Who will win Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, 2017

[Super Slo Mo]

Digga said:

TBF, I suppose, from your perspective, it's all pretty amusing either way?

I guess so. I would prefer to see Mr Snell out of politics and doing something more suited to him, like cleaning toilets with his bare hands. In the absence of that, causing havoc on the other side of the city boundary will have to suffice.

Digga said:

I do sort of see why Stoke feels disenfranchised - compared to near neighbours, it does not seem to have fared as well and that alone, notwithstanding any immigrant issues (I've no idea whether they exist or not, or are even perceived by many to exists for that matter) could be enough to form the basis of strong protest voting.

I agree, Stoke has been poor for decades, and is a bit of an anomaly in that most if not all of the nicer areas are actually outside of the Stoke boundaries (ie Cheshire/Newcastle/Stafford/Staffs Moorlands).
Things are changing to some degree, there've been a number of smarter housing estates springing up over the last 10 years or so, and many of the manual type jobs have changed to relatively clean work like call centres and distribution centres (although over a longer time period to be fair, 20 years or so).

I don't think immigrant issues are any worse than anywhere else, although reality and the perception of the locals may well not correlate of course. I think immigration, or, if we are being more realistic, simple and primitive tribalism are the fundamental drivers of the UKIP/Brexit support.

There is a huge proportion of the local population who generally don't leave the area (apart from say a week in Benidorm/Alicante, or whatever the latest cheap holiday hotspot is these days), so view outsiders with suspicion.

[IanH755]

Super Slo Mo said:

There is a huge proportion of the local population who generally don't leave the area (apart from say a week in Benidorm/Alicante, or whatever the latest cheap holiday hotspot is these days), so view outsiders with suspicion.

aka My sister

When I pop back it's interesting to see how "I" perceive the increase in numbers of immigrants vs how my sister does. I see it more as an increase in Eastern Europeans where as sister sees it as more Asian families which, TBF, is probably correct for the area of Hanley she lives in as opposed to the whole of Stoke as I see it.

Either way the "locals" tend to have a deep suspicion of anyone who isn't a born and bred Stokey, no matter where you came from.

[don4l]

Super Slo Mo said:

There is a huge proportion of the local population who generally don't leave the area (apart from say a week in Benidorm/Alicante, or whatever the latest cheap holiday hotspot is these days), so view outsiders with suspicion.

My sister in law has a place in Altea, just up the road from Benidorm. Every year we have a night out in Benidorm. Parts of it are like the TV series, but most of it is brilliant, with fantastic restaurants.

Last August 7 of us had a meal for €52.00 (including wine). It would have cost that much per head here.

[Einion Yrth]

Seems to be every likelihood of Nuttal winning; he seems to be a complete bell-end. What does this tell us about the other candidates?

[XCP]

I think he might have problems with this false address business.

[Super Slo Mo]

don4l said:

My sister in law has a place in Altea, just up the road from Benidorm. Every year we have a night out in Benidorm. Parts of it are like the TV series, but most of it is brilliant, with fantastic restaurants.

Last August 7 of us had a meal for €52.00 (including wine). It would have cost that much per head here.

I was just generalising to be honest. I know very well that away from the main touristy areas most of these places are just fine.
Most of the Stokies I know wouldn't venture further than the nearest greasy spoon cafe by the beach.

[Halb]

FN2TypeR said:

I wondered the same thing - that tweed suit was despicable.

And how about Fred Dibnah's cap?

[Hayek]

FN2TypeR said:

hyphen said:

FN2TypeR said:

MiniMan64 said:

The flip side of that argument is that if Nuttall doesn't win it now he's going to look like a right tit.

Doesn't he look like one anyway?

Has he borrowed Farage's wardrobe since becoming leader, Or has he always dressed like that?

I wondered the same thing - that tweed suit was despicable.

I noticed this. Weird dressed up tweed overload. A caricature.

[BlackLabel]

Panic over, Nuttall's in the house.

https://order-order.com/2017/02/02/inside-paul-nut...

[hyphen]

Complaint has already been made though. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/02/p...

In the event of it being a non issue-the negative headlines may still put off some voters, very shoddy, same as when that other fella missed the deadline to get his leadership election form in. They have had a long time to get more professional, cutting corners should have stopped a long time ago.

[alfie2244]

I know its entirely his stupid fault but do these people not have agents / sponsors/ nominators or at least a secretary that could give them some advice, guidance on these things?

[BJG1]

Yipper said:

Yes, right now, the bookies are calling 4/6 for a Labour win...

But... if you look at the quantity of bets placed today, almost 50% are going on UKIP...

If you look at the Brexit and Trump betting, it was the "quantity of underlying bets placed" (not the odds published) that predicted the correct winner...

If that trend holds true, UKIP will win Stoke in the next few weeks.

It isn't a trend if it happened once.

Basing the chances of something happening on the number of bets placed on it is dumb. If I gave 100/1 on a coin toss for heads nobody would bet on tails but it'd still have a 50% chance of winning.

[SKP555]

Odd situation. Does anyone know how this normally works when parties parachute in outside candidates? Presumably in a very similar way, if a little slicker?

Thing is if they don't succeed in excluding him they are giving him great publicity as the outsider being picked on by the establishment.

If they do succeed then they double that effect and even if Labour hold the seat they are building up massive resentment.

[Hayek]

SKP555 said:

Thing is if they don't succeed in excluding him they are giving him great publicity as the outsider being picked on by the establishment.

If they do succeed then they double that effect and even if Labour hold the seat they are building up massive resentment.

Exactly and you're right. Public opinion will continue to move in the way it would have done anyway.

[Digga]

Hayek said:

SKP555 said:

Thing is if they don't succeed in excluding him they are giving him great publicity as the outsider being picked on by the establishment.

If they do succeed then they double that effect and even if Labour hold the seat they are building up massive resentment.

Exactly and you're right. Public opinion will continue to move in the way it would have done anyway.

Very toxic scenario. I do wonder whether Labour's PR people are capable of looking even one half of one move ahead from their latest campaign idea.

[Pesty]

SKP555 said:

Odd situation. Does anyone know how this normally works when parties parachute in outside candidates? Presumably in a very similar way, if a little slicker?

Thing is if they don't succeed in excluding him they are giving him great publicity as the outsider being picked on by the establishment.

If they do succeed then they double that effect and even if Labour hold the seat they are building up massive resentment.

Labour have done thus for as long as I remember. Put shining stars in safe seats. I'm not seeing what the issue is here with nuttal. ( house wise)

[SKP555]

In fairness it seems to be Channel 4 rather than Labour who have taken up this crusade. Where the particular journalists loyalties lie we can only guess.

In another way that's even better for UKIP, as it feeds the establishment media narrative.

[Halb]

Parachuting candidates is done by all parties, I don't like it myself, I think there should be a rule/law on locals only being short-listed.
This will be interesting if nothing else.

[Hayek]

Digga said:

Hayek said:

SKP555 said:

Thing is if they don't succeed in excluding him they are giving him great publicity as the outsider being picked on by the establishment.

If they do succeed then they double that effect and even if Labour hold the seat they are building up massive resentment.

Exactly and you're right. Public opinion will continue to move in the way it would have done anyway.

Very toxic scenario. I do wonder whether Labour's PR people are capable of looking even one half of one move ahead from their latest campaign idea.

I think this is where the phrase 'being ahead of public opinion' makes sense.

For many of the Brexiteers, UKIP have successfully been ahead of opinion (and taken people with them). To me that means saying things that people are thinking that are outside of what is considered acceptable for a politician to say, but not so far ahead of public opinion that people decide what has been said is indefensible (no matter how true it might be).

Currently Labour are chasing public opinion and have not yet found the courage to put themselves ahead of it. They probably never will. This means that with their track record, UKIP sympathetic voters will think 'all talk no action' or similar. I'm inclined to think that unless they can get ahead of public opinion they may as well not even try to chase it.

[Digga]

Hayek said:

Digga said:

Hayek said:

SKP555 said:

Thing is if they don't succeed in excluding him they are giving him great publicity as the outsider being picked on by the establishment.

If they do succeed then they double that effect and even if Labour hold the seat they are building up massive resentment.

Exactly and you're right. Public opinion will continue to move in the way it would have done anyway.

Very toxic scenario. I do wonder whether Labour's PR people are capable of looking even one half of one move ahead from their latest campaign idea.

I think this is where the phrase 'being ahead of public opinion' makes sense.

For many of the Brexiteers, UKIP have successfully been ahead of opinion (and taken people with them). To me that means saying things that people are thinking that are outside of what is considered acceptable for a politician to say, but not so far ahead of public opinion that people decide what has been said is indefensible (no matter how true it might be).

Currently Labour are chasing public opinion and have not yet found the courage to put themselves ahead of it. They probably never will. This means that with their track record, UKIP sympathetic voters will think 'all talk no action' or similar. I'm inclined to think that unless they can get ahead of public opinion they may as well not even try to chase it.

I agree with your opinion there, but for Labour, there just also seems to be this perpetual clusterfk of glass-house, own-goal scoring; they seem highly adept at throwing a lot of weight behind ad hom criticisms of opposing candidates that can quickly, easily and predictably blow up in their faces as the targets fire back examples of similar, worse or multiple cases of Labour candidates doing similar.