Friday
Jun272008
Another kick in the teeth for Labour
Friday, June 27, 2008 Result of yesterday's Henley by-election: John Howell (Conservative) 19,796; Stephen Kearney (Lib Dems) 9,680; Mark Stevenson (Green) 1,321; Timothy Rait (BNP) 1,243; Richard McKenzie (Labour) 1,066; Chris Adams (UKIP) 843.
Although Henley is a safe Tory seat, coming fifth behind the BNP is a disaster for Labour and Gordon Brown in particular. There has been a sea-change in British politics over the past nine months (ever since the PM bottled calling a general election) and nothing, it seems, can keep Labour in power after the next election.
Reader Comments (12)
I believe labour lost their deposit as well! Says it all doesn't it. Roll on the next election
Of course it has nothing whatsover to do with the smoking ban has it ?
How can Nu Labour be treated so badly when after all they are concerened for your health and wellbeing are they not ?
The toadies and the media will soon be spouting what a resounding sucess the ban is and how popular it is with all and sundry apart from a 'few'fringe groups.No mention will be made for the ban as one contributory factor to NULabs downfall.
I would like to think that Labour's downfall had something to do with them bringing in the smoking ban, but I'm afraid that hasn't influenced it at all.
If that were the case, then almost every government throughout Europe would be on the ropes wouldn't they? But I am afraid they aren't. Labour has lost the plot entirely, and the smoking ban is just a small part of it.
The only way we might ever find out if the smoking ban has influenced voters at all, is if UKIP fielded a candidate at an forthcoming by-election, and outrightly stood on a pro-smoking platform. So come on Nigel Farage, here's your chance to show us if you would dare use the smoking ban on your next platform. I noticed your MP didn't even mention it on last night's TV broadcast?
The only way we might ever find out if the smoking ban has influenced voters at all, is if UKIP fielded a candidate at an forthcoming by-election, and outrightly stood on a pro-smoking platform - Peter Thurgood
Why so? The smoking ban is probably for many people simply the icing on a very nasty cake. It sums up everything that's wrong. But make a single issue of it, and set it above everything else Labour has done, and ask people to vote on this single issue, and I imagine that most people would decline to do so.
The same might easily be true if a single issue were made of every individual thing people don't like about this government. If someone ran simply on the platform of getting rid of Gordon Brown, and nothing else, they might not attract many votes either. The same also for the Iraq war, the Afghan war, economic slump, and so on. It is never an individual issue that counts for so much. It is always a combination.
I agree with Frank that there is a plethora of reasons to not vote Labour and I have been a socialist all my life. They are in political meltdown and seem to be trying their best not to be elected, just as Ireland tried to lose the Eurovision Song Contest in an episode of Father Ted or the shenanigans in Mel Brook's The Producers. Why else would they trot out Harriot 'the Harridan' Harman yesterday with a policy announcement that played right into the hands of the BNP?
Positive discrimination in favour of women, the disabled and ethnic minorities is to be legalised and encouraged at a time when the average person in the street is already struggling and redundancies are soaring. It is now acceptable to discriminate against white, able bodied men and if they happen to enjoy a cigarette it is actively encouraged to attack them. I do not believe in any form of discrimination and have marched against racism but this type of legislation only sets equality back and gives succour to racists everywhere. I am sure that most women and minority groupings would condemn this piece of legislation as in future they will not be able to say that they got where they did on merit. The racists and bigots can belittle the genuine achievements of minorities by quoting affirmative action and positive discrimination.
I used the smoking ban issue, Frank, because Peter James, in the post prior to mine, said "No mention will be made for the ban as one contributory factor to NULabs downfall."
My point was, and is, that I disagree with his views on this, and the only way to prove otherwise, is for a party, such as UKIP, whom we all know are against the ban, to stand in a by-election, and promote their views on the smoking ban. I did not mean that they should stand on a one issue manifesto, as they do have a full manifesto they could also promote, but to make sure they ley the electorate know, the smoking ban was high on their agenda.
If they then gained a substantial amount of votes more than they normally would in such an election, we would surely know, that the smoking ban really meant something to the majority of voters.
If this did happen, it would of course, also wake up the three main political parties to what the electorate are really looking for and voting for. Do you see what I mean?
Even so, Peter is right. I did write an impassioned letter to Nigel Farrage to point out the importance of a public statement regarding repeal of the smoking ban prior to the by-election.
I can understand the reluctance of any party to include this hot potato in their public announcements, as the majority of voters are now non-smokers and, seemingly, in favour of the ban. However, there is a very good case to be made if one approaches the subject not only from a sympathetic "poor old smokers" angle but from the point of view of the unemployment and devastation it has caused to businesses, and the suffering and isolation it has caused by pub closures, especially in rural communities.
I could write to them with a very good reasoned case for repeal of this and all other Nanny state restrictive new laws. In fact, I will! I know they intend to repeal all new restrictive laws, but they really do need to say so.
The UKIP manifesto is a very good one and does cover all aspects of government - it is not just a single issue party. However, they are always up against the longer etablished BNP which waters down their potential votes.
They really do need to come up with a positive statement on the smoking ban issue, especially as many non-smokers are not in favour of a total ban either.
So I will see what I can do.
This by-election was in a Tory strong-hold, of course, and so the results were a foregone conclusion, however it is very interesting to see how far down the list Labour came.
I agree with Michael Peoples, this latest gem is gob-smackingly wrong. I do begin to wonder whether the Labour leaders are under direct paid-for instruction by the EU to show that government by the EU would be better than control by our elected government. It really does make you wonder?
I did not mean that they should stand on a one issue manifesto, as they do have a full manifesto they could also promote, but to make sure they ley the electorate know, the smoking ban was high on their agenda - Peter Thurgood.
Very well. But now that your proposed UKIP merely has the smoking ban 'high on its agenda', there are now other policies in play. UKIP is primarily anti-EU rather than pro-smoking. What if some voters are both anti-EU and anti-smoking? Or pro-smoking and pro-EU? How are we to know whether any gains or losses to UKIP's vote are purely a consequence of their new pro-smoking policy, and not of other policies?.
Suppose, for example, that UKIP's share of the vote did not change as a result of this change of policy. Might we deduce that nobody was bothered one way or the other? Perhaps, but if one was to discover that half of UKIP's antismoking voters had deserted them over their pro-smoking policy, and had been replaced by smokers, one would have to conclude that the issue was very heated indeed.
For a start Frank, they are not MY UKIP. I am a Conservative.
And what if and what if and what if the sky fell in as well?
Good God Frank!
If 10 million of the 12-15 million smokers in the UK were against the ban, then each of these people must have at least two friends and family who agree with them, surely. Simple maths shows then that 30 million would be against a blanket ban, 3 friends/family each =40 million. A large MAJORITY of the adult poulation. I believe this is nearer the truth.
And what if and what if and what if... - Peter Thurgood
It's not me that has engaged in supposition, but you, in speculating about UKIP. I simply wanted to point out that we wouldn't find out much about the strength of feeling about the ban should UKIP place opposition to the ban high on its agenda.
Margot. It was in the Times yesterday about Harriet The Harriden and apparently she suggested that some sort of EU regulatory body be brought in to oversee the matter.
Says it all.