UK's Blair Loses By-Election in Wake of Iraq Report

[J-10]

UK's Blair Loses By-Election in Wake of Iraq Report

July 15, 2004 — LONDON (*******) - Prime Minister Tony Blair's party lost a parliamentary by-election Friday, after narrowly avoiding defeat in another, in the wake of a damning report on the intelligence he used to justify war in Iraq.

Parmjit Singh Gill of the Liberal Democrats won 10,274 votes in the Leicester South seat, beating the ruling Labour candidate by more than 1,600 votes. At the 2001 general election, Labour's majority was more than 13,000.

"The justification which Tony Blair gave for backing George Bush was wrong," Singh said in his victory speech. "The people of Leicester South have spoken for the people of Britain. Their message is that the prime minister has abused and lost their trust. He should apologize and he should apologize now."

In the Birmingham seat of Hodge Hill Labor just held off the LibDems by 460 votes as their 2001 majority of 11,000-plus was all but wiped out. Both seats have large Muslim populations, making the Iraq war a hot topic.

Blair's public trust ratings have plunged since he took Britain to war in Iraq last year. Wednesday's report into intelligence failings on Iraq gave his anti-war critics fresh ammunition.

Former cabinet secretary Lord Butler absolved Blair of distorting the intelligence but said Baghdad had no significant stores of chemical or biological weapons ready for use, despite Blair's pre-war claim that it did.

The main consolation for Blair was his main Conservative opponents were pushed into third place in both contests.
abcnews (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/*******20040715_547.html)

[seruriermarshal]

Media aren't fair to these :

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19836

[cut]

Bloody hell, it's just a couple of by-elections!! This is not really bad news for labour, they could easily have lost both close to the end of their second term and after public opinion about the war in Iraq. And they managed to hold on despite having to deal with both! This is almost the best Labour could realistically have expected. The fact that the conservatives are still losing votes means that a fight over second between conservatives and liberal democrats in the next general elections instead of a struggle for first between Labour and Conservative.

[ogukuo72]

Nothing new. The media is making news again, rather than just reporting.

A by-election by itself is boring, so they have to spice things up by making it a referendum. But how can a by-election be a referendum expressing the will of the entire population?

I mean, come on, it's like saying that the election for local town mayor in Smallville, Middleofnowhere, USA is a referendum on George Bush. What an absurd idea!

[cut]

Nothing new. The media is making news again, rather than just reporting.

A by-election by itself is boring, so they have to spice things up by making it a referendum. But how can a by-election be a referendum expressing the will of the entire population?

I mean, come on, it's like saying that the election for local town mayor in Smallville, Middleofnowhere, USA is a referendum on George Bush. What an absurd idea!

well it's not quite smallville, one's in Birmingham the biggest city in the UK after London, and the other is in Leicester, which although you can't ****ouce it is not that small. Plus all the parties have been campaining as hard as they can for these by-elections, so it is a fairly good indicator of where the votes are at the moment.

But it does just come down to labour losing 25 000 votes out of something like 38 000

[ogukuo72]

Birmingham is a big city, but it's not the whole of Birmingham that is voting, just a single constituency. There is no indication of the size of the constituency in the article below, but it can't be larger than 30,000, if 10,274 forms a majority.


Plus all the parties have been campaining as hard as they can for these by-elections, so it is a fairly good indicator of where the votes are at the moment.

This is precisely the kind of conclusion that the media and politicians loves to draw, and the kind of conclusion that will be inaccurate.

Since Labour kept one constituency, and lost another, does that mean that Tony Blair both manage to retain the trust of the people of Britan and at the same time lose it? This is illogical.

Am I justified to trumpet the headline: "Tony Blair retain the trust of the majority of people despite Butler report" based on the results of the Leicester elections? Surely not.

And, did anyone bother to ask the good people of Birmingham just what they are unhappy about? Perhaps it is because of the ineptitude of the previous Labour MP, or some local problems?

Reducing every by-election to a referendum of national issues takes away the voice from the locals about issues of the most immediate concern to them.

[cut]

Birmingham is a big city, but it's not the whole of Birmingham that is voting, just a single constituency. There is no indication of the size of the constituency in the article below, but it can't be larger than 30,000, if 10,274 forms a majority.


Plus all the parties have been campaining as hard as they can for these by-elections, so it is a fairly good indicator of where the votes are at the moment.

This is precisely the kind of conclusion that the media and politicians loves to draw, and the kind of conclusion that will be inaccurate.

Since Labour kept one constituency, and lost another, does that mean that Tony Blair both manage to retain the trust of the people of Britan and at the same time lose it? This is illogical.

Am I justified to trumpet the headline: "Tony Blair retain the trust of the majority of people despite Butler report" based on the results of the Leicester elections? Surely not.

And, did anyone bother to ask the good people of Birmingham just what they are unhappy about? Perhaps it is because of the ineptitude of the previous Labour MP, or some local problems?

Reducing every by-election to a referendum of national issues takes away the voice from the locals about issues of the most immediate concern to them.

What do you take me for? Of course these by-election are for constituencies and not towns if you re-read what I wrote I made sure to put in Birmingham and in Leicester. The point I was making was that these consitutencies were in big cities hence a more diverse vote then bumble**** constituency in deepest darkest nowhere.

The press should be suprised that the Labour held on but did you by any chance know that these two were safe seats , labour managed to loose more votes then they ended up with in both constituencies, so I would say it is a good indicatior for public opinion.

Despite Labour winning one and losing the other, both had a very similar swing, 21% and 26%. The seat in Birmingham that labour managed to hold was the one with the bigger swing away from them. So if you still think this is illogical, then you need to look into it again.

These by-elections are not good indicators for general elections next year, because a lot can happen between now and then such as Blair giving way to Brown, also less protest voting, but barring the totally unexpected when the variables are taken into account it is possible to get an idea what the voting will be like in 10 months.