Labour Hold Stoke, Right Wing Vote Split

[Jackdaw33]

As expected.

[Samjenko]

Gromit
///For the record, it was not UKIP who made the false £350million for the NHS claim, it was the mainly Tory Leave campaigners.///

Guess parody is hard to pull off nowadays, with so many genuinely stupid posts about.

[Zacs-Master]

NOBODY made a claim to give the NHS £350 million a week. The slogan on the side of the bus DIDN'T say that. Anyone who thinks it did has a poor grasp of English.

[Samjenko]

^Hence my attempt at parody, Zacs. As I said, so many people say many daft things nowadays that several ABers didn't recognise it as parody.

[Zacs-Master]

Sorry Sam, thought the point was worth making again.

[Garaman]

Leave campaign poster.
https://politicaladvertising.co.uk/2016/12/23/the-politicaladvertising-co-uk-campaign-awards-2016/vote-leave-give-350-million-from-eu-to-nhs-poster-1/

[Samjenko]

We all know what the poster said, Garaman. It's just that some don't comprehend the meaning.

[webbo3]

So Labour win the Stoke be election by 2000 votes on a turnout of 38%, if the current trend by the loony left supporters has any validity surely the result should be counted as invalid and a second election held. Or does this only happen when the vote doesn't work in their favour, just asking

[jno]

no point Ukip going for Tory voters, the Tories have already stolen their whole platform. It makes more sense to seek Labour voters who have had enough of Corbyn. The trouble is, Nuttall's a far less trustworthy party leader than Corbyn is. They might have made it if Farage had still been in charge.

[ichkeria]

It's also a mistake to think that UKIP are going to cash in on labour disillusion or euroscepticism in northern seats to the extent that they would actually win seats
57% of Labour voters there still voted remain.
As net migration from the EU is currently falling as man people in the wealthier states look less favourably on the uk as a destination, and as the job market starts to twitch as a result, we may see a different tale emerge in a lot of places.
Doesn't look in any case as though UKIP took ANY votes from Labour at all in Stoke.

[New Judge]

“People vote UKIP due to Xenophobia , racism and hatred of immigrants no use trying to pretend it is anything other!”

Er.. sorry Eddie. I have voted UKIP once or twice when the tactics demanded. I have no hatred of foreigners or immigrants nor am I racist. What I would like to see (which is often erroneously translated into one or more of your definitions) is for the UK alone to determine who does and does not settle here. Impossible whilst we are in the EU and UKIP was the only party with a policy to extract the UK from its clutches. Without UKIP there would have been no referendum and no Brexit. All racists may vote UKIP but not all those voting UKIP are racists and it does not do to slur such voters in this way.

“Instead they [Labour] won one, but the Tories lost the other.”

What strange logic, Mikey. Of the two elections Labour came top in one and the Tories came top in the other. Your statement makes no mention of the Tory success. In fact Labour retained a seat they have held for ages (which presumably is the one you describe as “Labour won one”) and the Tories won the other (which presumably is the one you say they lost).

[youngmafbog]

NJ, welcome to blinkered Labour logic. The Party can do no wrong and no one else can do any right.

[ichkeria]

This is what I don't get: the UK already DOES decide who settles here! Admittedly only indirectly, but if we are talking legal migration here, then it's basically as follows: healthy economy - lots of migrants. Unhealthy economy - fewer migrants.
I know which I prefer.

[New Judge]

“This is what I don't get: the UK already DOES decide who settles here! Admittedly only indirectly, but if we are talking legal migration here, then it's basically as follows: healthy economy - lots of migrants. Unhealthy economy - fewer migrants.
I know which I prefer.”

Even accepting your (very iffy) contention that the UK controls its immigration by the controlling the state of its economy, ikky, your logic does not quite stack up. The health of the economy and the need to accept uncontrolled immigration are not conjoined. Furthermore, if the state of the UK’s economy declined it may, but not necessarily would, result in a reduction in immigration, especially if our economic decline coincided with decline in the countries of origin of the immigrants. Even more than that, the effect of immigration does not extend solely to the economy (and it is not all beneficial even to just that). It also extends to the wellbeing of the country and it is quite clear than unlimited immigration is placing enormous strains on essential services such as healthcare, education and housing. Not all immigration is bad and neither is it all good. What is needed is control to sort out the wheat from the chaff and that is what has been lacking

[AB Editor]

Is there any point voting UKIP anymore?

[Samjenko]

Yes, they've replaced Labour as the voice of the working class, imo.

[Samjenko]

Would love to see Lord Nigel of Farage (1 hour interview tonight on ITV@9PM) ride back to the rescue.

[TTG]

WHat do the people that voted Labour think that party would do better than the current government if in power?

[mikey4444]

Ed...To answer your question at 14:17....no of course there isn't.

But some voters seems to think they can get rid of our "gastarbeiters" by continuing to waste their votes on UKIP.

[mikey4444]

Sam....there never has been any evidence that UKIP has replaced Labour as the preferred party of the working class, and there certainly wan't any evidence yesterday in Copeland and Stoke.

Vote UKIP = waste your vote.

[Togo]

Meanwhile Shami Chakrabarti says it was storm Doris that won Copeland for the Conservatives. Haha, more delusional claptrap.