BBC BLOGS - Blether with Brian
« Previous | Main | Next »

Glasgow North East by-election

Brian Taylor | 22:01 UK time, Thursday, 12 November 2009

UPDATE AT 0213: And so, as billed, a clear victory for Labour.

But bigger than expected, with the Labour vote increasing by more than the SNP.

The BNP came in fourth place - not the anticipated third.

That honour went to Ruth Davidson of the Tories, who is generally thought to have fought a successful campaign.

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

UPDATE AT 0045: The SNP's David Kerr has arrived.

Big question for the party is why the seat is so different from Glasgow East, which they won in the summer of 2008.

Party strategists say the big difference is that, in east, they were able to corral aspirational voters and persuade them things could and should be better.

Faced with the hopelessness witnessed in Glasgow North East, that was a much tougher task.

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

UPDATE AT 0021: Confirmed turnout is 33.2%. That is the lowest ever in a Scottish by-election.

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

UPDATE AT 0018: More still . . .

Seasoned observers at the count from major parties now predicting firmly that the BNP will take third place.

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

UPDATE AT 0012: And there's more . . .

Labour's Willie Bain has arrived at the count, looking pretty confident.

Labour now think they may take about 57% of the vote.

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

UPDATE AT 2336: More gossip from inside the counting hall.

The first boxes to be counted are from the more deprived, northern part of the constituency.

Looks like Labour is wining comfortably, probably taking more than 50% of the vote.

But boxes from Dennistoun and the southern half could change the pattern.

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

UPDATE AT 2318: SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon told BBC Scotland she expected Labour to hold the seat comfortably.

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

UPDATE AT 2255: First candidates to arrive in the hall are John Smeaton, hero of Glasow Airport and Mikey Hughes, resplendent in a kilt.

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

UPDATE AT 2225: First ballot boxes have arrived in the hall.

Labour camp looking notably happier than the SNP.

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

2200:Polling stations closed. We're expecting the result in the Glasgow North East by-election sometime around 00.30 GMT.

Usually, the sole concern is who will win.

In this contest, that looks like a choice between the previously dominant Labour party and the challenging SNP.

This time, though, there is also interest in who comes third.

Folk here at the SECC, where the count is taking place, are wondering whether it is conceivable that the British National Party could oust the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to take third place.

Stay in touch here or watch the BBC or listen to the wireless to find out.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 10:18pm on 12 Nov 2009, Chris Brown wrote:

    First past the post

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 10:23pm on 12 Nov 2009, Scottish Yank wrote:

    I hope you have some decent Coffee Brian. It's much easier to stand the wait here across the pond.

    The BBC and other news services have reported some sharply conflicting comments from the Glasgow North East constituency. There are plenty of comments from Labour Loyalists, who seem to be of the same breed as the Yellow Dog Democrat, that is, they'd vote for Labour if they stood a yellow dog for election, but a quote from a BBC article (see link below) suggests that the traditional Labour supporters in the constituency are fed up.

    I only hope that their fury leads them to vote for the SNP, Lib Dems, and third party candidates such as the Jury Team, rather than the BNP.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 10:23pm on 12 Nov 2009, raisethegame wrote:

    Well, if it's Labour that gets it, it will surely be down to the postal votes. Apparently, there has been a remarkable increase in the numbers applying for them. It's a system open to abuse. I'm sure there's a lot more will be said about this aspect of the election in the coming hours.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 10:26pm on 12 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    The swing is the most interesting thing.

    An analysis of the media's behaviour culminating in the ridiculous dentist story was the icing 'smeared' on an extremely unpalatable cake.

    Saw FMQ's today and for once Iain Gray wasn't the worst - that went to Tavish Scott; bizarre choice of questions to say the least.

    Don't forget, Newsnet Scotland edition 5 this Sunday !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 10:30pm on 12 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Newsnet Scotland blogspot was the first with the postal vote figures. We also highlighted the near 2500 additional voters added to the voters roll in the month of October alone - yes, 2500 in one month !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 10:40pm on 12 Nov 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Islay McLeod's
    straw poll

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 10:45pm on 12 Nov 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    Anyone outside MW coverage can listen to the BBC Scotland coverage at
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8357286.stm

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 10:56pm on 12 Nov 2009, ArmyScout wrote:

    Hi
    I hope the BNP does well, not that I would ever want them to come into power.
    But just to tell Westminster loud and clear - STOP ANYMORE IMMIGRATION....
    ArmyScout

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 10:58pm on 12 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Turnout I believe was around 22000, 2000 below my own prediction.

    I still see the winning party garnering less than 10,000 votes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 11:04pm on 12 Nov 2009, griffgolightly wrote:

    Could anyone enlighten me? Where is Willie Bain registered to vote? The candidate, that is, not his Dad. Labour say it is in the constituency and he used a postal vote. Others say in Hammersmith & Fulham. Which is correct?

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 11:04pm on 12 Nov 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    yeah everyone is desperate to know who comes third, regardless of the outcome, we have witnessed what it must have been to vote in Afghanistan recently, the media on the whole were poor and impartial , the candidates were very poor bar a few, so you can trot off happy your masters got their wishes, meanwhile in Glasgow NE , it will be groundhog day again and again and again

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 11:06pm on 12 Nov 2009, SilentHunter wrote:

    I would think it's pretty obvious to all by now, that Labour will be using their tried & tested "Postal Voting Scam" for this election . . . as they no doubt, intend to do in the General Election.

    It's appalling that they are able to get away with this scam.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 11:09pm on 12 Nov 2009, EphemeralDeception wrote:

    "First ballot boxes have arrived in the hall.
    Labour camp looking notably happier than the SNP."


    Must have been the postals.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 11:12pm on 12 Nov 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    7. Brownedov

    thanks for the stv link , a breath of fresh air compared to the Biased Corporation

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 11:13pm on 12 Nov 2009, derekbarker wrote:

    Nicola Sturgeon saying that labour will hold the seat comfortably. On BBC-2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 11:14pm on 12 Nov 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Some Postal Facts

    "Figures are Approx*

    360 – 26/10/09
    320 – 27/10/09
    410 – 28/10/09"

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 11:18pm on 12 Nov 2009, james wrote:

    If labour win then after the expense scandal and out of control illegal Immigrant policy, and many more failures then I say if labour put a Monkey in a Candidate they would still win.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 11:19pm on 12 Nov 2009, CA55ANDRA wrote:

    Whatever the outcome of this election - the issue that needs to be addressed extremely urgently is that of postal vote fraud. This is now widespread, particularly in areas with large Asian populations where in many families, voting decisions are dictated by the husbands along family/clan lines. Main electoral beneficiaries are Asian Labour candidates. In addition, there is routine "collection" of uncompleted voting forms from a significant number of individual who are culturally pressured to comply. The wholesale postal voting system stinks! It should be abandoned immediately - with exceptions only for those with a genuine reason. If people can't be bothered to go to their nearest polling station they don't deserve the vote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 11:28pm on 12 Nov 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    STV "Huge news from Dennistoun where voter fraud is suggested."

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 11:31pm on 12 Nov 2009, CA55ANDRA wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 21. At 11:32pm on 12 Nov 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    voting irregularities being reported , people turning up to vote and their name already off the list, Police to investigate , being reported on the news now, although I am puzzled that they say it wont interfere with the result ??????
    must be using the Afghan model then

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 11:43pm on 12 Nov 2009, Dunroamin wrote:

    17. Or the mighty and gloriously perfect SNP are just not as universally popular as you believe.

    Seriously, if the SNP can't make any serious headway against one of the most unpopular parties in the entire UK, currently in one of the deepest of popularity troughs....then what hope is there?

    And with support for independence now down to a mere 24% (and that's without a third option which would probably put pro-support down into the teens), it's all unravelling fast for the nationalists.

    And then there was the last YouGov poll which would put Labour back in charge in Holyrood...kick 'em while their down, why don't ya.

    (Ah, I've missed bringing reality to the nationalists.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 11:47pm on 12 Nov 2009, CA55ANDRA wrote:

    # 21. At 11:32pm on 12 Nov 2009, romeplebian ...

    Yep. Afghan electoral rules. Hopefully, someone will make a formal complaint to the Electoral Commission. But, hey, get used to to it. This is now undoubtedly Labour's General Election strategy. Eyes on new postal voting applications nationwide!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:52pm on 12 Nov 2009, derekbarker wrote:

    #22 Reluctant- Expat

    Yip! the shine has gone and the bare mettle seem to be deteriorating before our very own eyes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:57pm on 12 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    I think that everyone now concedes that Labour have won - and that's that.

    I had to turn away from the BBC so bad and abrasive were the comments from Jim Murphy becoming, a truly obnoxious and detestable individual, the man has no dignity.

    Sadly we aren't seeing much by way of analysis, merely an parade of subjective and partisan remarks almost entirely aimed at Nicola Sturgeon. One would think that Labour had jusr won the General election rather than a by-election where they had a 10,000 start.

    The voting irregularities have been mentioned by STV, although I'm not sure what the intention of the voters were - STV confirming that the police have been called in and that fraud has indeed taken place in Dennistoun.

    If the spectre of voter fraud is raised in this by-election then there has to be at least an acknowledgement that the system needs tightening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 00:03am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Expat asks:
    Seriously, if the SNP can't make any serious headway against one of the most unpopular parties in the entire UK, currently in one of the deepest of popularity troughs....then what hope is there?

    The unpopularity trough is of course in England, Scotland is a whole different ball game.

    We will have to wait for the final numbers in order to ascertain whether or not the SNP improved their position when compared to 2005.

    I believe the 53% of the vote obtained by Labour then was unusual and ought to have been around 60% - can't recall the reasons just now.

    I'm sure though that every party will analyse their respective performance and will be well aware of their shortcomings.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 00:15am on 13 Nov 2009, Dunroamin wrote:

    25. Get your facts right (how many times have you been told that?) and tell the entire story and not some nationalist conspiratorial spin (ditto).

    There were TWO incidents where voters turned up to find their name crossed off. TWO. In one polling station.

    It also has obviously not been identified as "fraud" but may only be a case of the wrong name being crossed off.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 00:25am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    I am a weegie (east end), but I hope that the people of Glasgow North East continue to be unemployed and wriggling in their poverty stricken shame.

    ...at the end of the day, when they vote NuLiebour, they deserve exactly what they get.

    Skroo them.... they are obviously happy being poor... just leave them be!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 00:26am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 30. At 00:30am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @22 Your fantasies are entertaining, keep it up. Likely outcome tonight:

    - all time record low turnout for a Westminster by-election in Scotland, with almost seven people out of ten eligible to vote not bothering.

    - all time record low Labour vote share in this seat.

    - Labour majority reduced by around 40%.

    - all this despite Labour's trademark dodgy postal-vote shenanigans.

    - SNP lead in Holyrood polls still increasing, despite nationalist parties traditionally suffering worst in recessions.

    It's a Labour triumph!

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 00:34am on 13 Nov 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Brian:

    Thanks for the excellent analysis of the Glasgow North East by-election...

    =Dennis Junior=

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 00:34am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 33. At 00:35am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Well, for me Jim Murphy and the BBC are responsible for the high profile coverage the BNP received in this by-election and as a result their [reportedly] coming third.

    Was there an agenda to increase their profile in Scotland? .... perhaps.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 00:35am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 35. At 00:36am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 36. At 00:37am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 37. At 00:37am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 38. At 00:37am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 39. At 00:42am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Anyone know if the BBC have mentioned the voter fraud in Dennistoun yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 00:44am on 13 Nov 2009, Dunroamin wrote:

    Well, it seems someone has woken Bongo_1 who seems to have embarked on another of his multi-post tirades.

    And I'm too tired to wait for the official result plus work beckons in a few hours. The SNP have dismally failed to dent Labour support, just another nail in the nationalist coffin.

    Agent Salmond, continue with mission as planned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 00:51am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    27. At 00:15am on 13 Nov 2009, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
    25. Get your facts right (how many times have you been told that?) and tell the entire story and not some nationalist conspiratorial spin (ditto).

    There were TWO incidents where voters turned up to find their name crossed off. TWO. In one polling station.

    It also has obviously not been identified as "fraud" but may only be a case of the wrong name being crossed off.


    Incorrect - three incidents uncovered thus far, checks have confirmed that this was not a clerk scoring through a name by mistake.

    Glasgow Council then called in the police as they believe fraud has definitely taken place.

    That three have been uncovered it leads to the possibility that more heven't.

    Electoral fraud is taking place in the UK, sooner or later the authorities need to acknowledge this. The biggest weakness is with postal votes - again, this has been pointed out for over two years.

    Accusing political opponents of being conspiracy theorists does nothing to address this problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 00:56am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    I am expecting the papers to basically repeat what I heard earlier on the BBC - the 'shine has come off' the SNP [the honeymoon cliche couldn't be used again] etc, etc.

    I'm upbeat, especially with Newsnet Scotland giving full details of the BBC apology to the SNP Minister.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 01:01am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Expat writes:
    The SNP have dismally failed to dent Labour support

    Can you give the figures please?

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 01:02am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @40 Is that the "nationalist coffin" that has them still on course for being returned to power at Holyrood with more MSPs than they have now?

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 01:05am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    I have no idea why my comments are being moderated, but I suppose I will have to take the hint - it's late anyway.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 01:07am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    I suspect the moderation is due to someone being uncomfortable with the theme of electoral fraud.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 01:07am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 48. At 01:08am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 49. At 01:09am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 50. At 01:09am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 51. At 01:09am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 52. At 01:10am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 53. At 01:10am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 54. At 01:10am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 55. At 01:11am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 56. At 01:11am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 57. At 01:12am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 58. At 01:12am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 59. At 01:13am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 60. At 01:13am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 61. At 01:14am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 62. At 01:15am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 63. At 01:16am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 64. At 01:16am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 65. At 01:17am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 66. At 01:19am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 67. At 01:19am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 68. At 01:19am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 69. At 01:20am on 13 Nov 2009, IanVincible wrote:

    What have the political parties done to correct the lost votes at the last election?
    Until they address that scandal, none of them are worth trusting with our votes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 01:20am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 71. At 01:35am on 13 Nov 2009, eloise wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 72. At 01:41am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 73. At 01:41am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 74. At 01:42am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    WE ARE AS WELL SAYING WHAT WE WANT... EH?

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 01:42am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 76. At 01:54am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 77. At 01:55am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 78. At 02:00am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    Heeeeyyyy... Glasgow North East voted for a Donkey in a red Rosette...

    So what's new?

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 02:03am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 80. At 02:04am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @71 "A friend of mine sold her 4 wheel drive a immigrant came to buy it and with him a interpreter from the social and the vehicle was paid by a cheque from the social security"

    Do we have to listen to this lying drivel? The DWP has NEVER bought ANYONE a car. Tell us, racist, which particular benefit was this cheque signed off under? And since when did the DWP start providing interpreters for personal financial transactions? This "friend" of yours - got a name, has she? Or does she only exist in the mind of the BNP canvasser who looked at you and thought "Here's a gullible idiot who'll swallow anything"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 02:14am on 13 Nov 2009, BoNG0_1 wrote:

    I do actually hope the people of Glasgow North East reap what they have sown!

    Natural Justice!

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 02:17am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    22. Reluctant-Expat

    Nope. The last poll put SNP gaining substantially at Holyrood. Keep up with the news.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 02:23am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    Good work from the BBC, who currently report the BNP vote as 27,174...

    Not a great night for the SNP, but one thing I haven't heard mentioned - tonight there were 12 candidates fighting the incumbent, compared to 6 last time. Among them were candidates from the two other main parties in Scotland, who didn't contest the 2005 election, so for the SNP to have still increased their vote share (from 17% to 20%) isn't anything like the disaster we'll see many people trying to paint it as tomorrow. It's not great either, but in a seat where they never had a snowball's chance it shows they can still pick up votes.

    I'd hoped they'd get Labour's majority down to 5000-6000, but you can never underestimate the innate conservatism of the poorly-educated habitual Labour voter still living in poverty after three-quarters of a century of Labour rule.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 02:29am on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    Wow! Good result for Labour - they clearly ran an effective campaign.

    I ran the results slightly differently by ignoring the splintering of the Trots and independents and combining them. you then get -

    Party, %, change since 2005
    Lab, 59.6%, (+6.3)
    SNP, 19.9%, (+2.2)
    Con, 5.2%, (+0.8)
    BNP, 4.9%, (+1.7)
    Soc (all 3), 4.8%, (-14.3)
    LD, 2.3%, (+2.3)
    Ind (all 4), 1.7%, (-0.5)
    Green, 1.6%, (+1.6)

    The dominant story (apart from the SNP’s failure to make any impact) is the collapse in the Socialist vote and it’s shift to support Labour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 02:31am on 13 Nov 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    looking at this objectively, for Willie Bain to stand up and give the speech that "it was a vote for Gordon Brown and his policies in dealing with the recession that we are in" "and that the Tories polled less votes than when M Thatcher was in power when they inflicted recession" is astounding.

    No matter your views, the UK is in its worst state since the great depression
    Voting turn out was miserable
    You have to ask what is it that makes Glasgow NE to choose Labour ?
    You read the comments that " you could drag a dead donkey in with a Labour Badge on it and the NE would vote for it"
    For the commentators, for the other parties, for Skeletor to describe this as a great win for Labour, is beyond me

    One thing that disappoints me is for the other parties to almost accept they could not win here , you would have to ask why not ? Why not engage the 70 odd percent that did not vote

    Democracy did not win tonight

    For all of Skeletors ignorant comments tonight, the next UK government will be Tory, and so another Scottish Secretary will go down in history under a cloud

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 02:42am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Good lord. The labor percentage went UP. Ok. Considering the state of the Labour party that is just mind-boggling.

    NOTHING at this stage is a "great win" for Labour but it did stave off disaster. It looks bad for the SNP for Westminster as far as taking Labour seats there.

    But I have said and I still believe that what matters for the SNP is taking Holyrood. This is simply irrelevant regarding Holyrood. But it will, of course, be given an anti-SNP spin by the media.

    I have a hard time understanding people voting for a party that has performed quite so miserably for them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 02:45am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    84. oldnat
    I'm curious about your feeling that they ran a good campaign.

    What about their campaign do you believe was what worked? Was it really an effective campaign or old voting patterns holding or a terror of the Tories and the belief that voting Labour would hold them off?

    I really am baffled at this result. I didn't expect the SNP to win but that is a much higher Labour vote than anyone expected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 02:49am on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    Brian

    "Big question for the party is why the seat is so different from Glasgow East, which they won in the summer of 2008."

    I thought Alec Neill pinpointed that accurately on STV.

    In Glasgow East, Mason was a well respected councillor who was seen do be doing good work in the constituency. In Glasgow NE, Bain was seen as the local man wwho could work for the prople.

    It actually (despite the derisory turnout) restores a bit of faith in democracy. The voters in a number of constituencies do seem to look at the credentials of the candidate, and not just the rosette they wear.

    Had the original SNP candidate not screwed up due to his sequestration and serving on the wrong Glasgow committee, there may have been a different outcome.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 02:55am on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    87. JRMacClure
    "I'm curious about your feeling that they ran a good campaign."

    Simple. It worked with the voters in the constituency. How else does one define a "good" campaign?

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 03:23am on 13 Nov 2009, Cogito wrote:

    Ultimately, I don't think this election will make the slightest bit of difference to the national picture, however... I think that, paradoxically, the win for Labour may well *weaken* Gordon Brown, if Labour MPs feel that they're not quite so certainly doomed now and would be sufficiently less doomed without Brown at the helm to survive in their seats. Defenestration may actually be more likely now than less...

    http://cogitodexter.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/labour-can-take-no-comfort-from-glasgow-ne/

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 03:26am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    89. oldnat
    Did it?

    I'm not at all sure that it was the campaign was particularly effective and was what gave the seat to them. For all I know, their campaign did nothing more than "not lose" the seat.

    Am I wrong that in the 2005 election that seat went something like 73% Labour (or for Martin which was the same thing)?

    They avoided disaster and ended up over 50%. So a decent showing. But WHY? I notice you didn't give an opinion on that.

    Do you think it was their campaign being extremely effective? It was a highly negative campaign that almost never touched on any issues that Bain could possibly have anything to do with which I find curious. But negative campaigns can at times be effective.

    Or was it fear of Tories?

    Or was it simply habit of voting Labour and a long-standing party loyalty? (My father having been a "yellow-dog Democrat" I know it exists)

    Or was it in part that the SNP ran an INeffective campaign?

    (You and I have agreed before that what counts is Holyrood but I still find the results of this election rather peculiar that there wasn't more swing away from Labour)

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 03:27am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    90. cogitodexterI think it may reassure Labour that they can take their Scottish MP seats for granted. With their limited funds, that would be something I'm sure they'd like to be able to do. If it encourages them to put more effort into other areas and not into Scotland, I can see that as a positive outcome.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 03:32am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    84. oldnat
    "Lab, 59.6%, (+6.3)"

    I'm going to check that. The SNP was the only party to run against Labour in 2005 and only got about 17%. That doesn't add up. I'm pretty sure that Labour got something like 73% of the vote in that election.


    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 03:37am on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    91. JRMacClure
    "Am I wrong that in the 2005 election that seat went something like 73% Labour (or for Martin which was the same thing)? "

    Afraid you are. Martin got 53% in 2005 (though Labour got 71% in 1997).

    My reasons for thinking that it was successful are given in my #88 - I think Alec Neill called it right.

    The differential between Glasgow East and Glasgow NE may have been a lot to do with the perception of the voters that one candidate had a good track record of working for them as opposed to voting on broader economic/constitutional issues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 03:38am on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    92. JRMacClure

    I like that possibility!

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 03:39am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Ok, I admit my memory was wrong. Their percentage did go up.

    So something sure as heck went right for Labour.

    So if it was campaign, what about it do you think went over well with the constituency?

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 04:09am on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    96. JRMacClure

    Look at my #88!

    I'm sure there are areas in the US where people say stuff the parties, I like this guy who will stand up for me and my mine. That's what Mason did for the SNP in Glasgow East, and Bain did for Glasgow NE.

    It doesn't have to be true - just persuasive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 04:13am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    94. oldnat
    Ah, I had it confused with the 1997 results, I think. I shouldn't depend on my very holey memory. *blush*

    Your explanation in #88 makes some sense. I can see them voting for an individual they think will work for them.

    It was hardly any secret that David Kerr wasn't the first choice for this constituency. I still think he made a good presentation and should have a future in Scottish politics.

    It's too bad the first SNP candidate had to withdraw. They'll rub the SNP's nose in it some, but I don't see this as a big setback. I'm not sure it's really a setback at all. I would like to see the SNP put more emphasis on winning in 2011 anyway.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 04:16am on 13 Nov 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    97. oldnat
    Sure there are and I see your point as I mentioned in my above post. :-)

    I wasn't sure that was what happened here because I saw so little positive in Bain's campaigning. If they're going to vote for someone who will do something for them, you'd think they'd want to hear some promises on something--possibly even something within his remit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 05:41am on 13 Nov 2009, muttlee wrote:

    Just a little reminder to Mr Cameron that he is not Prime Minister yet,and that the Conservatives are still a long way from being described as winners in any way in Scotland. As for the SNP,they appear to be also a long way from capturing the soul of many Scottish voters.I suspect the Glasgow Airport rail link cancellation has not helped them.Who cares who came fourth?

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 06:48am on 13 Nov 2009, forthblue wrote:

    Well put a pig in a red ribbon and they will vote for Nu Labour in Glasgow. Perhaps there should have been UN observers there to check on the reported postal vote fraud though! As for Glasgow being neglected, what a joke! The rest of Scotland has gone without for years so this spoilt child gets everything it wants. Not that it does much good as weegies have an appalling health record. I was surprised they could manage to get to the polling station, without keeling over from the effort. The fraud aspect needs more reporting though but since the BBC is part of the NU Labour spin machine, not much chance of that here!

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 07:54am on 13 Nov 2009, Stargazer wrote:

    Just a couple of observations.

    First, there must be no more than 5 seats like this one in the whole UK. To suggest that Labour will be competitative nationally based on this result is a remarkable flight of fantasy. This by-election was never about Labour v Conservatives, hence the general surprise that the Conservative candidate not only finished third, but saved her deposit!

    Second, there is no comment at all about the fact that the LibDems, in so much of the country the alternative to Labour, only coming 6th! That is a quite astonishing result.

    And third, even if there were only one case of presumed voter fraud, that is still introducing a very unpleasant new element into British politics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 08:05am on 13 Nov 2009, that wee C wrote:

    The SNP Candidate was terrible and naive and Alex Salmond's war cry about "Westminster dancing to a Scottish Jig" was triumphalist and doen't sit well with ordinary folk.

    The SNP need to fight for our Fiscal rights and not power at Westminster.

    As could be heard at the declaration Brown's name couldn't raise any enthusiasm.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 08:17am on 13 Nov 2009, derekbarker wrote:

    So, any time you're gettin' low, 'stead of lettin' go, just remember that ant
    Oops, there goes another rubber tree plant.


    20 MP's...............High hopes!.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 08:23am on 13 Nov 2009, that wee C wrote:

    I think the Lib dems are seeing the result of their failure to drive for Full Fiscal Autonomy in a referendum showing us that they never intended to have a Federal sytem, even though they claimed it for the last 50 years.

    You can't trust a Libdem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 08:39am on 13 Nov 2009, angel allen wrote:

    "a resounding victory for labour"? Have they never heard of the term "turkeys voting for christmas"? It would have been astounding if the benefit claimants who make up the majority of the population of this constituency had voted for a party other than the one who gives them their free handouts.
    If this was a third world election those in power would have been screaming "a fix! - cash for votes!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 09:05am on 13 Nov 2009, enneffess wrote:

    I sat up and watched the coverage until about 1.30pm, when I succumbed to work-related-must-get-up-in-the-morning-itus.

    Anyway, had a read of many of the comments on here, some predictable, some not.

    A few points in no particular order.

    Glasgow v Edinburgh
    At least one poster here having a dig. Margo McDonald was absolutely correct last night when she said that this antagonism and competitivness between the two cities must stop. That in its own will prevent the success of an independence referendum.

    Lib Dems got slaughtered, and I think this will be reflected across the UK next year.

    The BNP got a narrow fourth. One resident interviewed pointed out that her husband who had worked all his life, lost his job because the construction industry can hire people at minimum wage. None of the main parties are doing anything about this, and there is no indication this will change if Scotland is independent.

    Nicola Sturgeon seemed to be largely ignored by the interviewer (what's her name??), which was poor. The conservative rep (who he?) was typical of an old-fashioned Scottish Tory, with the Lib Dem even worse. Jim Murphy I was surprised with. A bit laid back, he is quite articulate and cannot be written off in the same manner as Grey (Gray?).

    Glencampbly - I can see where you guys get it from!

    Brian had the media and Professor Devine. But only Devine and Margo were worth listening to. Although Margo contradicted herself at one point, when she said that Sheridan impressed her with his honesty and his message, then reversed her point when discussing the BNP.

    The campaign was highly negative, but there is no point in the SNP complaining about this. This is politics, not a friendly snooker exhibition match. A few of the commentators last night said that the SNP did not put its message forward, instead followed a similar tactic to Labour - negativity and an opposition point of view.

    The SNP also appears to be reacting to Labour rather than being pro-active.

    It is not a good example to use to predict the GE result next year. But the SNP did not do as well as I expected, and not as well as the leadership expected either. Kerr did not help matters either with the place of birth issue. That will hang over him for any future elections he stands in. The SNP would be better finding a better candidate.

    Neither is it good - as some on here will - question the intelligence of the voters. The intelligence of the strategy teams would be better questioned. Why did people vote for Labour? Why for BNP? Why not for SNP? What is missing from the message?

    #85 makes a good point about the 70% that did not vote. That is a lot of potential votes out there.

    The next general election will be a highly negative campaign, and this will probably put voters off.

    The SNP needs to change their tactics. If this sort of result is reflected in the general election next year, Salmond's position as leader of the SNP will be under threat.

    Late addition here - one of my colleagues voted last night. When he arrived at the polling station, the only party workers who approached him were Solidarity, Greens and the Tories. He was still undecided on his vote but went for one of the parties that made the effort to engage with him.

    Someone in the SNP leadership needs to put a rocket up some backsides. The SNP need every vote, yet some party workers prefer to chit-chat. I had the same experience last election as well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 09:09am on 13 Nov 2009, noblewilliamw wrote:


    No surprise really, it is the "I was brought up to vote Labour..." and "I've voted Labour all my days and I'm not going to change..." attitude that is going to do real damage to this country (and it's what Labour counts on because it is all it has got!).
    It makes me ashamed to be Glaswegian when I hear such blinkered nonsense.
    To quote a gentleman I heard on the radio sometime ago,
    "The people round here would vote for a dog if Labour put one up as a candidate..."

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 09:14am on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    It's been a disappointing night for the nationalists, of course we have the benefit of watching Mr Bain explain what actions will now be taking to ensure that GARL does come a reality, or shall Bain suddenly forget about helping to put Labour cuts right?

    I've been reading the articles and each have commented on Labours campaign and the amount of activists coming in from all parts of Great Britain... I still feel the nationalists can do better at the next elections because bussing activists from other parts of the United Kingdom is not possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 09:17am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @89 "Simple. It worked with the voters in the constituency. How else does one define a "good" campaign?"

    One that gets more than a third of the voters out to the polling stations?

    I don't think the SNP bust a gut on this one, because I don't think they ever believed they could come close to winning it. I certainly never did, though I was surprised and disappointed not to get the majority down more. But we're in a recession, and (as someone on the BBC pointed out, not sure if it was Brian or one of his guests) people naturally become more small-c conservative in a recession, and I think Labour voters in particular are having some primeval reaction against the imminent Tory UK government, thinking (stupidly, and against all historical evidence) that local Labour MPs will protect them better.

    Last night backed up the evidence of recent polls suggesting a return to Labour for Westminster elections, but which also showed the SNP's lead increasing for Holyrood. People know that the SNP are doing a good job in government and aren't quite so dumb as to want the Scottish Parliament run by idiots like Gray and Baker, but still instinctively cling to the old values where Labour are the opposite of the Tories (rather than the same thing in a different tie, as they are now), and in their fear of the incoming Tory UK administration they can't bring themselves to vote against Labour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 09:17am on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:

    What? Where are the posters patronising the residents of Glasgow North East with their "the good people" statements now?

    Wait, I get it, they are only the good people of Glasgow North East if they vote SNP, if they vote Labour they are "turkeys voting for christmas", "poorly-educated habitual Labour voter[s]" and "would vote for a dead donkey."

    Nice attitude there. Clearly, we should do away with democracy as the majority don't accept your opinions.

    How about, people voted Labour because, and I know this may seem incomprehensible to some of you, the SNP are anathema to them?

    Or that Labour weren't the only ones being held accountable in this election the SNP were too, and they were found lacking.

    Labour ran an effective campaign, they knocked on my door several times, the conservatives came round once which I enjoyed, (I really wanted them to do better, oh well) but the SNP were nowhere to be seen.

    I only saw them a couple of times on Duke Street and only when the cameras where present, after that they scarpered.

    And despite the sycophancy being displayed for Kerr, he did not come across well to the public. Bain successfully played the local man card, regardless of its accuracy, and I'm sure many responded to it.

    Also, I think next to the conservatives he killed the most trees, I could fuel a power station with the number of leaflets put through my door.

    Anyway, let Bain enjoy it, he's got a few months before it happens all over again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 09:20am on 13 Nov 2009, Stargazer wrote:

    Really, you cannot compare this by-election to the last General Election because there was not really a contest. Mind you, pro-government swings are collector's items in any circumstances.

    It's a good result for Labour, but will a 2% swing from SNP to Labour really win them the next General Election???

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 09:23am on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:

    #106 angel allen

    "It would have been astounding if the benefit claimants who make up the majority of the population of this constituency had voted for a party other than the one who gives them their free handouts."

    Thanks, however, a majority of the people who live in this constituency actually do work and believe it or not have a good education, but cheers for assuming we are all claiming benefits and didn't get much further than primary school.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 09:28am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @107 "Neither is it good - as some on here will - question the intelligence of the voters."

    "Questioning" doesn't come into it. The stats are black-and-white: Glasgow NE is the thickest constituency in Scotland. Fewer than half of the adults in the seat have ANY academic qualifications. You can argue about whether and how that affects their voting patterns, but it remains a fact either way. These are not, as a generalisation, bright people, and 74 years of useless Labour control has beaten the spirit to fight out of them too.

    "The SNP needs to change their tactics. If this sort of result is reflected in the general election next year, Salmond's position as leader of the SNP will be under threat."

    This is utter nonsense. Salmond is the SNP's trump card and the party knows it. I don't think the SNP will make any dramatic games at the General Election, but I also don't think it'll matter in the slightest, because the Tories are going to win with a large majority and neither the SNP or the Lib Dems are going to get the hung-parliament influence they hoped. In anything but a hung parliament SNP representation at Westminster is irrelevant - what matters vastly more is the Holyrood result, and Salmond is still a golden asset as far as that's concerned. He is BY FAR the most popular political leader in the entire UK in terms of voter approval, never mind Scotland.

    As I've said above, Labour voters retreating to safe ground in fear of an incoming Tory government is something that goes far, far deeper than who is leader of the SNP. 2011 is the election that will tell the story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 09:43am on 13 Nov 2009, ambi wrote:

    113 "Thanks, however, a majority of the people who live in this constituency actually do work and believe it or not have a good education, but cheers for assuming we are all claiming benefits and didn't get much further than primary school."

    Really? There isn't a majority of the UK population in work so I doubt Glasgow NE bucks that statistic.
    Perhaps we should get away from seeing any mention of the problems places like Glasgow NE face as 'doing down Glasgow', and I really think Murphy last night should have been forced to give proof of the improvements in the area that he waffled so vaguely about. It's avoiding the issue that lets the status quo continue. If Willie Bain is going to sweep in with a campaign to change 40 years of blight good luck to him, but I didn't see any evidence of that in his campaign. Unfortunately there wasn't much evidence of that with the SNP either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 09:45am on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    Blackivar:

    I am amused that you feel you can ignore statistics. Yes, this part of Glasgow does suffer high unemployment rates and also high benefit claims. There's no denying it.

    If it really was that successful they'd have voted Conservatives, but there not that rich.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 09:48am on 13 Nov 2009, kaybraes wrote:

    Like a lot of people in Scotland I'm not sure how Proportional Representation works exactly, but if I'm right and the BNB gets 5% of the vote at the next Holyrood election, then whoever forms a government might need to hold their hands. This situation however will give Tavish the excuse to form an alliance with whoever he pleases without losing face , to "keep the BNP out".

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 09:53am on 13 Nov 2009, Harry wrote:

    Regardless of her politics it was nice to see an overt lesbian candidate (Ruth Davidson) be seen to run a good campaign and get a better than expected number of votes. Maybe bigotry aaginst LGBT people in politics is diminishing!

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 10:09am on 13 Nov 2009, shennachie wrote:

    I have to say that the reactions here are all with 20:20 hindsight. I will make no secret of a desire for an independent Scotland. However last nights result was a severe blow to any SNP hopes. Don't get me wrong I can't lay the blame on anyone and I don't see any benefit in trying to, whether it was a bad SNP campaign or that the locals are wrong.
    This is the wrong way to look at it. I sell underfloor heating systems for a living but trying to persuade people away from the large, very heavy, very hot and sharp bits of metal that we call radiators is a difficult task. People by nature are suspicious. Politicians are regarded as the worst form of snake oil salesmen, so persuading them away from the 'comfort blanket' they have always voted for is very difficult.
    The solution? We all have ideas but I believe that North Highlander has it a bit right in that we (the SNP supporters and the SNP) have to veer of in a radical new direction and come up with a set of proposals that will make the people sit up and listen. The problem with that is the press will crucify the SNP. So the result is to try and do what every one else does that little bit better.
    The SNP have done over 60 of 96 or thereabouts manifesto pledges. Yet the party politic bickering still highlights that Glasgow is hard done by. Someone suggested that London is with holding £300m for the games but that goes unreported.
    I really like this blog a lot of the arguments are quite lucid. Iwould only wish that this was reflected in society. Unfortunately politics doesn't seem to be up for discussion it's just a shouting match.

    Just re read the above. What a miserable ***** I am eh?

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 10:20am on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Disappointing result when taken at face value. although a slight increase in vote share still a positive.

    Those comparing last nights result to Labour's 53% share in 2005 are making a false comparisson. 2005 saw quite a vote for another socialist party that caused Labour's vote to drop from 65%-70% to 53%.

    So Labour's vote will probably have fallen slightly in real terms, maintaining a pattern of slow decline in their vote [something they will be aware of internally].

    The BNP did not come third and even lost their deposit. I understand that the BBC went overboard a bit with their coverage prior to the official announcement and that Jim Murphy was again telling everyone that the BNP were a very real threat - also Jim Devine was at it as well, I actually had the misfortune to listen to this man.

    I disagree with oldnat about Bain's campaign, it was dreadfull and not up to scrutiny - almost all headlines around the campaign were based around smears.

    Once again we learned that the media, including the BBC, will shamelessly promote Labour whilst attacking the SNP at the drop of a hat.

    Thus, saying Labour fought a good campaign is like saying I am a good footballer because I can walk past my nephew with the ball at will and score. Without a serious journalistic challenge, it is impossible to say how good a campaign was.

    Last night saw more scrutiny of Labour than throughout the campaign - of course by then it was too late, Labour had already won handsomely.

    I am also slightly concerned with the size of the win - no, I don't think that it is a flawed result but I certainly do believe that stringent security needs to be placed around postal ballots.

    Any more news regarding the alleged voter fraud in Dennistoun?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 10:22am on 13 Nov 2009, raisethegame wrote:

    Conan the Librarian:)
    http://mypseudepigrapha.blogspot.com

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 10:28am on 13 Nov 2009, X_Sticks wrote:

    Labour winning this seat with 15 percent of the vote is nothing to crow about. The loser in this campaign wasn't the SNP, it was democracy.
    I think it shows a sad lack of engagement between people and politics.
    The blame for this lies soley on politicians. The vast majority in this country are sick to death of all thier broken promises and outright lies. The non-votes say more than all those cast.
    Our politicians have to ask themselves what will they do when we all give up and no-one votes for any of them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 10:34am on 13 Nov 2009, sid the sceptic wrote:

    morning, the fact that ,much to the joy of Pravda Scotland, labour "romped it" shows how much work that is required to be done , much more than slagging off the electorate.
    whilst most of us on here (excluding the host) think they made a mistake ,slagging them off is not going to resolve the situation.

    joining the labour party as the masters of negativity and spin will not solve the problem , but being out there in their face being positive will be such a shock to them it might really make a difference!

    the SNP can no longer sit and take all the hits and not hit back. Hitting back doesn't need to be nasty, but truthful and positive will win the day

    Sid

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 10:36am on 13 Nov 2009, sid the sceptic wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 125. At 10:43am on 13 Nov 2009, mince and mealie wrote:

    I would say this result represents Labour holding onto their long-standing core vote ('my faither voted Labour') and the SNP failing to pick up the many disenchanted or disinterested electors who stayed at home instead (see turnout).

    Labour made a big effort to secure postal votes, most likely from those physically unable to get to the polls, and I think that says something about where Labour's core vote is. I suspect the voting rate among younger inhabitants of Springburn was very low indeed. It wouldn't surprise me if there were more than two incidents of electoral fraud (see news reports on postal vote fraud in England), but I rather doubt there were 8000 fraudulent votes...

    So Labour, still holding on to their loyal but ageing voters despite Baron Martin's shenanigans, but not raising much enthusiasm in what is one of their safest seats in the country. And the SNP, still looking very comfortable at Holyrood, but unable to raise any enthusiasm in Springburn,and concerned about being squeezed in the Westminster election.

    On a non-partisan note, isn't is a modern curiosity to observe that the two parties which run our governments both campaign chiefly as opposition parties? Maybe this is how it works in the USA, where mostly campaigning appears to be against an incumbent although both parties are in power in many states.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 10:45am on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    My opinion:

    It's a "nothing" result. Nothing has changed - the SNP and Labour polled the same percent of the vote as they did last time, within a margin of less than 2%. Nothing can be extrapolated from this then in as far as being an indicator of trends for the UK general election.

    And there was a poor turnout. So it only shows voters of Glasgow North East aren't moved by any of the parties, none of the parties have connected with them.

    To connect with these voters would have taken a dedicated consistent previous effort, where SNP groups noticeably instigated change on a community projects level, to have visibly "proved" they are the voters' friend. (The age of the message coming from the top down in politics is over, as Tom Devine said.) The SNP's man wasn't recognised as being as "local boy" as was their man in Glasgow East, or as was Labour's man - they needed this track record. And with the constituents caring not for the world of politicians or politics, that was the crucial factor there.

    Tom Devine did have the most rational, intelligent comments out of the whole election night coverage, when he put the result into the context of the pattern of what tends to happen in to the vote in such areas in gloomy economic times. He correctly highlighted the constituents' resignation, their sort of stoic willingness to continue with the status quo rather than entertain change they don't trust.

    And that's just because a proposed change away from Labour seems a bit fuzzy, to them. It's almost as if a competent message for change cannot be put in an optimistic way, as it diluted by its very being so. Of course voters were deliberately confused by Labour - the SNP has nothing against Glasgow, it is a Scottish city - but blunt, down to earth, brief message campaigning is the way to go. (Not "cocky", seen as fanciful etc.) You have to spell it out. Ideas don't float.
    The SNP can translate its message and deliver it this way though.

    However, they knew it would take a very expensive ferocious campaign, and that there was little realistic chance of taking this seat away from Labour on the strength of election campaigning alone. And, significantly, as said earlier, the increase in hopeless mood, as a result of the bedding in of the economic downturn, made this constituency a mountain too high to climb. But economic downturns are ephemeral of course.

    So they popped out a positive campaign, which would be helpful later as good PR. The SNP do only have so much money, and so have to watch how they spend it.

    Was it a marvelous victory for Labour?
    No. It was OK. If they had lost the seat, that would have been a dire fright indeed.
    Has the SNP juggernaut stalled?
    No. Not winning a seat it would have been a political miracle for the SNP (or any other party) to win at this time (economic slump, SNP in mid-term in government) isn't a stall.

    Things are just the same as they were.
    Ironic, for Glasgow North East.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 10:57am on 13 Nov 2009, nedafo2 wrote:

    # 125 - as an aside, I had a relative who lived in small village in North east Scotland who voted Tory for no other reason than her father had voted Labour and she wanted to be fair by giving the "Tory mannie" her vote. Unfortunatley, she passed away a few years ago. An interesting version variation on the "my faither voted Labour" argument. Maybe the SNP should have appealed to the electorate to vote vote for them on grounds of fairness and equality because their faithers (and mithers) had voted Labour.

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 10:59am on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    114. Rev_S_Campbell

    "Glasgow NE is the thickest constituency in Scotland."

    You cannot claim that. Are you sure, if you were born and bred there, you would have any qualifications either? Maybe. Some would, but the majority of folk, put from their normality into chronic poverty, would find it just a little bit more difficult to get those grades, and get out. You cannot deduce the people in Glasgow NE are inferior, much as their voting patterns may you dismay.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 11:13am on 13 Nov 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:

    Wow.

    A record low turnout of 32.97% .

    Whatever happened to ignorance and apathy -- don`t know don`t care.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 11:27am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @128 "You cannot claim that."

    I don't claim it, it's a fact. These things are empirically measurable, and statistically it has lower academic achievements than any other constituency in Scotland. You could argue that there are other forms of intelligence - eg learning a skilled trade - but even that would be undermined by the seat's unemployment figures.

    As I said, you could argue as to whether it affects the way people vote or not, and I'm not making that argument here, but you can't argue with the simple official recorded fact that in every measurable sense, Glasgow NE is the dumbest constituency in Scotland.

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 11:30am on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @128 Oh, and by the by:

    "Are you sure, if you were born and bred there, you would have any qualifications either?"

    I'm no Einstein, but I grew up and went to school in Bathgate in the 80s, which was just about as economically deprived a place as you could find in Scotland at the time, and I got eight 'O' Grades and four Highers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 11:37am on 13 Nov 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:

    #`s 114 and 128

    Those of us born in the late 40`s early 50`s came by and large from worse poverty and deprivation and less well educated backgrounds than today`s Glasgow NE.

    We rose above it, why, functional families with parents who were determined the next generation would be better off than they were in every sense. Not only did they work for it but at it.

    The rich won`t improve the lot of the poor, so get of your proverbial and onto your proverbial, stop whingeing and looking for excuses.

    Dae somethin.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 11:48am on 13 Nov 2009, bingowings87 wrote:

    #130,

    Do you understand the difference between intelligence and academic achievement? Two totally different things.

    You make a rather insulting "dumbest consituency" claim as fact - well, show us the stats, or point us in the right direction.

    There are many social reasons why people do not get academic qualifications. That does not make them stupid. Society these days values vocational qualifications just as much as academic ones. Do your facts cvoer these sorts of quals?

    Me - I'm personally much more interested in the the values, ethics and attitudes that a person has. These transcend any arguments around intellectual capability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 11:48am on 13 Nov 2009, PickledPete wrote:

    I remember reading comments on this blog only a few short months ago after the BNP won seats in the EU elections in England that they were an irrelevance in Scotland. That can't be said now. Large oaks from little acorns grow, and we should all worry that so many people saw fit in Glasgow to vote for them. It is clear that many Scots harbour similar fears to their cousins in England, and if the main parties refuse to address them, then the SNP isn't the only "nationalist" party to which they can defect. Indeed, those who do not support the call for Scottish independence, but are sick of the mess created by Labour, may yet deliver a bigger shock come the general election. We live in worrying times.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 12:01pm on 13 Nov 2009, Rockycoast wrote:

    I suppose that Labour were always going to win here,but I had hoped that the SNP would do well. With hindsight I think that David Kerr, good though he was,was the wrong choice for this constituency.Polished, articulate,educated & confident, he made the local people feel uncomfortable. Whereas Willie Bain, shambling & awkward at times, & with no real message of hope, could at least be seen as the local boy.
    They could feel relaxed with him, & anyway, most importantly,he was Labour. The SNP are going to have to be more sensitive when choosing a candidate. Each candidate must fit into the area where he/she is standing. Though, as I've said,in areas like this one, it doesn't really make any difference for the time being at least.
    I live close to the constituency, & my wife's family live in it. The younger members of the family have no interest in politics, & the older ones vote Labour, have always voted Labour, & will vote Labour until their dying day. The Labour Party doesn't deserve their loyalty & trust
    of course, having long ago decided that the end justifies the means. Though these days the end seems to be to enrich & ennoble themselves.
    Many old people living in the area lost their jobs during the Thatcher era, & now survive on the state pension & any benefits they can squeeze out of the system. Thatcher still looms large in their thoughts, & now,
    with another right wing Tory party on the horizon, they are doing what they have always done, looking to Labour for protection.
    The Labour Party exploits their fears ruthlessly, telling them that the
    Conservatives will take away their benefits. They tell them the same thing about the SNP, which isn't true of course, but the people believe them anyway. After all, The Labour Party wouldn't lie to them,would it? Labour didn't even bother to promise these people jam tomorrow. Why bother when it's in the bag? These old people don't have many tomorrows left now. Sadly,therein lies at least part of the solution. For, as these old souls die off, so will Labours vote. In the meantime, Willie Bain can relax, safe in the knowledge that his job at least is safe, for a while.
    Apart from Gordon Brown, others who will no doubt be celebrating today are- Lord Mandelson, Lord Kinnock, Lady Kinnock,Lord Foulkes, & of course, Lord Martin of Springburn. Good socialists all.
    As Ian Bell once said,

    HUZZAH FOR THE PEOPLES PARTY.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 12:06pm on 13 Nov 2009, The_Oncoming_Storm wrote:

    The real winner of this by-election was apathy, the derisory 33% turnout is probably a better indicator of public mood than the vote tallies!

    This will ensure that Brown leads Labour in the GE, which will probably have Cameron quietly smiling today!

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 12:08pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    131. Rev_S_Campbell

    Oh, dear. Good for you, I said some would. It takes a certain self assuredness and clarity of thought and purpose. In adverse situations the majority feel things negatively affecting them.
    You contradict your evidence for your being quite smart: That many in Glasgow NE don't achieve academically doesn't mean they can't. That statistically they achieve the least, doesn't mean they are the least capable.
    (That you though believe the opposite... ;-)

    Are you duped by the stereotype?
    There are, per head of population, something like ten times more black Americans in jail in the US at the moment than others. By your reckoning they are measurably, and so proven to be, more criminal?
    Some things are not that simple. Maybe you shouldn't throw stones.
    (It sounds like you have to be billy big baws - by putting others down)

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 12:14pm on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    PickledPete:

    The BNP and SNP have nothing in common, even their 'nationailist' beleifs are vastly different and the BNP dislike the SNP with a passion for their reluctance to focus more on race.

    I will point out that you can vote for other parties and still be against the SNP, but support independence. The SNP are not a single issue party and does provide an alternative socialist party instead of Labour.

    The BNP still, have never took back their deposit and still have never elected a person to a position of power in this country. There is no BNP issue here and I do not like how individuals attempt to paint the opposite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 12:16pm on 13 Nov 2009, Nat_very_likely wrote:

    A good night for Labour,but I don't think the more perceptive in their ranks will be on a high for long.Glasgow NE is about as far away from a bellwether seat as it's possible to get.

    Labour were ecstatic after Glenrothes but still got thumped by the SNP in the Euro vote 6 months later,as indeed the Nationalists were thumped at Glenrothes after their spectacular win at Glasgow East.The sobering truth for Labour is that last night's result doesn't tell them diddly-squat about their general election prospects.

    And their 'SNP are anti-Glasgow' antics will have left a very sour taste in the mouths of many.They won't be able to play that card in the GE.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 12:22pm on 13 Nov 2009, skint wrote:

    Why cant i see any commens - just white space but top header and bottom section display cotrrectly, am typin this blind at the momnet, tried the text version and it erros also, webmaster deleted my email without readin it so if anyone out there can help can you respond on Douglas Frasers blog as it works fine - have the same problem with Nick Robinsons alos - is this some form of BBC censorship?

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 12:24pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    132. nine2ninetysix

    It doesn't take the most intelligent commentator to see that to get these folk to vote for change you have to persuade them. Stating "dae somethin" is not the actions of the wise or clever! They've lost the hope your parents had. Of course they can do it but they have to believe they can. So on alluding to being smallminded...!

    If you were uninclined to take a risk, to vote for a federal Europe to take an example, would someone saying "dae it" convince?

    Typical angry scapegoating. In contrast, we need to take a rational practical view. (Stop "grumpin" ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 12:44pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @133 "Do you understand the difference between intelligence and academic achievement? Two totally different things."

    Yes I do, which is why I specifically addressed that exact thing in my post. Perhaps your attention span expired after one sentence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 12:45pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    134. PickledPete

    Not really. It was the size of vote expected in this type of area, with a notably higher incidence of unemployment etc. in bad economic times.
    The BNP has campaigned there in the past. I think the TV coverage became over excited, again - "Gasp!" because it's the BNP, which amplifies the force they are perceived to have. It will pass by.
    There is plenty of evidence of good relations between the constituents and the immigrant population over the ten years or so since they first were there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 12:46pm on 13 Nov 2009, Douglas Daniel wrote:

    Independence will come eventually, whether Glasgow and the surrounding areas like it or not. Their steadfast refusal to vote for anyone but Labour makes the job more difficult, but it will happen one day nonetheless. It might be easier, of course, if Glasgow was left to remain a part of the union (or to join up with Ireland, as some would no doubt love), leaving the rest of the country to get on with things. Actually, considering that Glaswegians get more public expenditure per head than anywhere else in Scotland, it might make things even better for the rest of us. Plus we could distance ourselves from the mainly-Glaswegian problems like sectarianism. Hmmm, sounds more attractive the more I think about it...

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 12:50pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @137 "That many in Glasgow NE don't achieve academically doesn't mean they can't. "

    I didn't say they couldn't. I said they didn't. If we're measuring things by fantasy alternative universes, then I'm the highest-scoring centre-forward in Scottish international history.

    "There are, per head of population, something like ten times more black Americans in jail in the US at the moment than others. By your reckoning they are measurably, and so proven to be, more criminal? Some things are not that simple."

    Indeed. America is an institutionally racist country, which was pursuing racist official policies long after the end of WW2. That is always likely to affect judicial statistics, in numerous direct and indirect ways (eg not just direct judicial bias, but black people being more likely to be poor, which then leads to higher crime).

    What is the external factor you perceive as uniquely affecting academic achievement in Glasgow NE? And whatever it is, why is it still present after 74 years of uninterrupted Labour control?

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 12:56pm on 13 Nov 2009, bingowings87 wrote:

    #142,

    Er.... no you didn't Reverend. Your post directly links lack of academic achievement to stupidity.

    Here's a novel suggestion Reverend. How about addressing the points in my #133.

    ps thanks for your concern about my attention span. Cattell 162 suggests otherwise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 1:01pm on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Some good points here, honest reflection is better than self delusion.

    On the intellect of the electorate; I have said before that we must be carefull not to confuse intellect with ignorance. The media play a huge part in ensuring Scotland's electorate remain ignorant.

    The other lost point is in the SNP's decision to drop Dornan, a local man I believe, because he once fell on hard times and was declared bankrupt.

    The lesson learned is not to let the media dictate your candidate choice and always look at how financial misfortune [turned into a media smear] may actually serve to create empathy with the voter, look at Brown and the Sun's attempt at smearing him recently over the letter.

    I believe David Kerr was an axcellent candidate and was in full control, figures at the ready and performed well when facing the BBC's interrogations. However, this was a poor constituency with low achievement and low aspiration, perhaps the old adage 'horses for courses' should be the lesson.

    Willie Bain was poor, given the many months that he had to prepare - we all witnessed two 'rabbit in the headlights' moments when he faced pretty straightforward questions. The media deliberately failed to pursue him on anything of note.

    Many independence supporting people here today will be feeling down, possibly angry maybe even frustrated.

    All I would say is that nothing has changed [as eye_write says in #126], Labour's vote is still eroding in Scotland and the SNP will continue to grow. Remember also that a great many people who voted Bain will voye Yes in an independence referendum !!

    Such has been the growth of the SNP that even wins in constituencies like this are resulting in cries that the 'wheels have come off', 'the train has been derailed' etc.

    We will get no-where by complaining about the medias 'slight of hand' unless we set about revealing how their tricks are done.

    The electorate are like children, they will believe what they see and are told by the media until such time as these 'Oracles of truth' are revealed as cheap charlatans.

    On Sunday, Newsnet Scotland will produce edition 5, almost 400 people will receive it - hopefully many more will also read it - through time, with the help of the disparate online community, the mist will clear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 1:05pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @146 If you're going to tell flat-out lies, I see little point in debate. You might be happier on The Scotsman. Here's what I said at 130, and this time I've put some in capitals so you might spot it:

    "These things are empirically measurable, and statistically it has lower academic achievements than any other constituency in Scotland. You could argue that THERE ARE OTHER FORMS OF INTELLIGENCE - EG LEARNING A SKILLED TRADE - but even that would be undermined by the seat's unemployment figures."

    Let me know if I need to use shorter words for you.

    "Me - I'm personally much more interested in the the values, ethics and attitudes that a person has."

    Mm. Has any Scottish constituency ever returned a higher proportion of BNP votes than Glasgow NE did last night?

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 1:25pm on 13 Nov 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:

    #141

    So I have to persuade the non voters.

    I am persuaded on many fronts, eg more exercise, less alcohol, less chocolate and cream cakes. But I don`t really want to, but I don`t blame it on others, I don`t say it is society, I don`t need any more facts or figures.

    I just need to

    Dae somethin

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 1:29pm on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:

    #147 U14094468

    "Remember also that a great many people who voted Bain will voye Yes in an independence referendum !!"

    No offense, but how can you assume this?

    You might as well add many who have voted SNP in the past only did so as a protest against Labour and will vote no in a vote on independence.

    I see you too can be, what's the phrase you posters think yourselves so witty in using, oh yes, "Glencambly".

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 1:32pm on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:

    On a previous point 4,000 people out of work is not a majority of people unemployed.

    There are 60,000 people of working age in the constituency.

    There are only 2.2% of people of working age making claims according to the ONS.

    see http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/oct/14/unemployment-and-employment-statistics-economics

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 1:34pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    Too much Glasgow-bashing going. This is a test, and gloomily, many of my fellow Scots here are failing it. The people of Glasgow are just the same as you and I.
    They weren't born any different, They weren't different as babies.

    145. Rev_S_Campbell asks:
    "What is the external factor you perceive as uniquely affecting academic achievement in Glasgow NE? And whatever it is, why is it still present after 74 years of uninterrupted Labour control?"

    You've answered it. If it is legitimate for being poor to partly explain the American situation discussed.... I'd add though, that these housing schemes typically seen in Glasgow, and around the wee touns in the south west, are disasterous social engineering projects in action - fostering apathy and insularity, where folk become institutionalised and trapped by thinking they can only belong there.

    There is a "It's no for me to take responsibilty", dependent, initiative destroying culture, born from seeing so many not working, on benefits, not successfully completing school etc., which "proves" the case for these folk to have no expectations.

    It can be escaped, Mr W for one, but it is not easy. The majority of people form who they are to a degree from those they live alongside. (Like you saw "you could" from your parents.) Many of his intelligent, academic, friends were unable to see how they could fit into a wider world, and languished there in stasis, same as their parents and peers.

    As I've hinted, I do think society's been consciously engineered to be that way. The benefits and housing system I think should not allow it to be the case, for example, that you can live in a council house as a lifestyle choice - I think when you are able you should move on. I lay the blame for much of the state of things at Labour's door. Their policies and attitude unfortunately perpetuate the cycle where those who suffer from them continue to vote for them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 1:45pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    149. nine2ninetysix

    "So I have to persuade the non voters."

    You don't think then they should be persuded to vote?

    It's a lot easier to decide to "nae eat cakes and choc" and do exercise other lifestyle refinery when you aren't dealing with and worrying over whether your teenage son has been doing drugs, cleaning up round the constant damp, and if your husband will be made redundant again...

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 1:47pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @152 None of that, however, is in any way unique to Glasgow NE, yet Glasgow NE does even worse than other places of similar or worse deprivation and poverty. And as you note, much of this is engineered by Labour - so how is continuing to vote for them after 74 years of non-achievement anything OTHER than a sign of low intelligence? Even a dog learns to shy away from people who keep kicking it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 1:50pm on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    145. Rev_S_Campbell
    "Glasgow NE is the thickest constituency in Scotland. Fewer than half of the adults in the seat have ANY academic qualifications."

    It's the terminology which caused offence to many (including me). Everyone would agree with the second sentence. Better for you to withdraw the first.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 1:53pm on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    150. Blackivar
    "how can you assume this?"

    Polling evidence.

    Party voting is not wholly aligned with the constitutional issue. A number of SNP voters would vote against independence, more Labour voters would vote for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 1:58pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    154. Rev_S_Campbell

    Because they have a long standing tradition of voting for Labour. It requires the gumption to dare to vote differently. As I've explained, the combination of the engineered erosion of any belief in the worth of change, and a feeling of safety in tradition, has created a catch 22. That's different from mere stupidity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 2:03pm on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    eye_write:

    #152.

    "Too much Glasgow-bashing going. This is a test, and gloomily, many of my fellow Scots here are failing it. The people of Glasgow are just the same as you and I.
    They weren't born any different, They weren't different as babies."

    It's simply the West-East divide. I too, am quite a feirce critic of the treatment between Glasgow and other cities in Scotland.

    If your in a part of Scotland that has been riddled with problems and receive quite substantial amounts of resources, you can expect people to be frustrated hence why certain posters talk down the people.

    To stop this attitude Glasgow should play ball on a level playing feild, or does the people of Glasgow deserve more? If we're all the same why does the people of Glasgow receive more?

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 2:09pm on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    150. At 1:29pm on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:
    #147 U14094468

    "Remember also that a great many people who voted Bain will voye Yes in an independence referendum !!"

    No offense, but how can you assume this?

    You might as well add many who have voted SNP in the past only did so as a protest against Labour and will vote no in a vote on independence.


    It's a well established and accepted fact that there are supporters of independence amongst the ranks of voters of the 'Unionist' parties. I believe the higher percentage is amongst Labour voters.

    You have hit the nail on the head when you say that not all SNP voters will vote Yes in an independence referendum. We cannot extrapolate independence support from traditional elections where personality, policy and other factors are at play.

    That is why it is misleading when General Election results are used in order to suggest support for independence is low.

    I know of two independence supporters who do not vote SNP because they dislike Salmond.

    Incidentaly, the term 'Glencampbely' is defined as someone who purports to be non partisan whilst displaying clear partisan behaviour.

    I am an unashamed supporter of independence; however my comment regarding support for independence amongst voters of Willie Bain is one hundred percent accurate, in other words I have presented a fact in order to make a point.

    One last thing:
    FMQ's yesterday saw Iain Gray make a rather clumsy and arrogant gaffe when he stated that an independence referendum question was something "we also know the answer to".

    Had Alex Salmond suggested that he already knew the answer to a referendum on independence he would have been crucified by the media as 'arrogantly' taking the electorate for granted - as usual though, there was no mention of Gray's arrogance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 2:15pm on 13 Nov 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Actually, the poster 'Blackiver' has demonstrated one of the points I made earlier regarding the media here in Scotland.

    I am assuming that Blackiver genuinely did not know that there were supporters of independence amongst traditional Labour voters and that it had been demonstrated and quantified.

    I am interested to hear Blackiver's views on this, whether he accepts it or not - if not why not.

    If he accepts it then what does he put this hitherto lack of knowledge on the subject down to?

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 2:17pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @157 "Because they have a long standing tradition of voting for Labour. It requires the gumption to dare to vote differently. As I've explained, the combination of the engineered erosion of any belief in the worth of change, and a feeling of safety in tradition, has created a catch 22. That's different from mere stupidity."

    I'm not sure I can go along with that. What is intelligence if not the drive to question, inquire and learn?

    I'm not saying there's inherently anything about coming from Glasgow NE that makes you stupid. But it seems entirely fair to note that people with intelligence tend (for the very reasons discussed) to leave, and the ones who are still there stewing in Labour's poverty generally aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. There are no armed guards at the constituency boundaries.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 2:19pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    158. Thomas_Porter

    Glasgow can have more, or what it needs, in my opinion, because it has suffered worse. It has great potential, it's a great city and it's scandalous.
    I don't lose sight that it is a Scottish city.

    West-east divide? Glasgow bashing. (And I live in Abdns.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 2:32pm on 13 Nov 2009, oldnat wrote:

    162. eye_write
    "I don't lose sight that it is a Scottish city."

    You make the crucial point. Politics is a dirty game, but Labour made a mistake in playing the divisive card. There are many more Scots outwith Glasgow than in it, and Labour painting themselves as a local Glasgow party is unlikely to play well in Ochil or Dundee. It's important, however, for the SNP to avoid that tactic and to continue to work for all Scotland.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 2:35pm on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    eye_write:

    #162.

    "Glasgow can have more, or what it needs, in my opinion, because it has suffered worse."

    But, you've said that we are the same, so clearly we share certain cultural ties but we are different people based on the differences we experience living in different parts of quite a diverse country.

    "It has great potential, it's a great city and it's scandalous.
    I don't lose sight that it is a Scottish city."

    It may be a Scottish city, but it certainly is not more important then other parts of the country and I am quite fed up with the vast differences in our financial arrangements.

    If you can't survive why pro-long suffering? I see no benefit encouraging generations to breed further generations without first fixing the problems that currently exist.

    I do not doubt the cities potential. However there should be a time where we leave them to themselves to see if they sink or swim.

    "West-east divide? Glasgow bashing. (And I live in Abdns.)"

    I wouldn't use the term 'Glasgow bashing'. It's a simple discussion on if we should reload the gun and put this limping dog out of their misery or continue with the plan that has failed the city for the last decade or so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 2:40pm on 13 Nov 2009, PickledPete wrote:

    #138 Thomas_Porter:
    "There is no BNP issue here and I do not like how individuals attempt to paint the opposite."

    __________________

    Thomas,

    I know that you are rather younger than many here, but the BNP vote is rising in some parts of Scotland, even if from a very low base. The most important lesson we can draw from history in respect of fascist parties is that their best friend complacency. The very fact that people in Scotland choose to vote BNP means that there IS a BNP issue.

    I did not suggest that the BNP and SNP have anything in common. I was pointing out that people disenchanted with any of the other "mainstream" UK parties have somewhere else to go apart from the SNP should they choose. You may not like people pointing that out, but I don't like people closing their eyes to the dangers that lurk around us. That probably makes us quits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 2:46pm on 13 Nov 2009, dear_wendy wrote:

    Firstly - consistent and repeated negative campaigning from most parties will obviously lead to lower turnouts. Politicians cannot campaign as they do and then wring their hands in despair at an electorate disenchanted with them all.

    Second - As an SNP supporter, I would never question the right of any voter to vote for whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Those doing so above should realise that such behaviour is unlikely to win converts to the cause.
    We have to work out why they are not voting SNP, and whether there is anything we can do to address that, without abandoning all priciples (although that worked for Blair!)
    Personally I think we'll only succeed nationally by winning seats from Labour. We've been most successful at that when we have highlighted our progressive politics and equally highlighted the abandonment of such policies by Nu Labour.
    This was crucial in Glasgow East, which closely followed Brown's 10p tax shenanigans, and his cosying up to Mrs Thatcher.

    Without the west of Scotland, the SNP will have a hard time winning any majority of Scottish seats in either parliament. Without showing the SNP as the party of progressive politics and Nu Labour as little more than red Tories we'll struggle to make inroads in the West of Scotland.

    74 years of Labour decline was the wrong message in Glasgow NE. That is telling the electorate they have been wrong, wrong and wrong again. We should have pointed out where current NuLabour policies place them closer to Thatcher than Keir Hardie, and current SNP policies are more in line with original Labour principles.

    If Labour, in Westminster opposition, continue to woo Middle England that argument may still resonate. If they shift to the left, a new SNP strategy may be required.

    We have the advantage - we only have to woo "Middle Scotland". NuLab have to balance that with wooing Middle England, which ain't easy!

    We also have the advantage of only having to win once, all be it handsomely!

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 2:54pm on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    PickledPete:

    #165.

    I am actually very supportive of allowing the BNP their moment in the limelight. However, I see no reason for the amount of media attention despite the BNP never winning into a position of power in Scotland and never even winning back their deposits.

    Infact I suspect the BNP receive more attention then the Green party! This is wrong, surely? How can a non-existant party receive more attention then the Greens who have more representation?

    Fascism in Scotland does exist, you can't change the mind of man, though. It has always existed and will continue to exist. There is no reason why Britain should be different from our European neighbours, however, untill the BNP make solid gains I see no reason why their views should be challenged (in a Scottish context). The more attention, the greater the possibilities of support growing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 2:56pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    161. Rev_S_Campbell

    "I'm not sure I can go along with that. What is intelligence if not the drive to question, inquire and learn?"

    Quite. They don't question because it's cultural that it's not their place to be so uppity as to challenge authority like that - it's been driven out of them. They wouldn't feel confident enough to question a doctor to his/her face for example, and to deal with a lawyer, bank manager etc....stressfully daunting.
    And it's frown on those that do as being "something else" and titter at them. Because otherwise it would shine a light on the validity of their deference, might question the legitimacy of their shunning of responsibility. There's security in it's not their place.
    Whereas we see having control as being something to protect, the attitude is having none, protects. Then backing it up by thinking they don't merit it anyway. Is it "happy inferiority"?

    It's crazy, very wrong, it's a trap, but not lack of intelligence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 2:59pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    164. Thomas_Porter

    You are addressing issues that aren't there and splitting hairs. Want to be bitter about if Glasgow gets a different number of pounds thatn other places (how can everywhere need the same?), go ahead. But know, it's divisive.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 3:04pm on 13 Nov 2009, ambi wrote:

    "113. At 09:23am on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:

    Thanks, however, a majority of the people who live in this constituency actually do work.

    151. At 1:32pm on 13 Nov 2009, Blackivar wrote:

    On a previous point 4,000 people out of work is not a majority of people unemployed.
    There are 60,000 people of working age in the constituency.
    There are only 2.2% of people of working age making claims according to the ONS."

    The ONS also gives a figure of only 25900 being economically active, with 23700 of these being in employment, which makes less than a majority to me.
    I’ve lived in the constituency for 14 years and I’ve no interest in ascribing the problems here to people being thick or lazy. However to pretend statistics like those above are not extraordinary, or that the party that has represented this constituency for 74 years and governed the UK for perhaps a third of that time bears no responsibility for them, now that really is shocking

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 3:06pm on 13 Nov 2009, eye_write wrote:

    161. Rev_S_Campbell

    "the ones who are still there stewing in Labour's poverty generally aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer."

    Meant to add: No, there are plenty left there I know who are intelligent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 3:12pm on 13 Nov 2009, Tom wrote:

    eye_write:

    #169.

    I'm addressing quite important issues. I disagree of allowing generations too breed, while expecting other parts of Scotland to fund their miserable existance.

    It may sound a tad harsh, but nobody can seriously enjoy that type of lifestyle...

    There is also principals here. Glasgow is not the sole part of Scotland which has problems, it's time to sink or swim.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 3:35pm on 13 Nov 2009, DrWibblypig wrote:

    Willie Who ? It rather looks from the photographic evidence, that the good folk of Glasgow North-East have just voted in Hazel Blears in drag!
    More seriously, the various articles on Willie Blears that have appeared on the BBC website have shown him saying that, by voting him in, the pensioners, school children, and social housing tenants of Glasgow North East will all be better off. Surely, most of the matters that directly affect these groups are in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster. Instead, Willie will be able to interfere in English schools, housing, and pensions without any form of mandate from the English people - just like his boss. Time for Labour to sort out its unfinished constitutional business, turn the House of Commons into England's Parliament, and transform the Lords into an elected Senate for all of the UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 4:31pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wicked_Witch_of_the_West_Coast wrote:

    'To stop this attitude Glasgow should play ball on a level playing feild, or does the people of Glasgow deserve more? If we're all the same why does the people of Glasgow receive more?'

    Five of the seven most deprived aresas of the UK are in Glasgow. And it wasn't that long ago that a report issued that admitted that, historically, the Edinburgh-based administrations of the past had deliberately done their best to keep Glasgow in just such a position. Perhaps Glasgow feels it's time that they were recompensed for that particular piece of skullduggery?

    I won't even dignify the tired old snipes about us wanting to be part of Ireland with a reply - it comes from a deep-seated well of ignorance that many Scots don't even see as bigotry, which is rather sad!

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 4:43pm on 13 Nov 2009, bingowings87 wrote:

    #148,

    Yes, please do use shorter words. May I respectfully suggest "I am wrong" would be a good stating point?

    I'm still waiting for your link to the evidence which conclusively shows Glasgow NE to be "the dumbest constituency in Scotland" Only a fool would post that sort of assertion without backing it up.

    If you can provide proof that the average adult IQ in Glasgow NE is the lowest of all Scottish constituencies, then I'll believe you. Otherwise, you are just peddling "flat-out lies". And offensive ones at that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 4:56pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @175 Glasgow NE has the lowest rate of academic achievement in Scotland. In the absence of other measurable stats, I'm happy to take that as an indicator. You can call it a lie if you want, but the simple, short word you're looking for is "fact". I have backed up my assertion and I'm not wrong, so heaven only knows what you're wittering about.

    If you have other measurable statistics by which to judge, please let us know what they are and we'll see how GNE looks. As far as I'm aware there are no official figures for IQs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 4:57pm on 13 Nov 2009, Wee Archie Gemmill wrote:

    @174 "And it wasn't that long ago that a report issued that admitted that, historically, the Edinburgh-based administrations of the past had deliberately done their best to keep Glasgow in just such a position. Perhaps Glasgow feels it's time that they were recompensed for that particular piece of skullduggery?"

    Hang on. What were "the Edinburgh-based administrations of the past", exactly? How far back are we going here?

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 5:06pm on 13 Nov 2009, calmac12000 wrote:

    So now the party's over and what are we left with.Well nothing really much except, over a thousand people in Glasgow NE, thought they'd be better represented by a quasi-fascist than any of the other candidates on offer. Sure the BNP lost their deposit, but in propaganda terms it is worth a hundred lost deposits. I do not wish to overstate their vote, but coming third gives the lie to the claim that the BNP have negligible support, North of the border.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 5:38pm on 13 Nov 2009, Independista wrote:

    Its no surprise that Labour retained the Glasgow NE by election, when the entire Scottish Media, including BBC Scotland,ignored the reason why the election was called in the first place- that the previous incumbent, Labour's Michael Martin fiddled his expenses, along with the majority of the rest of the Westminster brigade. Why was this not an issue, at a time when Great Britain is bankrupt, fighting illegal wars, spending £100 billion on Trident? The Westminster gravy train goes on and no doubt Willie Bain will continue where Lord Martin of Springburn left off.
    The SNP should not have been suckered in to fighting on issues which had absolutely nothing to do with a Westminster by election, and the media simply went along with it. What a shame.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 8:30pm on 13 Nov 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    #14 romeplebian
    "thanks for the stv link , a breath of fresh air compared to the Biased Corporation"
    Clearly a hurricane to the mods [who are otherwise as gods] who not only removed the link but any reference to a less glencambly broadcaster.

    I must admit is was very hungry for bandwidth, though, which is why I had to shut everything else down including this blog.

    #105 thatweec
    "I think the Lib dems are seeing the result of their failure to drive for Full Fiscal Autonomy in a referendum showing us that they never intended to have a Federal sytem, even though they claimed it for the last 50 years."
    The unLib unDems have only existed for a little more than 20 years, and never persuaded all of us old Liberals to join them. Baxendale gave the game away by calling herself a Social Democrat in the debates, and it is true that the Social Democrats have more or less killed off the last remaining Liberals in their party by abandoning federalism.

    "You can't trust a Libdem."
    Sadly true.

    #107 Neil_Small147
    "Lib Dems got slaughtered, and I think this will be reflected across the UK next year."
    I think you're probably right re Scotland, but in England and to a lesser extent Wales, they are at least offering electoral reform and are well to the left of both the Tories and NuLab. Accordingly, they may not prosper outside Scotland but they are unlikely to do really badly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 9:09pm on 13 Nov 2009, bingowings87 wrote:

    #176,

    Still waiting for your evidence, Reverend Godot

    (Here's a wee hint.... just repeating it ad infinitum doesnae count)

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 9:23pm on 13 Nov 2009, govanite wrote:

    Depressing this morning wasn't it. But not unsurprising given the coverage.
    A Westminster bye-election fought on Holyrood issues. Makes you wonder what the local Labour MSPs are for.
    It was hard for the SNP to get the positive message across. My feeling was that they should be more ruthless.

    Then I was cheered by Morning Extra on the BBC. Caller after caller damning Labour, the negative campaign and the sad state of NE Glasgow after decades of neglect. Some of the callers were from that very area.
    I thought of the result. What did it mean for Independence? How would the General Election go ?
    Then I looked at the tory vote, how badly they had done. Means nothing, because how well they will do next spring.
    Not long to go now till Dave arrives, rubbing his hands at the thought of oil, gas, renewable energy, clean fresh water, whisky duty, fishing rights to sell out in Brussels. Lovely.
    Imagine if Salmond had access to that instead of one hand tied behind his back.

    So, I'm looking forward to the General Election.
    Labour will need to defend their Westminster record, live of national TV. 13 years of betrayal of the core voters.
    They can't assault the SNP's record at Holyrood while claiming its a 2 horse race against the tories.
    Labour are finished at Westminster. They deserve to be. Some in Scotland
    have not learned the lessons of history and they are doomed to relive it. It will be painful.
    The people of NE Glasgow will suffer, and many of us too, along with them.
    Their love affair with Labour will continue. Cheerleading for Gordon Brown's career.
    A Scot, a successful Scot, how well he has done and he did it all for ... himself.
    Willie Bain will be powerless to defend Springburn. But he'll have his spot at the trough so he'll be OK.
    His mammy will be so pleased.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 2:41pm on 14 Nov 2009, Independista wrote:

    Yes Govanite, his mammay will be pleased, especially if he manages to get as many airmiles as Lord Martin of Springburn did, and will he send her in a taxi to the Co-Op to get £4000 worth of messages, like Mary did in London?

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 2:07pm on 16 Nov 2009, Dunroamin wrote:

    182. And amazingly there are nationalists who still believe Salmond doesn't receive Scotland's full share of oil revenue, whisky duties etc. et al etc!

    Even after Salmond's much-trumpeted 3000 recalculations, the SNP still couldn't rig the figures so they could claim this was otherwise.

    And isn't it curious that these same nationalists still manage to 'forget' the 50bn that the nasty UK has poured into bailing out a certain two banking disasters. I look forward to how Salmond will spin this in the next GERS!!

    Nationalists suffering from overwhelming ignorance?

    Surely not! Won't have it said! NEVER!

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 5:01pm on 16 Nov 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    #184 Reluctant-Expat
    "I look forward to how Salmond will spin this in the next GERS!!"

    If NuLab finally live up to their latest revision of their '97 manifesto promise and publish the audited WGA accounts for 2008/9 just after the general election, he shouldn't need to, outwith questions re the auditor's non-independence, of course.

    OTOH, if your lot of "official" unionists get in, how much would you care to wager that the whole WGA project will be quietly scrapped?

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.