Those Feb 2017 UK by-elections. Check the data. Not the spin.
Copeland Stoke Central
Con gain from Labour Labour hold
%vote Change from 2015 General Election:
* = ELECTED
Con* +8.5% Con +1.8%
Lab -4.9% Lab* -2.2%
Lib-Dem +3.8% LIB-Dem +5.7%
UKIP -9.0% UKIP +2.1%
Green -1.3% Green -2.2%
Turn-out (ie % of registered electors that voted):
51.33% ( -12.5% cf GE2015) 38.2% (-11.7% cf GE2015)
My commentary follows references to data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_by-election,_2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_by-election,_2017
http://www.ukpolitical.info/by-election-turnout.htm
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout15.htm
Commentary
1) The Labour vote did not evaporate in either case, contrary to the propaganda by the capitalists
2) The Tories played a blinder again by selecting a woman candidate who had worked in the local industry: nuclear power and reprocessing. And by pointing out the long-held anti-nuclear credentials of Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
3) To finish the Copeland remarks, the UKIP vote looks mostly to have switched back to its traditional home ,the Conservatives (ie UKIP -9.0% ,Conservatives +8.5%) with the prresently-typical protest vote going to the Lib-Dems and not the Greens).
And the turn-out moved down by 12.5%, to 51.33%, from the 2015 General Election level (which, at 63.83% was almost the same as the turn-out average in England of 65.8%).
4) In Stoke Central (which was a much more 'high prrofile' election due to the presence of a well-publicised UKIP candidate and a re-standing Muslim candidate for the Lib-Dems). the turn out at both the 2015 General Election (only 51.26%, then) and this by-election (36.7%, down, therefore, from 2015 by 11.7%) reflected/es the run-down economic status of many ex-industrial, mostly northern and midlands Constituences, that were used and deserted by the New Labour project of Tony Blair, Peter Madelson, Gordon Brown, JohnPrescott, Neil Kinnock, etc.
5) To round-out the Stoke Central commentary, the UKIP efforts mostly failed despite the media coverage, etc. The two protest votes moved as in Copeland (LD up, Green down: neither by much).
6) The bigger picture:
The two by-elections were caused by resignations of two anti-Corbyn, pro-Remain, Blair/Mandelson-promoted New Labour MPs (whether they are members of The Labour Friends of Israel I don't know: that pro-Zionist group has along-standing hatred of Jeremy Corbyn's pro-Palestinian position).
Their resignations certainly appear to have been coordinated by the pro-Remain, pro-capitalist factions (which likely the involvement, if not coordination, of the Chatham House pro-capitalist network).
As such it was a failed attempt to 'get rid of' the Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell project for democratic and co-operative socialist.
A project that is heartened by the outcome.
Not least that the Blairite candidate in Copeland was defeated.
One step back, but two steps forward (at least!)
Copeland Stoke Central
Con gain from Labour Labour hold
%vote Change from 2015 General Election:
* = ELECTED
Con* +8.5% Con +1.8%
Lab -4.9% Lab* -2.2%
Lib-Dem +3.8% LIB-Dem +5.7%
UKIP -9.0% UKIP +2.1%
Green -1.3% Green -2.2%
Turn-out (ie % of registered electors that voted):
51.33% ( -12.5% cf GE2015) 38.2% (-11.7% cf GE2015)
My commentary follows references to data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland_by-election,_2017
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_Central_by-election,_2017
http://www.ukpolitical.info/by-election-turnout.htm
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout15.htm
Commentary
1) The Labour vote did not evaporate in either case, contrary to the propaganda by the capitalists
2) The Tories played a blinder again by selecting a woman candidate who had worked in the local industry: nuclear power and reprocessing. And by pointing out the long-held anti-nuclear credentials of Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
3) To finish the Copeland remarks, the UKIP vote looks mostly to have switched back to its traditional home ,the Conservatives (ie UKIP -9.0% ,Conservatives +8.5%) with the prresently-typical protest vote going to the Lib-Dems and not the Greens).
And the turn-out moved down by 12.5%, to 51.33%, from the 2015 General Election level (which, at 63.83% was almost the same as the turn-out average in England of 65.8%).
4) In Stoke Central (which was a much more 'high prrofile' election due to the presence of a well-publicised UKIP candidate and a re-standing Muslim candidate for the Lib-Dems). the turn out at both the 2015 General Election (only 51.26%, then) and this by-election (36.7%, down, therefore, from 2015 by 11.7%) reflected/es the run-down economic status of many ex-industrial, mostly northern and midlands Constituences, that were used and deserted by the New Labour project of Tony Blair, Peter Madelson, Gordon Brown, JohnPrescott, Neil Kinnock, etc.
5) To round-out the Stoke Central commentary, the UKIP efforts mostly failed despite the media coverage, etc. The two protest votes moved as in Copeland (LD up, Green down: neither by much).
6) The bigger picture:
The two by-elections were caused by resignations of two anti-Corbyn, pro-Remain, Blair/Mandelson-promoted New Labour MPs (whether they are members of The Labour Friends of Israel I don't know: that pro-Zionist group has along-standing hatred of Jeremy Corbyn's pro-Palestinian position).
Their resignations certainly appear to have been coordinated by the pro-Remain, pro-capitalist factions (which likely the involvement, if not coordination, of the Chatham House pro-capitalist network).
As such it was a failed attempt to 'get rid of' the Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell project for democratic and co-operative socialist.
A project that is heartened by the outcome.
Not least that the Blairite candidate in Copeland was defeated.
One step back, but two steps forward (at least!)
No comments:
Post a Comment