The Poodle takes a bloody nose!

[Donut]

If only he could find the WoMD so as to justify going to war

Lib Dems seize Brent East victory

The Liberal Democrats have snatched one of Labour's safest seats with a victory in a key north London by-election. Sarah Teather won the Brent East poll by more than 1,100 votes, overturning a 13,047 majority and marking Labour's first loss of a Commons seat in a by-election for 15 years.

London MEP Robert Evans received 7,040 votes compared with Ms Teather's 8,158, while the Conservative candidate Uma Fernandes was beaten into third place with 3,368 votes.

The 29% swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats is the largest for almost a decade, and is being described by commentators as one of the most stunning turnarounds in British electoral history.

LABOUR'S VOTE SHARE FALLS
Labour vote share dropped by 29.5% compared with the general election
The Lib Dem share rose by 28.6%
Tories dropped by 2%
Turnout was low on 36%
Swing was 29% from Labour to Lib Dems

However, with a turnout of 36.4%, senior Labour figures say many of the party's supporters simply did not vote. The by-election took place on Thursday after Labour MP Paul Daisley died of cancer in June, aged just 45.

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said the result was "a big boost" for the party ahead of its annual conference in Brighton next week. "We have shown that there is no such thing as a no-go area for the Liberal Democrats," he said.

"In Britain's most diverse community, we have shown that we can speak for every section of society and the Liberal Democrat message is one they want to hear and support."

War factor

The party will now have 54 MPs in Westminster, with 29-year-old Ms Teather making the transition from being a councillor in Islington to become the youngest member of the Commons.

Commentators are linking the Labour defeat with Tony Blair's decision to go to war with Iraq, and anger among the party's traditional voters over the involvement of the private sector in public services.

RESULT IN FULL
Sarah Teather (Lib Dem) 8,158
Robert Evans (Labour) 7,040
Uma Fernandes (Conservative) 3,368
Noel Lynch (Green) 638
Brian Butterworth (Socialist Alliance) 361
Khidori Fawzi Ibrahim (Public Services Not War) 219
Winston McKenzie (Independent) 197
Kelly McBride (Independent) 189
Harold Immanuel (Independent Labour) 188
Brian Hall (UK Independence Party) 140
Iris Cremer (Socialist Labour Party) 111
Neil Walsh (Independent) 101
Alan Howling Lord Hope (Monster Raving Loony Party) 59
Aaron Barschack (No description) 37
Jiten Bardwaj (No description) 35
Rainbow George Weiss (WWW.XAT.ORG) 11

"It's led to an awful sense of doubt both about Tony Blair personally and about this administration and I think that's going to be the difficulty for the government," Mr Kennedy told BBC Radio 4's Today.

For the Lib Dems, the result is being seen as a huge boost, proving they win by-elections not only against the Tories, but also against Labour.

Ms Teather said she was "absolutely elated" by the result, which came in at about 0230 BST on Friday, adding that both Labour and the Conservatives should take careful note of the outcome.

'Tide is turning'

"Tony Blair, I hope that you are listening tonight. The people of Brent have spoken for the people of Britain," she said.

"They want you to listen. They want you to deliver.

"But there is no comfort in this result tonight for the Conservative Party. They are irrelevant to constituencies like this," she added.

"The tide may be turning against Tony Blair and New Labour, but the tide remains far out for the Conservatives in this country. "

Labour said it was disappointed with the poll.

Chairman Ian McCartney said: "The backdrop of the controversy surrounding the Iraqi conflict, in its many forms, made this the most difficult by-election Labour has fought in the last 20 years.

"A disproportionate number of Labour voters staying at home was also a key feature."

Mr Evans, the Labour candidate, was optimistic despite defeat.

"I think if we're honest some of the results of Labour investment in health, in education, in the fight against crime haven't yet filtered through to voters," he said.

"Clearly we've had a by-election - people have exercised the right to perhaps vote differently (from how) they might do in a general election and so obviously we're very disappointed. "But we'll bounce back."

In the 2001 general election Mr Daisley managed to secure a majority of 13,047 with 63.21% of the vote.

He took over the seat from Ken Livingstone, who became London's mayor.

Then the Tories came second with 18.21% of votes cast, while the Liberal Democrats picked up 10.57%.

The Conservatives said they would examine the campaign and learn from it.

Conservative chairman Theresa May said: "I'm disappointed for Uma Fernandes, because I think she was an extremely good candidate.

"Of course parties don't want to come third in elections but our vote held up, contrary to predictions that it was going to collapse.

"We will look at the campaign and learn the lessons from the campaign but we are a party that is on course for the general election."

[wellard]

Well once you add up all the popular peoples socialism party votes and the usual protest against the sitting goverment, I would suggest that Labour will still win the next election *but by how many?* The real blow in this by election is the crap conservitive vote [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] thankfully they are now seemingly dead and buried and there place taken by the more moderate Lib/dems.


Just a little side note, I heard on the radio that the last of the inbreds unelected lords will be got rid of soon [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by wellard: Well once you add up all the popular peoples socialism party votes and the usual protest against the sitting goverment, I would suggest that Labour will still win the next election *but by how many?* The real blow in this by election is the crap conservitive vote [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] thankfully they are now seemingly dead and buried and there place taken by the more moderate Lib/dems. Just a little side note, I heard on the radio that the last of the inbreds unelected lords will be got rid of soon [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

What is significant about this is that it was a labour *safe seat* - rather than a marginal. The conservatives expected to come lose there.

As for the Lords reform, the unelected hereditary peers will finally disappear - to be replaced by unelected PM appointed peers. Some reform!

[Skunk]

You *know* you're in trouble when a *quarter* of your own MP's start fingering their collars mumbling:
"It's getting awfully warm in here. Would you mind resigning?"

Union tries to railroad Labour into Iraq war debate
27 September 2003


The pressure on Tony Blair showed little sign of abating last night as it emerged that he could face a humiliating debate on Iraq at next week's Labour conference in Bournemouth.

The biggest rail union tried to force the party high command to accept an emergency motion on the issue yesterday. As it did so, a poll showed that half the public want the Prime Minister to quit and believe the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, would make Labour more popular. The Mori poll for today's Financial Times, coincided with a survey for The Guardian showing that a quarter of Labour MPs want the premier to resign. The setbacks leave Mr Blair facing the most serious challenge to his authority since he came to power.

The conference arrangements committee is under enormous pressure to accept a debate, as tens of thousands of protesters arrive in London for a demonstration today against the occupation of Iraq.

Before the intervention of the RMT rail union, there was doubt whether the issue would have been formally raised at next week's assembly. Without a debate, delegates were unlikely to have a chance to vote against the Government's policy - a virtual certainty if the resolution reaches the order paper. The motion argues that there was "no justification" for war, that it has made the region less stable and that it has increased the risk of terrorist attacks. It also calls for the withdrawal of Allied troops and for control to be ceded to Iraqis.

The FT poll, conducted between 11 and 16 September, suggests Labour's lead over the Tories would rise from nine to 15 points under Mr Brown.

[Barry the Sprout]

Your point about the FT poll is just truly bizzare Skunk. I don't think its untrue, it just makes me wonder why people are going to change their minds - seeing as Brown was just as pro-war as Blair you have to wonder whether or not people are making the decision to support him for the leadership on that basis or not. I think not, overall. The war has dropped out of public view and the issue of whether or not Blair lied has been sidelined into the stultifyingly boring Hutton inquiry. He's got away with it, but he's on the slippry slope to being chucked for other reasons, or at least thats my opinion.

And just in general I'm unsure how much this whole Brent East thing is going to concern Blair. Are we really going to see a Liberal landslide over the war? Remember how completely unreliable their position on the war was - they seemed to flip a coin before each press conference to decide what they should say. At times they were in favour, at times they were against, and at other times they were in favour but only with UN backing (as if somehow that would have been more humane...). In general they were probably ecstatic that it was never up to them to make the decision, as you can be sure they wouldn't have been able to make a unified one when push came to shove.

Tony Blair only represents a small fraction of the Labour Party - the fight should not be against the party but within it, IMO. Roll on Brighton!

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Your point about the FT poll is just truly bizzare Skunk. I don't think its untrue, it just makes me wonder why people are going to change their minds - seeing as Brown was just as pro-war as Blair you have to wonder whether or not people are making the decision to support him for the leadership on that basis or not.

Because of the big picture. You were half way there when you said: "...but he's on the slippry slope to being chucked for other reasons, or at least thats my opinion." The Iraq war is simply the last in a long line of negative issues to affect Blair's 'favourability rating', it was simply the 'the straw that broke the camel's back'.
Brown on the other hand, having disagreed with Blair (often publicly) on a number of contentious issues is enjoying a slightly higher approval rating - so the Iraq war did not hurt him as badly as it did with Blair.
We saw something similar with Thatcher and Major - both had supported the Poll Tax, but Major had much more room for 'public forgiveness' than his predecessor and so he survived the fallout, even going on to win the 1992 elections.

Perhaps this little snippet from The Observer might help to clarify my point:
"Asked about levels of satisfaction in members of the Cabinet, those polled put Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, way ahead of any other Cabinet member. Some 88 per cent said that they were satisfied with the job he was doing, with 10 per cent dissatisfied - a satisfaction rating of +78 per cent.

According to the poll, Brown would receive over 60 per cent backing from the party if Blair resigned and he went for the leadership.

John Reid, the Health Secretary, had a satisfaction rating of +28 per cent and John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, 19 per cent. Blair has a rating of just +9 per cent along with Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. Only the embattled Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, has a lower rating of -29 per cent."

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: And just in general I'm unsure how much this whole Brent East thing is going to concern Blair. Are we really going to see a Liberal landslide over the war?

As before, it is not simply the Iraq war that led to the Liberal victory (although it certainly helped), but a whole bunch of issues working in tandem.
At this point in time, no-one (including the Liberals) expect the Liberal party to win the next election - but, based on the situation as it currently stands, I think that they will gain a much greater share of the seats at both Labour and the Conservatives' expense - and that Blair will therefore find himself with a much reduced majority in the next parliament with the reduced power that such a prediction would imply.

Of course, if there were yet more 'Blairite' scandals and yet more evidence of mismanagement, fraud, deceit, incompetence and poor economic performance to arise, the future will look even brighter for the Liberals.

And we're already looking at what be the signs of what might prove to be yet another fuel blockade manifesting itself...