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

[Yipper]

UKIP was on for a surefire victory in Stoke in January. UKIP was getting 70% of all bets placed at the bookies and its odds were equal with Labour. But the Channel 4 exposure that Nuttall had lied about living in Stoke, and the lies about Hillsborough on his website, followed by his weak and flustered response, killed off UKIP and it plunged to 20% of bets in February.

Really goes to show UKIP is a one-man band (Farage) and the party does not have a longterm future. UKIP will be gone within 10 to 20 years.

[Digga]

Yipper said:

UKIP was on for a surefire victory in Stoke in January. UKIP was getting 70% of all bets placed at the bookies and its odds were equal with Labour. But the Channel 4 exposure that Nuttall had lied about living in Stoke, and the lies about Hillsborough on his website, followed by his weak and flustered response, killed off UKIP and it plunged to 20% of bets in February.

Really goes to show UKIP is a one-man band (Farage) and the party does not have a longterm future. UKIP will be gone within 10 to 20 years.

There is not a word of this post that I have not considered or would disagree with.

Nuttall and UKIP ended up looking about as competent and useful as a monkey humping a beach ball.

[hyphen]

Yipper said:

Really goes to show UKIP is a one-man band (Farage) and the party does not have a longterm future. UKIP will be gone within 10 to 20 years.

2 years if the Brexit negotiations go well, otherwise longer if a weak deal is agreed to UKIP voters standards (namely freedom of movement not sufficiently tackled).

Farage with his star appeal failed to win any MPs with even Reckless losing his seat (Carswell is an exception) so Nutall has no hope after Brexit.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 24th February 10:24

[FN2TypeR]

hyphen said:

Not sure why Postal Votes are being focused on here when it is the low turnout overall that is the main thing.

Nutall blew it, his shenanigans meant voters just didn't bother turning up. An analyst on the radio this morning also said that in his opinion UKIP also went too all out on getting in the Labour voters, and ended up overlooking the Tory voters which they really needed to win.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 24th February 10:07

Agreed entirely.

Labour didn't win this, the Kippers lost it - they threw it away.

[Deptford Draylons]

MarshPhantom said:

Well it's a larger majority than The Tories in Copeland, who also came third in Stoke.

Do you have a relative who once did som PR work in Iraq ?

[Murph7355]

hyphen said:

2 years if the Brexit negotiations go well, otherwise longer if a weak deal is agreed to UKIP voters standards (namely freedom of movement not sufficiently tackled)...

I agree. And I don't see May letting FoM continue in any material way.

There may be the odd UKIP banner/rosette at the next election, but after that I don't see them existing.

(Even Carswell, who I once thought spoke sense, came across as a buffoon on QT last night. Which takes some doing when he's sat next to Angela Rayner! Nuttall has always been a liability).

[Digga]

Murph7355 said:

I agree. And I don't see May letting FoM continue in any material way.

For someone who, pre-Referendum, aligned herself with the Remain camp, I am extremely impressed both with the way May understands the issues voters were concerned about, and also with the way she is undertaking the task at hand.

[rscott]

Digga said:

FN2TypeR said:

Digga said:

rscott said:

Figures are here - http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-de...

The total number of ballot papers counted was 21,200
4,335 postal votes
16,865 polling votes

I know little about these things, but at face value, the proportion of postal ballots stands out as higher than I would expect. I smell rodents.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7419

"how many people use postal votes?".

Fascinating, thanks.

I'd wager most postal votes were Labour and possibly came from certain communities who felt a Labour win was to their best advantage.

Reports from twitter that the postal vote split was pretty even - https://twitter.com/CllrStopp/status/8349119746475...

tweet said:

i hear from #StokeCentral that postal vote split three ways. 31% for Labour and 29% for UKIP and Tories. Anyone's game.

[wc98]

Yipper said:

UKIP was on for a surefire victory in Stoke in January. UKIP was getting 70% of all bets placed at the bookies and its odds were equal with Labour. But the Channel 4 exposure that Nuttall had lied about living in Stoke, and the lies about Hillsborough on his website, followed by his weak and flustered response, killed off UKIP and it plunged to 20% of bets in February.

Really goes to show UKIP is a one-man band (Farage) and the party does not have a longterm future. UKIP will be gone within 10 to 20 years.

i would agree with all of this apart from how long it will take ukip to disappear from all but a few places in the uk. i think hyphen's timescale is more likely.

it is now very apparent that farage was the focal point that kept them all singing from the same hymn sheet ,they look a complete and utter shambles these days. good on channel 4 for digging the dirt on nuttall. we have more than enough liars involved in uk politics at the moment, we do not need anymore.

i doubt there has been a better time for a new political party in the uk than now ,i get the impression we are heading for the situation where people are voting for the best of a bad bunch and that is unlikely to end well. even if i am wrong on this, the situation where there is no effective opposition to the current government is not a good place to be for the uk.

[Dindoit]

Digga said:

FN2TypeR said:

Digga said:

rscott said:

Figures are here - http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-de...

The total number of ballot papers counted was 21,200
4,335 postal votes
16,865 polling votes

I know little about these things, but at face value, the proportion of postal ballots stands out as higher than I would expect. I smell rodents.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7419

"how many people use postal votes?".

Fascinating, thanks.

I'd wager most postal votes were Labour and possibly came from certain communities who felt a Labour win was to their best advantage.

Mask is slipping

[Halb]

Dindoit said:

Has Nuttall updated his page yet to say he won?

That's what a UKiPs wag said on the night.


A pretty good win for Labour. The mad scientist had lots of good stats. The 'supposed/projected' weakness of Labour in Stoke was more to do with Brexit than Corbyn, and UKiPs played it poorly.
He's probably one of the best talking heads on these shows, always offers good insight.

[turbobloke]

Dindoit said:

Digga said:

FN2TypeR said:

Digga said:

rscott said:

Figures are here - http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-de...

The total number of ballot papers counted was 21,200
4,335 postal votes
16,865 polling votes

I know little about these things, but at face value, the proportion of postal ballots stands out as higher than I would expect. I smell rodents.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7419

"how many people use postal votes?".

Fascinating, thanks.

I'd wager most postal votes were Labour and possibly came from certain communities who felt a Labour win was to their best advantage.

Mask is slipping

Not sure, but is accuracy creeping in?

[FN2TypeR]

turbobloke said:

Dindoit said:

Digga said:

FN2TypeR said:

Digga said:

rscott said:

Figures are here - http://www.stoke.gov.uk/ccm/content/council-and-de...

The total number of ballot papers counted was 21,200
4,335 postal votes
16,865 polling votes

I know little about these things, but at face value, the proportion of postal ballots stands out as higher than I would expect. I smell rodents.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7419

"how many people use postal votes?".

Fascinating, thanks.

I'd wager most postal votes were Labour and possibly came from certain communities who felt a Labour win was to their best advantage.

Mask is slipping

Not sure, but is accuracy creeping in?

I think it's safe to say that to date, the large scale postal voting fraud allegations have been centred on areas where there is a larger than average community of Asian origin.

Coincidence? Who knows?

[Digga]

Dindoit said:

Mask is slipping

Just the facts about the sort of people who have vested interests in voting Labour:

BBC said:

The seat has a relatively high number of young adults and single-person households. It has a larger than average Pakistani community. It has one of the higher rates of long-term sick or disabled residents. Unemployment is above average.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Dindoit said:

Mask is slipping

Just the facts about the sort of people who have vested interests in voting Labour:

BBC said:

The seat has a relatively high number of young adults and single-person households. It has a larger than average Pakistani community. It has one of the higher rates of long-term sick or disabled residents. Unemployment is above average.

So if these people have a legitimate "vested interest" in voting Labour - and have voted Labour - why do you "smell rodents"?

[Digga]

Roman Rhodes said:

Digga said:

Dindoit said:

Mask is slipping

Just the facts about the sort of people who have vested interests in voting Labour:

BBC said:

The seat has a relatively high number of young adults and single-person households. It has a larger than average Pakistani community. It has one of the higher rates of long-term sick or disabled residents. Unemployment is above average.

So if these people have a legitimate "vested interest" in voting Labour - and have voted Labour - why do you "smell rodents"?

See FN2TyeR's post above. Purely that postal votes have been the subject of widespread fraud before and, given their proportional significance in the result, one wonders.

Plus this:

BlackLabel said:

Vote Snell or go to hell...,,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2874633/stoke-centra...

Edited by Digga on Friday 24th February 12:19

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Digga said:

Dindoit said:

Mask is slipping

Just the facts about the sort of people who have vested interests in voting Labour:

BBC said:

The seat has a relatively high number of young adults and single-person households. It has a larger than average Pakistani community. It has one of the higher rates of long-term sick or disabled residents. Unemployment is above average.

So if these people have a legitimate "vested interest" in voting Labour - and have voted Labour - why do you "smell rodents"?

See FN2TyeR's post above. Purely that postal votes have been the subject of widespread fraud before and, given their proportional significance in the result, one wonders.

Plus this:

BlackLabel said:

Vote Snell or go to hell...,,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2874633/stoke-centra...

Edited by Digga on Friday 24th February 12:19

BlackLabel's post contained evidence of people trying to whip up support for the Labour party. Supporters of all parties do this. No rodents there.

Postal vote was 20% versus national average of 17% at the 2015 election. No rodents there.

Interesting that the postal vote % in the election yesterday more that doubled versus the 2015 election - but with a very low turnout and postal voters actually much more likely to vote, maybe not so surprising. Perhaps the faintest whiff of rodent?

I think of the 3 PH theories for UKIP's failure:

Postal votes - students.

Postal votes - Asians.

UKIP - brewery/party fail.

Perhaps the last is the most convincing.

[Countdown]

hyphen said:

Not sure why Postal Votes are being focused on here when it is the low turnout overall that is the main thing.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 24th February 10:07

Because UKIP didn't win and people need an excuse as to why it was unfair/rigged etc.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

hyphen said:

Not sure why Postal Votes are being focused on here when it is the low turnout overall that is the main thing.

Edited by hyphen on Friday 24th February 10:07

Because UKIP didn't win and people need an excuse as to why it was unfair/rigged etc.

Doesn't read that way at all.

[Digga]

Countdown said:

Because UKIP didn't win and people need an excuse as to why it was unfair/rigged etc.

Not in the least. UKIP lost the election for themselves - had they not screwed up so badly, voter turnout may have been higher, although the untimely arrival of Doris was an unfortunate factor and may well be responsible for lower turnout at the polls.

However...