Friday, March 04, 2011

Barnsley by-election is a triumph for UKIP


• Dan Jarvis (Lab) 14,724
• Jane Collins (UKIP) 2,953
• James Hockney (C) 1,999
• Enis Dalton (BNP) 1,463
• Tony Devoy (Ind) 1,266
• Dominic Carman (LD) 1,012
• Kevin Riddiough (Eng Dem) 544
• Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 198
• Michael Val Davies (Ind) 60

The nation’s media are all leading with the news that the Liberal Democrats have been trounced in the Barnsley Central by-election. It certainly comes as no surprise that Labour retained this seat, with a majority virtually the same as they achieved in last year’s General Election. My, what short memories these Yorkshire folk have: it is as though the Eric Illsley expenses saga and subsequent jailing had never happened, and as though Labour’s almost bankrupting the country and appalling record in government have been forgiven. Barnsley has returned a Labour MP at every general election since 1935: the proverbial donkey-with-a-red-rosette could have won. But the results thereafter are really quite astonishing.

The Liberal Democrats, who came second in this seat under a year ago and used to be the protest-vote darlings of all by-elections, have been shunted into sixth place, behind UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP (whose vote collapsed) and a local independent (with no party machine). It is bad enough for the Conservatives that they came in 1,000 votes behind UKIP, but for the LibDems to be beaten by the BNP and to lose their deposit is a humiliation for Nick Clegg way beyond ‘a kicking’, as they’re calling it.

The Liberal Democrat vote fell from 6,500 votes to 1,012. This is a total and utter rejection of the present direction of the party, and an unequivocal vote of no confidence in its leadership. It came on the very day that Mr Clegg made his speech on multiculturalism, in which he rowed some distance back from the Prime Minister’s more robust stance, insisting that state multiculturalism is enlightened, wholesome and beneficial.

The people of Barnsley didn’t agree: they are not ‘all in this together’, and couldn’t give a black pudding for the ‘Big Society’. And not only that, some 70 per cent of those eligible to vote simply couldn’t be bothered. That, perhaps, is the most damning indictment on our politics: when only 36.5 per cent can be bothered to register a vote, despite the advent of postal votes ‘to increase voter turnout’, the apathy and indifference of the electorate is manifest and the feeling of impotence quite palpable. The vast majority placed their invisible crosses alongside ‘None of the Above’; a fact which shames our democracy and ought to wipe the smile off the face of the Monster Raving Loony Party.

This is gritty, working-class Yorkshire, where Mr Clegg has his own constituency base in Sheffield Hallam. It may be more affluent than Barnsley Central, but it has a substantial student population who are not likely to be very forgiving of his U-turns on student tuition fees and his unqualified ‘Orange Book’ support for fiscal conservatism. If this is how broken promises and support for cuts play out in a by-election, the forthcoming local elections in May will herald very bad news indeed for Mr Clegg. Indeed, he is not likely to hold Sheffield Hallam at the next general election.

But the real story, ignored by much of the media and downplayed where it is mentioned, is that UKIP came second: that is the real headline. Yes, it’s ‘only a by-election’, and yes, they are usually (ab)used to ‘send a message’ to the party of government, and yes, turnout was low, and yes, one must keep a sense of proportion. But UKIP came second nationally in the elections to the European Parliament in 2009 and gained almost a million votes at the last General Election. For them to come second in this Westminster by-election is a considerable achievement and very worthy of some attention.

If only they could move beyond the single-issue policy perception and the interminable focus on the personality of Nigel Farage.

68 Comments:

Anonymous Tacitus said...

Silly question perhaps, but since when is achieving less than 3,000 votes a great success for any party? the reality is they achieved less than 20% of a poll of 39% of the electorate.

Now to my mind that is hardly representative ... and hardly a great victory.

I wouldn't wait for a Tsunami of discontent to surge into the UKIP membership department.

4 March 2011 at 09:19  
Blogger Paul Perrin (@pperrin) said...

The focus on Nigel is all the attention the media give us.

People are seeing that the EU and external powers have more influence/control over our lives and country than our own elected MPs do.

We are lucky that Cameron is so poor at hiding this - it was true under Blair/Brown too but they hid is so much better.

You will note that in none of the 'anti' EU/ECHR stories (prison votes, fish discards, car insurance etc) UKIP don't get a mention despite having been campaigning on this for many years!!

4 March 2011 at 09:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If voting for the Lib Dems is traditionally a protest vote against Labour, could it be that voting UKIP is becoming a viable way of registering a protest vote against the Conservatives?

4 March 2011 at 09:46  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It's a start!

4 March 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Thanks (Cranmer) for this prompt and helpful appraisal. It is fairly well known that there is likely to be a goodly number of discontented Tories going to UKIP but where will LibDems be going? Paul Perrin has more than a minor point.

4 March 2011 at 09:57  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

The LibDems have discovered that it is easy to be "All things to All men" when in opposition, but when you get into power and actually have to make, or even share, decisions, life becomes far more difficult.
But as usual, minimal mention of UKIP on the BBC, not even any comment on the fact that they beat the Tories into third place which is surly a newsworthy event. But then they can't make all the nasty comments about UKIP, that they would be able to make if, say, the BNPs had achieved a similar result, so their only option is to ignore UKIP.

4 March 2011 at 10:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cleggs U-turn on tuition fees and Cameron's U-turn on an EU referendum will both damage the Coalition at the polls.

4 March 2011 at 10:59  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Your Grace

Thank you for your interesting little post.

Ernst has been viewing the by-election with keen interest, to see if there is any spine within the english voting public regarding the situation they find themselves in.

It appears that they (political class) can bankrupt, unemploy, dismantle armed forces and decimate public services, ignore lax regulations with a nod and a wink or the financial greed by the banking sector, delude the public that they can have a referendum on Europe but then use any means necessary to deny this promise and everyone keeps their political 'Clan Badge' firmly on the lapel.

Ernst is surprised that people are surprised!

As you can gather, Ernst is apolitical..Politico's are an unfortunate evil that must have a beady eye kept on them.
They enter with poetical licence about what they feel people desire and how they will do all they can to meet the aspirations of a nation but once in Parliament, the clan gets hold of them and to quote the 'Good Book' ;

"“All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

A 'career' is then born, that forgets it's heady promises made to the electorate.
Few are they that hold on to the promise made, once they walk through those famous doors in Westminster!

His Grace says 'If only they could move beyond the single-issue policy perception and the interminable focus on the personality of Nigel Farage.'

Indeed, Indeed, But is it possible?

English OAP said 4 March 2011 10:52

"But as usual, minimal mention of UKIP on the BBC, not even any comment on the fact that they beat the Tories into third place which is surly a newsworthy event. But then they can't make all the nasty comments about UKIP, that they would be able to make if, say, the BNPs had achieved a similar result, so their only option is to ignore UKIP." Sage words indeed, my dicerning OAP but when having to swallow the 'Unbiased' reporting of BBC, 'Is the Pope a Catholic' springs to mind when exclaiming shock at their blatant stance on anything but true reporting of the news .

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 11:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The British National Party beat the Lib Dems, a party in government. Fantastic result.

4 March 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Anonymous said 4 March 2011 11:15

"The British National Party beat the Lib Dems, a party in government. Fantastic result."

I think you will find that an independent with no political machinery behind him also beat LD's... Tony Devoy (Ind) 1,266.

However the significant result, with the potential to do more damage to Lab\Lib\Con (one size fits all) politics, was UKIP, my anonymous fellow communicant!

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 11:26  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I'm with the 64% who voted with their feet. Who came 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th & 6th matters not one bit. You may just as well pick the names from a hat for all the difference it makes.

Just one small point. Why do you say the BNP vote collapsed when - according to your little graph - it suffered a fairly insignificant change compared to the conservatives & libdems?

4 March 2011 at 11:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Rebel Saint,

Because the others are the parties of government, traditionally punished by voters in a by-election. If the BNP cannot increase their proportion of the vote in a by-election (indeed, suffer a 30% decrease), it really does amount to a collapse.

4 March 2011 at 11:36  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Rebellious One said 4 March 2011 11:32

Old Chap.

Ernst agrees with your comment 'Who came 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th & 6th matters not one bit. You may just as well pick the names from a hat for all the difference it makes.' as in May 2010, Ernst voted nationally for UKIP but had to hold his nose whilst voting in the local elections.

I agree with His Grace 4 March 2011 11:36, however it may be a possible premature collapse but Ernst is of the unfortunate opinion that, should there be some terrible atrocity committed by extremists, say during the upcoming wedding (God Forbid), or the deficit cuts bite hard into the working class in traditional Labour held areas, you will see it rise significantly.

UKIP is an 'angry' protest vote whilst BNP is the 'fury' vote, if it rises again, as it has done over the last few years.

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 11:52  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Suffered a 30% decrease?

My maths shows they polled 55% less votes.

But if that is the measure we are to use, the conservatives saw a 69% reduction in their vote!

I hate to be the one who always has to be an apologist for the BNP - but I am always in favour of fairness in reporting, even when it is of our enemies.

You cannot possibly report that there was a collapse in the BNP vote when they registered the smallest swing & reduction. The BNP vote is back to it pre-2010 level. The conservatives is way below that.

I expect better of you.

4 March 2011 at 11:57  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Suffered a 30% decrease?

My maths shows they polled 55% less votes.

But if that is the measure we are to use, the conservatives saw a 69% reduction in their vote!

I hate to be the one who always has to be an apologist for the BNP - but I am always in favour of fairness in reporting, even when it is of our enemies.

You cannot possibly report that there was a collapse in the BNP vote when they registered the smallest swing & reduction. The BNP vote is back to it pre-2010 level. The conservatives is way below that.

I expect better of you.

4 March 2011 at 11:57  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Rebel, Rebel said 4 March 2011 11:57

'You cannot possibly report that there was a collapse in the BNP vote when they registered the smallest swing & reduction. The BNP vote is back to it pre-2010 level. The conservatives is way below that.'

Old chap, I think you miss His Grace's point, that the time to maximise discontent through a vote is at a by-election rather than General..

'I hate to be the one who always has to be an apologist for the BNP - but I am always in favour of fairness in reporting, even when it is of our enemies.'

They, BNP, indeed had some very sound policies in their manifesto, such as reclaimimg our energy infrastucture back to the people, which none of the others suggested, so viewing them as fairly as possible when examining what they claim is correct and I applaud your statement.

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Rebel Saint,

You are correct. His Grace misread the data. But that means His Grace's point is even more justified. The BNP polled just 6.04% of the vote, that is -2.9% on their showing last year. Mr Ernst Savro Blofeld expresses eloquently the significance of this. The coalition parties might have expected a 'kicking'. But the BNP meltdown is catastrophic for the party.

4 March 2011 at 12:15  
Anonymous Tacitus said...

I sincerely hope your Grace will disassociate himself from the pro-far right comments being posted on this thread. It really is quite disturbing how the BNP - a party that emerged out of British fascism and still retains links with the extreme right - continues to be accpeted as a legitimate political force.

God help us if they popularity were to increase.

4 March 2011 at 12:16  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Your Grace

There is something wrong with your comment section..
It has asked me to resend comments 4 March 2011 12:09 again and duplicate similar to rebel saint 4 March 2011 11:57.

A glitch?


E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 12:17  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Tacitus 4 March 2011 12:16

Who has expressed support of BNP here today, my lad.

It is mere discussion, my girlie offended liberal?

Get a grip..It's called 'balanced discernment' showing the good with the bad or are you saying reclaiming our energy infrastucture, so it benefits the people, is bad as the BNP said it rather than other parties?.

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 12:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tacitus,

Are you reading a different thread?

There is one Anonymous comment lauding the BNP's 'fantastic result'. It is swiftly swatted by Mr Blofeld. His Grace's blog is a bastion of free speech, and reason is better than censorship. Loathsome as some BNP policies may be, the party is legally constituted and sits in the European Parliament. Further, unlike Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness (who clearly have their fans on this blog), the BNP, to His Grace's knowledge, have never tortured, murdered or bombed anyone.

4 March 2011 at 12:24  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

His Grace said

"His Grace's blog is a bastion of free speech, and reason is better than censorship."

As your blog is an oasis in a very dry desert, Long may it continue!

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 12:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really don't believe there is any reason not to vote, 35% is pathetic, and no one here can claim victory with any real honesty.

And before the inevitable "but they are all the same", that's rubbish and you know it.

And one guy stood up as an independant, why can't you if you insist they are all as bad?

Oh that's right, lazyness and apathy.

4 March 2011 at 13:02  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Enis Dalton (BNP) 1,463"

Greater than zero is a wonder in itself.

4 March 2011 at 13:02  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"I really don't believe there is any reason not to vote"

Well, quite, even if attending just means writing something rude over the voting form.

4 March 2011 at 13:08  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Tacitus ... I'm afraid it's attitudes such as yours which actually INCREASE support for the BNP and their ilk. When you malign and ridicule and persecute people because of their views, or when you say they shouldn't even be allowed to have those views - you do not change their minds. Rather you simply cause their resentment to fester & their opinions to harden. As I consistently argue, the best way to beat the BNP is to beat them, not to rig things against them.

I really wish you'd had the chance to come out canvassing with me last May. You'd be dismayed I'm sure to find out just how much latent support their is for the BNP - even amongst black & ethnic minority population. The BNP's problem (or the blessing as far as the other parties are concerned) is that their core support base consists mainly of the DE group (in the NRS social grades) who have zero interest in party politics and just can't be arsed to vote.

My suspicion is that the BNP support hasn't changed that much at all. But job cuts and - more importantly - benefit cuts have pushed concerns about immigration off top spot for many of the C2DE's. Also, they've already voted once this year so do they really have to go out and do it all again so soon?!

The intertwined issues of immigration, multiculturalism & islmaification may have taken a back seat for the time being but they have not yet been addressed satisfactorily for many people and they will come to the fore again I'm sure.

@Ernst ... can't normally be bothered to read you comments as they all seemed to be extremely silly. However, I accept your explanation of His Grace's views. But for the reasons I express above, I think they are rather premature. And when people try and make grand conjectures based upon minuscule numbers of votes in an insignificant by-election, I get a little cynical.

My take on this election result is that it means nothing of significance to the vast majority of people.

4 March 2011 at 13:10  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"As I consistently argue, the best way to beat the BNP is to beat them, not to rig things against them."

Not with fists, I hope.

I think the best way is to periodically subject their individual policies to calm and rigorous scrutiny in public, as we do with mainstream parties, and highlight the overall political and philosophical theme and coherence of the combined policies.

4 March 2011 at 13:23  
Anonymous Jonathan Stuart-Brown said...

Your Grace...the key word in your sermon is 'if'.
Without doubt UKIP are seen as credible in Europolls and could in 2013 outpoll all other parties in the UK.
Of course by then The EU might just appoint our European Parliament delegates without election AND also appoint our Westminster and other regional governors.
Nigel Farage is an excellent TV spokesperson and debater BUT seems to have massive failings as a organiser and as a leader behind the scenes when the cameras are not present.
His stepping aside during The General Election campaign for a new leader who unashamedly sabotaged the UKIP vote by campaigning against his own candidates was genuine monster raving looney territory.
The dogs breakfast they made between June 2009 and May 2010 was breath taking to behold. It took place all over the UK.
There was also the expulsion of a leadership candidate Nikki Sinclaire and other antics which turned off people who would have voted for them.
The leader during the election campaign(not Farage) seemed to want to undermine the UKIP vote by telling people not to vote for UKIP candidates but to vote for his Conservative mates who had credible eurosceptic qualifications. The result in those constituencies (with a big eurosceptic vote) was to get EU adoring MPs.
The leader admitted he had not read the manifesto.
It is not that UKIP had not had media coverage. It was that they wasted it to self-destruct.
Somewhere between 25 000 and 50 000people have joined UKIP (ie more than LibDem party members) and then left after seeing what a mess it is on the inside.
Its biggest donors did not stay with it in the General election, with one forming his own party to stand as an independent.
When Dr Richard A E North (a former UKIP man) will not be involved while the present leader is at the helm, THEN you know it has huge self-inflicted difficulties which may not be solvable.
UKIPs main role is to stop a credible UKIP type party filling the vacuum which exists in the UK political system: non-racist, right of centre, small government, low tax, self-governing not subject to EU government.
There is a big UKIP vote out there but this UKIP has managed to let it slip through its fingers. It never fails to miss an opportunity to self-destruct.
It has raised hopes time and again - because the UKIP vote is out there and probably at least 5 million core vote - and then turn off its own voters.
At the same time the three main parties are the three main parties because they have in the media and in every major town a strong felt legitimacy and an even stronger organisation not depending on any individual. UKIPs real failure is the almost total absence of councillors in the UK. Plus an almost complete lack of interest in getting them or doing any council work if they do.
If they had built up from this local authority base rather than the EuroPoll base, then they could be a force. But they have not. It is just another 'if'. So they are seen as a horse for only one course ie the EuroPoll protest.
They may now add another speciality which is the by-election protest vote when the actual winner is 100% known in advance.
In a real contest, their protest vote is likely to melt away.
Even if they have a few by-election moments, the momentum will collapse at the May local authority elections.
The felt legitimacy of the three main parties is decreasing but UKIP need such an influx of talent, money, energy and experience (which the present UKIP incumbents specialise in deterring) that the only real significance of last night seems to be the collapse of The LibDems which may lead to a palace coup against Nick Clegg.
Meanwhile The EU marches on and those who believe it is one of the kingdoms prophecied by Daniel
(the one made of iron and clay)can say that it is as unstoppable as was Alexander The Great. Those who surrendered to him prospered. Those who opposed him were crushed horribly. It may be to oppose the rise of The EU is to oppose a prophecy in God's Word. If so, it is a hopeless cause.

4 March 2011 at 13:34  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Just to add to the pot the fact that whilst Labour won by some way, they still only garnered the support 24% (rounded up) of the electorate. Surely this is the second most important story after the UKIP result, that a party who are clearly saying they are against cuts, and thus with a large number of people on the issue, still could not inspire a quarter of the voters to turn up and support them.
It is a sad indictment of the impact Labour has clearly had on people's opinion of politics and politicians.

4 March 2011 at 14:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is strange how the media, politicians and commentators keep on saying that the British National Party is “finished” or is in “meltdown”. Perhaps that is some kind of comfort blanket? Having just visited their website I see no evidence of that. In fact, it appears they are readying themselves for May’s election in Wales which is under the same or similar proportional system to that which saw their first two MEPs enter the EU parliament. I wish them luck with their meagre resources against a constant barrage of biased media reporting.

As for UKIP, why don’t they show how committed they are to pulling out of the EU? We never hear anything from them between elections. Why not rock the boat more? I don’t mean by silly little stunts outside the EU parliament. If the electorate have lost faith in the ‘democratic’ process then why not apply pressure by organising a peaceful protest march to Westminster demanding a referendum on continued EU membership? UKIP would be sure to get support and more free positive publicity from a large swathe of the media, especially the Daily Express unless the Express campaign is a farce, which it most likely is. If we can have a referendum on AV without even asking for it then surely it must be possible to have a referendum on EU membership as Cameron ‘promised’ us before the general election?

4 March 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace’s ecstasy over a minimal fall in the BNP vote is ill-founded. The legal costs that the party has had to face over the past year mean that it has little cash with which to fight elections. Add to that the unique brand of vitriol poured on the party by the media, and it is a miracle that the party does so well.

UKIP, in contrast, threw money at Barnsley; indeed, one UKIP activist was unable to contain himself at the prospect of a good result.

If Your Grace is not a complete stranger to Christian compassion, spare a thought for Nick Griffin. Because of his outspoken attacks on Christianity’s enemy, Islam, his life is under constant threat and he is protected by a security detail.

4 March 2011 at 14:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

My, what short memories these Yorkshire folk have

NO Your Grace, they have long memories. They know that the Tories have never been for them, that they closed down the mines with glee and that the only money that revitalises mining areas came from Labour.

Black Pudding is from the other side of the Pennines, but fortunately imports from Bury are permitted as are local copies.

Geoffrey Carman QC had a son Dominic, hardly the kind of candidate to appeal in Barnsley........

Dan Jarvis looks like an interesting candidate and just the kind of real world experience Cameron told us was needed in politics,,,,,,Liam Fox beware !

4 March 2011 at 14:42  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Voyager ... only flaw in your logic is that the people of Barnsley voted Labour long before the tories closed down any mines.

When they can be bothered to vote, they vote Labour because that is what their fa'ther did, and his fa'ther before them. The overwhelming majority of them give no more thought to it than that.

The money to revitalise mining areas doesn't come from Labour since they are nearly bankrupt. It comes from loans that the Labour party take out (or, when that avenue runs dry, by printing more money!) and then expect the rest of us and our children and great grandchildren to pay off for the rest of our lives.

I sincerely hope your Grace will disassociate himself from the pro-far socialist comments being posted on this thread! ;o)

4 March 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

As someone without any political loyalty or affiliation I am pleased at the UKIP performance, it comes on the back of the latest EU decision about insurance. I agree with Cranmer’s comments about the party having only one “face”. Farage is a class act and a great TV performer, but they need more strength in depth.

For the LibDems it was a disaster. Not surprising after the fiasco’s of Laws and then Cable and the total incompetence of Nick Clegg and I speak as someone who has voted for them in the past.

One of the biggest mistakes the Coalition has made is not to preface every new policy with a reminder as to why it was necessary. Labour has been getting an easy ride despite their own lack of competence although Douglas Alexander has been making some sensible comments of late about the Middle East Crisis.

The future looks bleak for the LibDems. With AV likely at the next general election I would be surprised if the main beneficiaries were not UKIP with the LibDems being pushed into 4th.

4 March 2011 at 15:17  
Anonymous PJ said...

It would be Interesting to know how this by-election would have turned out if AV was the chosen voting mechanism. How many would put UKIP as second choice?

4 March 2011 at 15:25  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@PJ ... the result would have been no different under AV. The Labour party got over 50% of the vote outright. There would have been little or no tactical voting ... there really is very little point in the other parties being there.

4 March 2011 at 15:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The money doesnt come from labour.

It comes from other people.

The mines had to close, the people there can pretend otherwise.

Now they could argue that the goverment of the time should have done more to re-train the workers, and I would agree.

But labour havent really done anything to fix it other than throw money at the area, that's not really done any good.

The people of the area have been let down by both labour and the conservatives, but voting labour is to ingraned in them to see this.

4 March 2011 at 15:57  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

As Graham Davis posts-
One of the biggest mistakes the Coalition has made is not to preface every new policy with a reminder as to why it was necessary. Labour has been getting an easy ride despite their own lack of competence

I agree and cannot understand why they are letting Labour off the hook... or is it that the Conservatives were almost as guilty as Scarlet Labour in advocating a Bankers' bonanza with no thought of the morrow.

But what is wrong with Barnsley's finest? Here is the winning candidate Dan Jarvis, an ex soldier who said of the coalition---

Your reckless policies, your broken promises and unfair! cuts are letting the country down.

Reckless policies!!! Come off it soldier!

4 March 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I will never understand the point of voting anti-eu parties into the eu.

Local and National is where we need ukip and bnp so these elections are important, the bnp vote has waned since Griffin and Brons got on the eu gravy train and joined the crowd of moaning profiteers.

But the labour turn out proves the Country desrves rogering with a large extendable accrington brick.

As does the sheep shaggers vote to give more powers to the Welsh Assembly.

4 March 2011 at 16:22  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Ummm....

Speaking as the defeated conservative in my grammar school mock elections....
Well, they shut down those excellent grammar schools in Barnsley. It's true that at least one of them was falling victim to subsidence anyway.

However, their legacy clearly remains, in the backbone of England. Even if they do have a foreign doctor or two.



wv: redstat

4 March 2011 at 16:39  
Anonymous Voyager said...

One of the biggest mistakes the Coalition has made is not to preface every new policy with a reminder as to why it was necessary.

True ! So why was increasing Foreign Aid necessary ?

Why was increasing Prescription Charges in England necessary when they are being abolished in Wales and Scotland, which are regions dependent upon English taxpayers ?

Why is it necessary to scrap Ark Royal yet build two new carriers with no aircraft ?

Why is the economy so bad we cannot afford a referendum on the EU but can afford one on AV ?

Why is it necessary to raise only £43 billion from Corporation Tax but £99 billion from National Insurance and £150 billion from Income Tax whilst the banks owe the taxpayer £300 billion which they don't want to pay back in 2012 as required ?

Explanations from the Coalition would be most welcome

4 March 2011 at 16:41  
Anonymous Voyager said...

@Voyager ... only flaw in your logic is that the people of Barnsley voted Labour long before the tories closed down any mines.

That is very true. There never was any reason for people in Barnsley to vote Conservative and "The People's Friend" is not likely to win them over......so don't be disappointed that Labour holds Barnsley just as effectively as Bercow holds Buckingham

4 March 2011 at 16:44  
Anonymous Oswin said...

The low turn-out was not, as I believe, due to disillusionment. At best, the failure to vote is a product of 'lazy thought' but worse still, and rather moreso, it is due to a total LACK of thought, and an utter laziness, on the part of the lumpen-proles. They just can't be arsed to stir themselves.

This paucity of effort, of imagination, sits ill against the present turmoil of the Middle East, and of the efforts of ordinary people to improve their lot.

If it is true that we get the politicians we deserve, then we are in for something truly nasty.

Were it given to me, I'd beat the buggers towards the polling station with a knobbly stick!

4 March 2011 at 16:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I rather like Farages' s*d PC and 'calling a spade a spade' a darn sight better than limp wristed, hand-wringing disingenuous soundbites.

Maybe that is what the political arena needs right now.

I hope he goes from strength to strength. Heavens knows, the people need someone who is on their side for a change.

4 March 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Oswin 16:52 "Were it given to me, I'd beat the buggers towards the polling station with a knobbly stick!"

Cannot help but agree with that. Too many lazy minds, and not enough appreciation for what our forbears went through to ensure our right to vote and how important it is. Some people also seem to think that doing nothing, not voting, is a form of demonstration in itself. It isn't. It just gets ignored, pretty much the same as spoiling your ballot paper.

4 March 2011 at 17:33  
Blogger VotePeterShields.co.uk said...

I devised a much better way to encourage voter turn-out (scroll down about 1/2 way).

I'm very confident that this would get voluntary turnouts well in excess of 90%. However, I'm in 2 minds as to whether this is desirable. I suspect the vast majority of those who did turn out would simply vote Labour or BNP.

4 March 2011 at 17:44  
Blogger VotePeterShields.co.uk said...

Hmmm, the link didn't seem to work. Let's try again

4 March 2011 at 17:47  
Anonymous Oswin said...

VotePeterShields: is that a link? It isn't working for me for some reason. I would like to view your theory.

4 March 2011 at 17:55  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Peter - thank you!

Yes, it's genuinely a good idea, a quid a vote and the chance to get rich quick! :o) A bit of a bugger if there's a 'roll-over' though!

4 March 2011 at 18:04  
Anonymous Mike (England) said...

@votepetershields, that's expensive, just cut the benefits of the non voters and you'd soon get them voting or at least save some money, its time to stop postal votes too except for those WORKING away or disabled.

4 March 2011 at 18:08  
Anonymous Philip said...

Yes the most significant thing about Barnsley is that UKIP came 2nd and ahead of the Conservatives! And it is further evidence that Mr Cameron's strategy to drive away small -'c' conservative voters is working, and that many of these voters are switching to UKIP. Particularly as votes for prisoners was a theme in UKIP’s campaign – something that offends ordinary peoples' natural sense of justice and right & wrong. Of course votes for UKIP is the main reason for the Conservatives not winning the GE outright.

Policies that appease the LibDems on things such as the EU, the ECHR and crime, are just not popular with many voters outside the metropolitan lib-left bubble in which Mr Cameron exists. Maybe also things like judges making rulings that could make it more difficult for many loving couples to adopt children, add to the irritants that give voters a bad flavour in the mouth. This is in addition to continuing to pay for EU membership while painful cuts are happening, and the BBC broadcasting for the trade unions and Left on cuts .

However, I would point out that UKIP cannot be relied upon to uphold justice and Christian values in every issue. The UKIP candidate in the GE here wanted access to abortion to be even more unhindered. The Conservative candidate , who I support, seemed better on Christian values overall. But of course we’ll have to see how he votes in the Commons when supporting Christian values means defying govt whips.

4 March 2011 at 18:21  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mike, surely, like the Lottery, it becomes self-funding, thus safeguarding the public purse? Mind you, as an extra inducement, I'd adopt your policy too!

4 March 2011 at 18:29  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Leucipottomy 17:33_"Some people also seem to think that doing nothing, not voting, is a form of demonstration in itself. It isn't. It just gets ignored, pretty much the same as spoiling your ballot paper."

But what of those who voted for a governing party's promises and are still ignored? Is that an inducement to stay away next time-- or to vote for a Monster Raving Looney if there is one?

4 March 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

I honestly don't know Mr J. Too many people just moan and then sit down and do nothing though, and that's a serious problem. To me the three major parties might as well all be one party, there just doesn't seem much difference nowadays does there?

4 March 2011 at 19:42  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

PLEASE PLEASE try your best to remember that Fascism is neither extreme right, nor extreme left.

Fascism is THE CENTER, or what actually results from the illusion of both right and left.

In other words.

As left and right are just slightly different cheeks of the same back-side, FASCISM is what is defecated from between them.

We have all long since been living in a FASCIST society and nation. Indeed it is this country that largely created its modern day manifestation, better known as The British Empire. On which the Sun has not yet set, and shows very little sign of so doing.

Fascism is simply Corporatism. Which is a state of affairs where the worlds spiritual and temporal powers first create big government, and then utterly subvert it using massive amounts of government lending, mainly to finance ever more big government, and periodically the fighting of deliberately created wars. Which, always result in ever more government borrowing, which achieves little more then a massive transfer of wealth and therefore power from the people and their respective nations, to the worlds ruling elites. Who use their resultant gold reserves to finance the buying up of ever more of the worlds productive capacities, and natural resources.

Of course if you like the idea of existing in a wholly socialist nightmare, completely controlled by people you will never know, and as a general rule have never even heard the names of, then this will not bother you much. Indeed you may be cheer-leading yourself to be one of the first up against the proverbial wall.

However if you have any love of Common Humanity, freedom and liberty remaining in your soul, then the proverbial game seems to be well and truly UP. This especially if you persist in believing that fascist is only what the other side are.

For your greatest enemy is not your own ruling elites, it is yourself.

4 March 2011 at 20:12  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Rebel Saint said 4 March 2011 13:10

"@Ernst ... can't normally be bothered to read you comments as they all seemed to be extremely silly."
It is Ernst's way of puncturing the pompous or ridiculing the ridiculous that sometimes people seriously pontificate on this blog. Or it could just be because I like a giggle as life is too hard to take everything deadly seriously.
Be concerned, my dear boy, but remember that things only change if a lot of people get angry and agree with you or else you are spittting into the wind. Expenses scandal, perhaps?
The Almighty is in complete control and knows what He is doing and declared the final outcome in advance to reassure you.

"However, I accept your explanation of His Grace's views." His Grace has already given you his reason, I merely stated the obvious as you are too close to the problem to see his clear statement and meaning.
I am apolitical so am unbiased as all parties let you down. FACT!

"My take on this election result is that it means nothing of significance to the vast majority of people."
My boy, the UKIP 2nd position is indicative, as they usually only get such results at European elections and this is hard labour territory, where to express anything but the love of that red flag is tantamount to blasphemy, as old Ernst knows, as he is originally from the North.

UKIP knew they would not overturn Labour but were seeking to replace Cons/LibDem as the nearest rival in this by-election and a distinct choice compared to the other 3 parties, therefore I would say they had succeeded.

A final comment, my fine fellow, is that your icon assumes that Jesus was or should be viewed as some 'ultimate rebel', which is grossly incorrect.
He disagreed with the religious hierarchy in Israel and declared that the interpretation of God's laws were ignored or corrupted by men for their own personal greed, lusts and hypocrisy. Take Corban ?

The word describes anything dedicated to God, and therefore not available for ordinary uses. The utterance of it was held to constitute a legally binding vow, and the fulfillment of a vow was regarded by the Pharisees as of deeper obligation than the duty even to parents. They got their percentage of the vow
Check out Matt. 15:5 and Mark 7:11, where it appears that the Pharisees misused the opportunity of dedicating their material possessions to God, in order to avoid responsibility to care for their parents Our Lord said' "making the commandment of God of none effect by man's traditions" '.
There is a passage in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, that illustrates the fact that funds from the temple treasury were “corban,” hence could not be used for secular purposes, e.g., city improvements, as in the building of an aqueduct for water supply (Wars 2.9.4).
Thus, in the manner just described, the covetous, ungrateful Jews callously neglected parental responsibility by an appeal to this perverted human tradition. In so doing, they flouted the law of God.

And yet, on this occasion, they had the unconscionable nerve to accuse the Lord and his disciples of a breach of spirituality because they ignored uninspired rabbinical tradition.
Christ thus quoted from the prophet Isaiah, charging the Pharisees with hypocrisy. While they professed a reverence for the law, by their manipulating evasions they demonstrated that they neither respected nor understood their obligations to the law of God.
Who were the rebels then?

He was never a rebel but The Perfection, who came to declare grace for all the rebellious souls that have ever or will exist in this world, that disobey our Creator and Saviour.

Or is old Ernst being extremely silly?

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 21:24  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Rebel Saint said 4 March 2011 13:10

Two comments, young man.

Firstly;

"@Ernst ... can't normally be bothered to read you comments as they all seemed to be extremely silly."
It is Ernst's way of puncturing the pompous or ridiculing the ridiculous that sometimes is spoken in serious tomes on this blog. Or it can just be because I like a giggle as life is too hard to take everything deadly seriously. Be concerned, my dear boy, but remember that things only change if a lot of people get angry and agree with you or else you are spittting into the wind. Expenses scandal, perhaps?
The Almighty is in complete control and knows what He is doing and declared the final outcome in advance to reassure you.

"However, I accept your explanation of His Grace's views." His Grace has already given you his reason, I merely stated the obvious as you are too close to the problem to see his clear statement and meaning. I am apolitical so am unbiased as all parties let you down. FACT!

"My take on this election result is that it means nothing of significance to the vast majority of people."
My boy, the UKIP 2nd position is indicative, as they usually only get such results at European elections and this is hard labour territory, where to express anything but the love of that red flag is tantamount to blasphemy, as old Ernst knows, as he is originally from the North.

UKIP knew they would not overturn Labour but were seeking to replace Cons/LibDem as the nearest rival in this by-election and a distinct choice compared to the other 3 parties, therefore I would say they had succeeded.

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 21:30  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Rebel Saint said 4 March 2011 13:10

A final comment, my fine fellow, is that your icon assumes that Jesus was or should be viewed as some 'ultimate rebel', which is grossly incorrect.
He disagreed with the religious hierarchy in Israel and declared that the interpretation of God's laws were ignored or corrupted by men for their own personal greed, lusts and hypocrisy. Take Corban ?

The word describes anything dedicated to God, and therefore not available for ordinary uses. The utterance of it was held to constitute a legally binding vow, and the fulfillment of a vow was regarded by the Pharisees as of deeper obligation than the duty even to parents. They got their percentage of the vow
Check out Matt. 15:5 and Mark 7:11, where it appears that the Pharisees misused the opportunity of dedicating their material possessions to God, in order to avoid responsibility to care for their parents Our Lord said' "making the commandment of God of none effect by man's traditions" '.
There is a passage in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, that illustrates the fact that funds from the temple treasury were “corban,” hence could not be used for secular purposes, e.g., city improvements, as in the building of an aqueduct for water supply (Wars 2.9.4).
Thus, in the manner just described, the covetous, ungrateful Jews callously neglected parental responsibility by an appeal to this perverted human tradition. In so doing, they flouted the law of God.

And yet, on this occasion, they had the unconscionable nerve to accuse the Lord and his disciples of a breach of spirituality because they ignored uninspired rabbinical tradition.
Christ thus quoted from the prophet Isaiah, charging the Pharisees with hypocrisy. While they professed a reverence for the law, by their manipulating evasions they demonstrated that they neither respected nor understood their obligations to the law of God.
Who were the rebels then?

He was never a rebel but The Perfection, who came to declare grace for all the rebellious souls that have ever or will exist in this world, that disobey our Creator and Saviour.

Or am I being extremely silly?

E S Blofeld

4 March 2011 at 21:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conclusion ? The voters of Barnsley Central are a bunch of inward-looking , unintelligent losers.
Instead of moaning helplessly about tough times,they should get off their welfare-fed behinds and start a business or emigrate to where they can have a better life.
Englishmen with a "woe is me", defeatist , passive attitude should be taught , in the words of the song , that it is better to be a Hammer than a Nail.

What do they choose to do instead?
Vote for nanny Labour in the forlorn,illogical belief that will make everything better.

Marcus Foxall

4 March 2011 at 21:48  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Blofeld has made reference to "Corban" according to New Testament exegesis. This can be understood as applying to the present. From time to time, Cranmer of this blogsite makes reference to the coronation oath and other oaths of office. These, when administered before the people or other witnesses, are outward and visible acts signifying a solemn undertaking in respect of the government of the people of this United Kingdom, especially in difficult times of danger or peril such as mentioned in the Litany. Prayers in the Book which Cranmer in a former time composed for the people of the Anglican Communion can show any person of goodwill, whether of that church or none, what may be a guide for the inward significance.

If the spirit of the ceremony and the spirit of such oaths are neglected or dishonoured, will not the people suffer misgovernment at the hands of those set in authority over them?

5 March 2011 at 00:22  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

The Greek word korban is related to the term korbanas, signifying the "temple treasury" designating financial resources as "corban", however ;
THE TEACHING OF THE LAW
THREE PASSAGES MAKE VERY CLEAR THE TEACHING OF LAW CONCERNING
THE SWEARING OF OATHS OR VOWS...
1. "And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you
profane the name of your God; I am the LORD." - Lev 19:12
2. "If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind
himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he
shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."
- Num 30:2
3. "When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay
to pay it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you,
and it would be sin to you." - Deut 23:21

IN EACH CASE, THE EMPHASIS WAS ON "TRUTHFULNESS" & "FAITHFULNESS"
1. A person must be truthful when he swears an oath; he must truly
mean it
2. He must also be faithful in keeping the oath; he must carry out
his word

THE TEACHING OF JESUS
1. Mt 23:20-22 clearly shows that when one swears by...
a. "the temple"
b. "the throne of God"
...he is swearing by the LORD also!
2. Mt 5:34-36 likewise teaches that one cannot swear by these
things without involving God
a. Heaven is the throne of God
b. Earth is His footstool
c. Only God can change our hair color (without the use of dyes)
3. THEREFORE, ANY OATH IS AN OATH "TO THE LORD"!
Also, consider the following points:
a. God has sworn an oath to us - He 6:16-18
b. Jesus was willing to answer under oath before the Sanhedrin
court - Mt 26:63-64
c. Paul made solemn oaths in his epistles - 2Co 1:23; Ga 1:20
d. An angel of God swore an oath - Re 10:5-7
'If the spirit of the ceremony and the spirit of such oaths are neglected or dishonoured, will not the people suffer misgovernment at the hands of those set in authority over them?' Do they not stand as our representatives, making oaths on our behalf, as the sanhedrin did in the condemnation of Jesus and curse themselves as a nation.

E S Blofeld

5 March 2011 at 00:56  
Anonymous not a machine said...

If only 2 swallows made a summer , 2 safe labour seats have had general bye elections and Labour won then . In Oldham the lib dems had a reasonable chance , but Barnsley is one of the safest seats in the UK , however the loss of near 5000 votes does suggest eds squeezed middle is having some traction. The lib dems spent many years positioning themselves as a left choice if you were sick of the left and the right made you queezy .They are perhaps paying a price for hedgemony and vague but non controversial presence , where the magic money tree would yield an never ending land of plenty and syrupy EU joy. In eds squeeze he has painted the libs as stooges , traitors , tory collaborators and somehow managed to convince the public that his totally unprovable ecnomic solution would be the road to paradise , rather than the one being attempted . Did the people of Barnsley not understand that the coalitions cuts are only 17% more than Labours ? Mr Jarvis acceptence speech may have pleased Barnsley and he seems a nice sort of person , but it is 13 yrs of labour goverment that he was trying to pin on Margret Thatchers changes , an endless Labour council that has failed to find the right economy for Barnsley to flourish . It has been forgotten by a conservative revolution that did not given enough thought to what would fill the ecnomic restructure and a labour government who have damaged the very tools for bringing growth to these regions , by a tarts palace of ponzi finance for socialism via slickly marketed and deluded franchise .
one plan for Barnsley was to make it look like one of the Idyllic towns of Tuscany where the Blairs (and seemingly most of his civil service) so much enjoyed Hospitality, no one seems to recall the group of advisers that probebly enjoyed council paid fees and left quietly.
People are angry at the continued expanse of political funding that in reality keeps towns like Barnsley two thirds dependent on the state , again though the tools of a sound economy have been burnt in the Brown terror and the very same leuftenants of the terror were beaming election success ,and blaming the coalition , you could not make it up . The fear works on the people of Barnsley , but then again we have had one of the most fraudulent periods of politics I can ever recall .
UKIP did well because they found a good candidate and the BNP were learning, as ernst pointed out UKIP is anger vote and BNP is a fury one . You could conclude that the people of Barnsley havent quite worked out if the EU is any good or a placid community devoid of any real political information .

I think I know what the problem of the coalition thus far is and how ed is exploiting it , I rather suspect it is similar to the previous problem of the clever people carrying on as before and everyone else having to take what is said as truthfull benefit .

There are now 3 parties that will unequivocally seek to extracate the UK from the EU , and it is not just tub thumping talk on a forced arranged marriage , the British used to instinctively know when there village green has been spoiled by vandals , yet funtional local economies have been sacked by centralisation , sapped by poltical cost overheads , shuffling funds from populist pots for electoral alchemy and faux demand , whilst the pound in your peronal pocket has less choice on how much is taken and where it is spent .

The costly liposuction to reduce the debt is as troublesome as why the ecomic diet was spurious in the first place .The libdems are introuble , but as UKIP showed a few more stones at the inherited ediffice of lies and debt and they may just make a breakthrough into the situation and legacy , labour are trying to cover up .Then the corrupt socialists will really be in trouble and a purge of the malfactors could be obvious and necessary solution rather than timid attempts to hope the tax payers will forgive the socialists , who are trying to make the wind and angry fire of the electorate blow on the accountants house rather than robbers one.

5 March 2011 at 02:01  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...
2. "If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind
himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he
shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."

Well said Sir oral oaths are greater than written contracts a point ignored by those who care for the letter of the lore.

5 March 2011 at 02:23  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Vote for nanny Labour in the forlorn,illogical belief that will make everything better.

We have a constituency-based system voting for 1 MP NOT a Party List. Labour has a new MP unconnected with the old who has seemingly "de-toxified" the brand as Cameron would say. The other candidates were probably inferior

5 March 2011 at 07:15  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ is most grateful for the further citations from Blofeld, and concurs with Bred in the Bone's remark.

5 March 2011 at 09:42  
Blogger Uncaged Monkey said...

Once again, Voyager, you have gloriously failed to see the point.
In Barnsley, the electorate (that is those who even bother to vote) ARE voting for Labour - it not being especially important who the candidate was.
This by-election result can realistically only be dissected for meaning for the parties who didn't win.

5 March 2011 at 13:30  
Anonymous a serf on the land of the British EU Barons said...

Like many an establishment Conservative in the light of this event your analysis is based upon self-reinforcing Conservative wish-fulfilment. This is good because it means that the element of surprise will be huge when the end of your and the establishment's shared enterprise comes upon you.

5 March 2011 at 13:43  
Anonymous alan dawes said...

ukip is the party to vote for wants to look after people in the uk and sort out our defence and crime and build more prisons may seem silly to say build more prisons but after a drug dealer was caurt with 50.000 pounds worth of drugs and not sent to prison because of that tells me ther is dark days heading to uk streets

2 April 2011 at 22:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older