Donate SIGN UP

Oldham bi-election

Avatar Image
Khandro | 12:56 Sat 15th Jan 2011 | News
26 Answers
Amongst all the huffing and puffing from members of the various political parties over the bi-election results, nobody seems to give a mention of the actual qualities, or lack of them, of the candidates, it's all seen as a national issue. I am not normally a labour voter, but having seen interviews with the three main contestants last week I would have without doubt voted for Ms. Abrahams. Do you agree that the whole issue seems to have been hi-jacked by Westminster?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Bi-election? Is that a lifestyle choice?

This happens with most one-off by-elections in my experience. I don't think this one has been any different.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the point that you have made and although not a willing Socialist and given the seat and state of Westminster, I would probably have voted Labour.

Hi-jacked by Westminster? of course......it´s Politics ennit?
What amazes me is how short memories the public have of past events. It is only a matter of months since the coalition took over but things like the economy and student fees have all been ignored by the voters.

If there is one lesson for the Tories its to quicken the harsh policies well before the next election. Failure to do so they will get all the blame for the suffering about to take place when all they are doing is to correct the situation.

Also I think Britain has veered strongly to the left since 1997 probably due to unwanted immigration and also handouts.

Maybe hijacked by the media would be a better description.
Have the voters of Oldham forgot why the voters of Britain kicked out the last Labour party?

Why didn't the Tories and the LibDems put up a coalition candidate, that person would have got more votes than Labour then?

Labour 14,718

LibDems 11,160 + Cons. 11,481 = 15,641
AOG - methinks the vast Labour surge has much to do with postal vote fiddling, an ancient northern practice much-relied on by Labour MPs across the former industrial zone.
This is the elephant in the room, and none dare speak its name for fear of being lambasted as a racist.
If I was a Tory voter I wouldn't have voted . What was the point it will not change anything .
It was a foregone conclusion. So why bother . I'm not normally apathetic but this really was a
waste of time and effort. .
It is an interesting point from the OP though. Come a by-election, or even a general election come to that, how many people choose who to vote from based upon party allegiance, and how many based upon a judgement as to the candidates likely performance representing their constituency, regardless of party politics?

As to the result of this particular by-election - I think I was most surprised at the low turn out (48%) given all the controversy, media coverage, and current issues hogging the political media highlights at the moment - I would have expected a greater turnout myself.

Labour cannot assume that somehow they have been rehabilitated in the public percetion on the strength of this result. It also seems apparent that the conservative vote didn't collapse - rather, the majority of conservatives within the constituency decided to vote tactically.

Until and unless the Lib Dems and Conservatives formally create an alliance, to put up a coalition candidate would not be supported by the grass roots activists of each party, nor would you get much agreement for deciding which partys candidate should stand in which constituency.
Question Author
I think some are missing my point and thinking people only vote on national issues. Surely in a real democracy the voters should give their vote to the person best able to relate to, and deal with local problems as well.
LazyGun has hit the nail on the head. The coalition is an unholy alliance with very little support at grassroots level from either side.
"Real democracy" posits a well informed electorate. 'nuff said.
The phenomenon you mention, Khandro, is a product of party politics. As it stands realistically the country is faced with only two packages of measures (Labour and Conservative) from which to choose. For many the issue of who actually represents them at Westminster is not something they consider; they simply vote for the party they would prefer to form a government. In most General Elections the overall outcome is decided by the results in a small number of marginal seats.

It will not change unless the country reverts to a system where independent MPs are elected by constituents who will represent their individual interests on a wide range of topics and who are prepared to vote according to the needs of their constituents and not the needs of the party. Because of the vested interests of the political parties this will not happen.

Any form of proportional representation will only make this situation worse. In many versions of PR It will be for the parties to decide who goes to Westminster. Far from being members who represent their constituents’ interests MPs will simply be chosen by the parity to fill the required number of seats to which they are entitled. The notion that electors choose their MP according to how he or she will represent their interests will become even more unlikely.
Its a councel of perfectiom me learned friend. Possibly the nearest we could get to it would be to increase the say had by constituency parties. To what extent could their autonomy in candidate selection be enhanced?
sorry "counsel"
Anotheoldgit, maths not your strong point, or did you count the labour vote
http://i.telegraph.co...ATPORTAL_1804169a.jpg

Well what can one say, except "a typical politicians answer"?
Sorry it missed out the answer which was,

Our candidate shook hands with lots of voters and didn't catch flu - which is an excellent result.
Khandro /
Lazybones /
I was surprised by both of your answers . Apart from by-elections where a government has only a tiny majority ( less than 6 ) the turn out is nearly always low. The reason is simple its not going to change the policies of the government.
With regards to local issues, MPs have very little real power . Its Westminster that calls the shots and will over-ride the locals whenever they choose.
What is more, you ask people who their MP is and in most cases they don't know. At best they know which party he/she is and form an opinion on that, not on the attributes of the MP. I have been a political canvasser so I speak from experience. It has to be a major local issue to have any affect and even then not in safe seats because most people realise it's not going to affect central government.
Exactly modeller. All down to party politics.
Question Author
I believe, in truth, you are correct modeller, and the way things are, the issues pertinant to the consituency of Oldham are considered to be similar to those of Kensington,Tyneside, or wherever. This only highlights the need for political reform, I feel.
Wasn't the Labour candidate a white woman? Where would the racism come into this election?

1 to 20 of 26rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Oldham bi-election

Answer Question >>