sign-in to everything, but my name is there !


Budgie said...

JohnM, it has not been suggested that "we shut-up left-biased reporting" at all, merely that it should stand on its own feet. Those that like the BBC should pay for it, but it is dishonourable to force the rest of us to pay. I hope your idea of "fair" is not to force me to pay for the Guardian too?

Neither is it a case of "right" or "left". The BBC's biases often don't fit into those tired and cliched divisions.

Btw you don't have to sign in - just click on Name/URL and type your name.