Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What's depressing Blah Blah? Turnout is good, the people spoke, this is their decision. The smug faces of the Labour hierarchy earlier tonight discounting the exit poll "because it wasnt what we were experiencing on the ground" - ermm more like, "wasn't the result we wanted". Embarrassment all round.


Louisa.

Results for Cam&Peck and Dulwich&WN: swings to Labour and Greens - latter was third in Cam&Peck.


Camb&Peck


Labour

63.3% share of the total vote

+4.1% change in share of the votes


Conservative

13.2% share of the total vote

+0.1% change in share of the votes


Green Party

10.1% share of the total vote

+7.1% change in share of the votes


Liberal Democrat

5.0% share of the total vote

-17.4% change in share of the votes


UKIP

4.7% share of the total vote

+4.7% change in share of the votes



Dulwich & WNorwood


Labour

54.1% share of the total vote

+7.5% change in share of the votes


Conservative

22.7% share of the total vote

+0.5% change in share of the votes


Liberal Democrat

9.8% share of the total vote

-17.3% change in share of the votes


Green Party

9.4% share of the total vote

+6.8% change in share of the votes


UKIP

3.1% share of the total vote

+1.7% change in share of the votes

As well as implications of SNP vote, one issue to note is SNP's position on an EU in-out referendum. Their manifesto position is that all of the 4 nations of the UK have to individually vote to come out of the EU before the UK as a whole can be withdrawn - in other words no country can be taken out of the EU unwillingly. Likely to remain a critical issue for SNP.


Frankly this may end up being one of the few factors that can put a break on things - given the abysmal tabloid level of debate on Europe in the national media (and among former Tory backbench).

Dulwich & WNorwood

Liberal Democrat

9.8% share of the total vote

-17.3% change in share of the votes


A shame for James Barber. I wasn't a fan of his early on. Seemed to be too much politicking from him on the East Dulwich forum. But of late, to me, he has shown himself to be a man of genuine conviction and someone who has done a lot of good in the local community.

grabot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A shame for James Barber. I wasn't a fan of his

> early on. Seemed to be too much politicking from

> him on the East Dulwich forum. But of late, to

> me, he has shown himself to be a man of genuine

> conviction and someone who has done a lot of good

> in the local community.



Agree with this completely.

"I was naive and just hadn't realised how much of the Labour vote would go to UKIP."


That had a minimal effect on the overall result though - UKIP took a lot of votes from Labour in safe Labour seats, but didn't come close to winning any of them.


The story of the election, whilst surprising in light of the polling, is pretty clear. The Lib Dems got wiped out but this benefited the Tories as much as Labour, and Labour got wiped out in Scotland without managing to make any real impact on English Tory seats. I haven't seen a single seat that Labour won on a big swing from the Tories, and that pretty much says it all.

If the Labour Party has half a brain between them, they will put Andy Burnham in place sooner rather than later. Yet another campaign I predicted from the very beginning. Not that I'm being smug about it, it pains me to be spot on. But I've seen enough of these campaigns to know that the tories always outperform polls, and the Labour Party should have had a clear 5/6 lead throughout the campaign. I do agree though about the security of a majority this brings, no bargaining at all. The Ulster Unionists gain 2 seats (adding to tory support) and the DUP will more than likely make an informal vote by vote deal at least with the tories to bolster up that majority.


Louisa.

"And 1.5m Scots have 56 seats, whilst 3.5m UKIP voters have 1. Now I don't want more UKIP Seats, but if you want a democracy then that has to change."


...and 2.5 million Lib Dems have 8 seats. There's always been a valid argument in favour of some sort of PR based voting system, and there's certainly nothing uniquely beneficial about FPTP, but you have to wonder whether UKIP would have got as many votes if there was any real expectation that they would translate into seats. It is significant that they couldn't win a single seat from either the Tories or Labour, nor hold onto Rochester.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was naive and just hadn't realised how much of

> the Labour vote would go to UKIP. Assumed it would

> all come from Tory voters because, well you know,

> they're all @#$%&.



I suppose now you just going to have to accept that its labour voters than are the cunts! 😁

The full Dulwich and West Norwood results can be seen at http://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=29&V=1&RPID=26676954 but not yet on the Southwark website.


Greenwich, Haringey, Lambeth, Merton, Richmond, Wandsworth, Croydon, Tower Hamlets, Camden, Lewisham, ... all have the full results for their constituencies on their websites.

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I was naive and just hadn't realised how much of

> the Labour vote would go to UKIP."

>

> That had a minimal effect on the overall result

> though - UKIP took a lot of votes from Labour in

> safe Labour seats, but didn't come close to

> winning any of them.

>


Try telling that to Ed Balls - UKIP has let tories win or especially hold plenty of marginals..that's the point


PS 400 :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...