Don't care about Labour. Thank **** ukip did poorly.

And I wouldn't even celebrate Stoke - a 36% turnout exposes far more than which party won the seat.

the turnout at the 2015 general was <50% anyway. 36% is way higher than many were predicting.

Copeland vote was solely for nuclear energy.
Will go back to labour next election under next leader.
Vote in Stoke was against Bad Bootle Meff.
Will be bigger turnout and bigger majority next election under next leader.
I've said earlier that UKIP will wither under Nuttall.
36% turnout surely says more about the weather?

hot take central itt

There's certainly some positives in Stoke, if the least politically enfranchised constituency with some of the worst demographics in the country won't tolerate UKIP.

Considering the fact Labour was up against a total prick of a man who was further exposed as a lying fantasist then I don't really see many positives at all.

It's probably the best result for the Torys for Labour to hold Stoke - I don't see how Corbyn could have continued if he'd lost both - especially to Nuttall, for the reasons already discussed.

Poor result for the electorate though.

It's also worth noting that going back up to a majority of 12 is not insignificant.

I think many people, including myself, have on multiple occasions said 'I just don't know how Corbyn can continue' in the last 18 months, yet he still manages to stay alive. Had he lost the two by elections last night, his support still would have been so vocal among his base that it would have just as difficult to usurp him as it was last summer.

When Corbyn goes the next leader won't be tory lite and won't have the same baggage.
There's been nothing wrong with the message.

You are full of predictions without any empirical basis.

To which we can all be grateful. Bad Bootle Meff is a Liverpool colloquialism, you local?

The "Corbyn's fault" argument the papers seem to be pushing doesn't really add up. The Corbyn candidate did not win selection. So this election was lost by a union stooge who stood against the Corbynista.

When Sadiq Khan won one of the largest personal mandates in Europe all the papers could talk about was his opposition to Corbyn.

The media seem to want it both ways. Doubtless if Labour had won they would have talked about how Gill Troughton had won "despite Jeremy Corbyn".

My guess is that this is less important than any one thinks. Corbyn has an issue with nuclear power-the Copeland area has lots of people in that industry, of course they didn't vote for him. The question is whether Labour can pick up more votes nationally from Greens and the general population who naturally don't like nuclear than they lose from nuclear industry workers.

Ditto with Stoke. UKIP have gone from being a party with almost no support to almost no support. This is not a dramatic shift. They may or may not go on being a party with no support. By-elections mean nothing.

Just down the road.
I was totally confident that anti scouse bigotry would be a factor against the scouse bigot too.

tbh I'm alright with Stoke hating scousers if that's the result.

Though we can always have the discussion about whether Sefton is scouse. Carragher yes Nuttall **** off it depends I guess.

Said the same to my wife (her parents are from Huyton).
If UKIP had run a local they might have won.
On the Sefton issue - Bootle end scouse Southport end not.
Try telling the lovely folk of Netherton that they're not scousers.

Ha not unless I know them well and they're in decent form.

I think you're right about UKIP running a local which is concerning but displays a lack of political savvy we should be thankful for.

That's in vogue amongst the hoi polloi at the moment.

I hope this is true. Seems unlikely though as the divisions inside Labour, and the media witch hunt outside, have nothing to do with Corbyn's personality or history. If anything Corbyn's relaxed persona stood more chance of unifying Labour around a common set of polices than any successor. Like I said I hope a new leader has more luck.

It seems that since the early 80s Labour have struggled to form a genuine internal coalition, from Kinnock to Blair the right were in the saddle, now obviously it's the left, and the new leader will certainly be a left winger in the radical left tradition. Which means daily assaults on his or her character. Honestly they need to deal with Mandelson and his ilk or they will keep falling down, they could learn a few lessons from Kinnock in how to deal with internal dissidents in fact

The problem is Corbyn just isn't a ruthless enough individual to carry out the mass program of de-selections that would be required to end the internal battle. That is ironically part of his appeal: he is a decent man. If he were that ruthless then you probably could not trust him to look after his core voters.

I'm not sure how Labour can proceed: the problem is that at the next election I'll have the choice of not voting and letting the Tories in again, or voting in our traitorous witch of a local MP that was calling for Corbyn's head to save her own worthless skin, in the vague hope that he might somehow get elected.

Either way after Corbyn's gone I suspect I'll never vote Labour again. We often thought the Blairites were just as bad as the Tories, but they are actually worse if anything. I can't believe the Left practiced discipline for decades despite all the betrayals and now the moment a genuine left-winger gets elected the right pull every dirty trick in the book to remove him.

Corbyn's leading the party to oblivion and despite knowing this himself he selfishly refuses to do the right thing and step aside to allow the party to recover and mount a credible challenge. People aren't even sure what the party is about anymore and this is down to his leadership. There's numerous tales from MPs about how shambolic the decision making process is and he can't even be trusted to put out a simple clear message. You just have to look at last months appearance where he went off message from the briefing the press had been given beforehand and then the later statements from the Party about him saying something he hadn't meant. Shambles.

There's also one other thing that his supporters can't quite seem to comprehend, or if they do they blame it on the media, the man just isn't liked by many. I live in what used to be a staunch Labour area and its difficult to find anyone who likes or respects him. It's ironic that despite his man of the people schtick that this disconnect is probably worst with working class people. Campaigners in the recent by elections admitted this was the message they were getting on the doorsteps and you only have to look at his disastrous approval ratings for further confirmation of this.

There may be elements, or more than elements, of truth in this, and the longer this goes on the more valid those criticisms become, such is the nature of narrative building, ie. the story becomes more fact. The danger of course is setting up the successor for failure by ignoring the political background. The Labour right won't debate policy so if a new leader doesn't give them enough they will just turn on him/her and use the media to create Corbyn 2.
And, what kind of politics should a unity candidate adopt? Take free movement, the reason for the mess is because you can't have a policy which pleases everybody. What was needed was a Labour and union led 'Lexit' - core principles of independence from the EU, AND free movement. Impossible since 2/3 of the labour movement are for remain (because they don't understand the issue imao) so we get a grey mess. Good luck to your new dear leader squaring that one.

Transplanting this to relevant thread.

Neither of those groups are the middle england swing voter cohorts that you have to appeal to win an election. They are the base of labour support.

Labour is losing it base and is in no position to appeal to swing voters who are naturally centrist.

Corbyn is not the leader and does not have the platform to reverse this.

You can laugh off sure start, but it actually encapsulates what is different between a centre left party and the present regime. Increased spending on public services and just a softer more sympathetic ideological approach to services and mixed economy in general.

You might want a radical leftist party that really puts some big leftist ideological ideas into action but more open to tax and spend is the best that can at the moment be realistically achieved.

So, New Labour did lots of bad stuff, but we got tax credits and sure start which is the best we can hope for. We still have tax credits and sure start. Where cuts have been made, these are often with the support of Labour controlled councils. There is a wider economic background at play. This is where European social democracy has failed in general, they've had to slash services post 2008 and implement more aggressive privatisation, that's why they've been getting hammered in elections. In parts, the radical left has managed to mount a serious challenge, obviously most acutely in greece where they've since found the pressures of global financial institutions too much to bear. You think someone like Owen Smith has the balls to take on the IMF et al and start public investment, in, say kids nurseries? The only way will be will massive strings attached ie. next to no public control or accountability which leaves us in the same situation - only for those that can afford it.