By a Newsnet reporter
With Labour spectacularly losing the Bradford West by-election, the SNP published an analysis of polling evidence showing that all three Westminster party leaders – Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg – are even more unpopular in Scotland than they are in the English region containing Bradford.
George Galloway’s stunning by-election victory in Bradford West on Thursday left Labour reeling. The party had expected to hold the seat with a comfortable majority, but instead found their candidate, local man Imran Hussain, being crushed by a 36.59% swing to Mr Galloway. The final result saw the Labour candidate over 10,000 votes behind Mr Galloway who polled over twice as many votes as his Labour rival.
The seat was formerly considered a Labour safe seat. A by-election had been called after the sitting MP, Labour’s Marsha Singh, resigned due to a long-term illness. The catastrophic failure of Labour in the by-election calls into question the direction the party is taking under leader Ed Miliband. Despite what has been considered an appallingly bad week for the Conservatives after the Budget debacle, Labour is failing to benefit electorally from the popular backlash against the Tories.
“No question they are going to be seeing this as a disaster,” said Mark Wickham-Jones, an expert on the Labour Party from the University of Bristol.
“What is really disastrous for Labour is this could have been the best week since May 2010 and actually it turned in the space of a few hours into one of the worst.”
Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman admitted that the poll was disappointing for Labour, and said:
“It’s a very disappointing result. There’s no getting away from it. Twice as many people voted for Respect as voted for Labour and – we have to really understand – as recently as a week ago were saying they were going to support us and have been longstanding supporters and engaged with the Labour party, but when it came to the vote, voted for Respect.”
She added: “We are changing the Labour party and we are rebuilding and strengthening all around the country, but there’s a particular problem in Bradford, but I don’t want to jump to conclusions.”
Labour leader Ed Miliband also admitted that the result was “incredibly disappointing” and vowed that the party would “learn lessons” from the defeat.
Mr Miliband said: “It was an incredibly disappointing result for Labour in Bradford West and I am determined that we learn lessons of what happened.
“I’m going to lead that. I’m going to be going back to the constituency in the coming weeks to talk to people there about why this result happened.
“Clearly there were local factors, but I also say only four out of 10 people voted for the three mainstream political parties.
“We’ve got to understand the reasons why that happened in Bradford.
“Above all it reinforces for me something that I’ve emphasised throughout my leadership which is that we need to be engaged and rooted in every community of this country.
“We need to show to people that our politics, that Labour politics, can make a difference to people’s lives.”
However under Mr Miliband’s leadership the Labour party has failed to make an impact on voters. His personal polling ratings continue to be disastrous, and in Scotland he is performing even worse than his poor performance in the North of England, which was so dramatically illustrated by Mr Galloway’s spectacular by-election victory.
The latest YouGov polling on how well or badly the UK party leaders are performing shows that the UK party leaders’ ratings are worse in Scotland than in the North of England – and worse in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole. The figures show that Ed Miliband has a negative rating of -28% in the North of England – but an even worse -39% in Scotland.
The leaders of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are also received much more poorly in Scotland than they are in the North of England. David Cameron has a negative rating of -19% in the North of England – and a much worse -48% in Scotland. Nick Clegg has a negative rating of -46% in the North of England and -61% in Scotland.
The most recent figures for Alex Salmond – the Panelbase poll published in the Sunday Times on 5 February – showed a positive rating of +17%: the only leader at Holyrood or Westminster to have a positive rating.
The latest breakdowns for YouGov show that Labour has a 10 point lead over the Tories across the UK, and a 31 point lead over the Tories in the North of England. However, in Scotland Labour trails the SNP by 5%: with the SNP at 38%, and Labour at 33%.
Commenting, SNP Westminster Leader and SNP Campaign Director Angus Robertson MP said:
“If Labour are losing parliamentary seats in a heartland region like the North of England, it confirms that they are in crisis north and south of the Border.
“The three Westminster parties are clearly deeply unpopular in Bradford. And the latest polling figures shows that all three UK party leaders – Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg – are even more unpopular in Scotland than they are in the North of England.
“The latest YouGov sample also indicates that the SNP are even ahead of Labour in Scotland for a Westminster General Election.
“This by-election result is an unmitigated disaster for Labour – and a total embarrassment for Ed Miliband in a week when the Tories and coalition government are on the back foot over the granny tax, petrol and pasties.
“And for Labour’s ratings to be more than 25 points worse in Scotland than in the North of England shows how far Scotland has moved on.
“It is clear that the people of Scotland are rightly appalled by Labour agreeing ‘100 per cent’ with the Tories on Scotland’s future.
“Ed Miliband’s decision to join in a toxic pact with the Tories to stand in the way of job-creating powers and more responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament must be a key factor in this overwhelming negative verdict against him from Scots voters, who now know that a Yes vote to independence is the only sure way to secure these job-creating powers.
“It’s no wonder that Scottish voters have deserted Labour in droves, and no wonder that Ed Miliband’s ratings are plumbing previously unimaginable depths for a Labour leader in Scotland.
“Labour has no credibility and nothing useful to say on the constitution, on the economy, or on any of the issues that matter to households in Scotland and, increasingly, in England as well.”
very first expression of a misplaced religious influx in the voting intentions.
While we may consider that we live in a secular society, the Bradford result shows that the immigrant population, and in particular the Moslem community does not necessarily share that view
Perhaps I might suggest that faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action. Our political actions should not be overtly religious. I would suggest that God is much bigger than politics not vice versa.
Perhaps I might suggest that faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action. Our political actions should not be overtly religious. Whereas it is often right when chasing for justice love and equality within an economic and political structure such as society that our religious actions should be political: feeding the poor, challenging why the poor have no food, or have to pay so much of their taxes when the rich pay so little. Standing up for asylum seekers and refugees and welcoming newcomers to be fully part of our communities, supporting and caring for those who are in prison – those are overtly political actions with a solid but covert foundation in my faith.
I am a priest, and my prayers in Church and in the quietness of my own are always for love and social justice. My time spent alongside political colleagues does not impose my faith on them.
I am always a little bit concerned when politicians claim that they have God on their side. I would evidence this because politicians talk of us and them, God I suspect, is concerned with us and all the rest – who are merely more of “us”.
I would suggest that God is much bigger than politics not vice versa. If our politicians were to quietly and humbly consider their role in taking care of the homeless, the sick, the hungry, the refugee, the widow, the orphan and the poor rather than seeing who can pay the greatest sum of money to have dinner with them we might have a better society. But if they crow about their actions then they have had their reward.
Jesus said something about doing things for the least of society. I don’t see much of that coming from Westminster. I do see a better social contract for the poor and vulnerable from Holyrood (Note the name!) and that is why I will back Alex Salmond and his team. They show compassion for the vulnerable and their ethics are not just about making money for themselves and their cronies. Their ethics are about making things better. I think that is a good start.
A few hundred years ago repeating that in the town square would have had you burned for heresy.
I suspect there are a good few would like to do so nowadays.
Indeed. I thought the initial post was well written by RoBell . Much humanity within his comments.
Like another has said although not a christian I live my life as one with morals and compassion taught by my parents.. As a nationalist I find some of the posts nausating.
Of course we all have a way of expressing oneself that sometimes can be taken out of context..
the view of an athiest is just as valid as that of a believer.
Can I say that there are a couple of quite disgraceful posts – nay shameful and and unacceptable and intolerant posts – here on an entirely positive and generous post by RoBell. You don’t have to be religious to respect other people’s free right to be so. T
Quoting sneckedagain:Can I say that there are a couple of quite disgraceful posts – nay shameful and and unacceptable and intolerant posts – here on an entirely positive and generous post by RoBell. You don’t have to be religious to respect other people’s free right to be so. T
True but one of the nice things about atheists is that they don’t knock on your door and ask you not to believe in your god(s). If you have to worship some sort of supernatural deity ( or deities) try keeping to yourself and and don’t inflict your beliefs on other people.
I’m inclined to the view that people who declare that there is no creator, God if you prefer, are dodging the the issue. Could be that they are the silly -unthinking- idiots?
As above so below. From sub-atomic to planetary harmony. all by chance?
I agree with RoBell that the SNP are striving to help the needy and so have my vote.
For me Galloway has wasted his talent and has simply become an opportunist – for George.
Thanks for the Matt McGinn quote Puskas, i much respect wee Matt’s contributions to Scootish life through song.
“Three nights and a Sunday double time..”. comes to mind.
Any person’s religious views or lack of them is an entirely personal matter. It is rarely germane to any topic here but if religion is relevant to any discussion here it is important that it is conducted in full tolerance of the views of perferctly intelligent and sensible person who take up a wide range of positions on it.
The most intolerant people I have ever met are the militant atheists and secularists who, of course, know everything and assume they have some right to be insulting and patronising to those who have a religious faith.
Labour leader Ed Miliband also admitted that the result was “incredibly disappointing” and vowed that the party would “learn lessons” from the defeat.
.
Just a wee reminder that these words were written by a fornicator, drunkard and atheist:
“Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a’ that,)
That Sense and Worth, o’er a’ the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an’ a’ that.
For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
That man to man, the world o’er,
Shall brithers be for a’ that.”
Freedom1
Oh I wish it was that easy – A visit to Ibrox would demostrate that Indepedence(uni on)/ religion and football are all interwoven. Unless we resolve the issue of tolerance and respect we will never achieve the quality of nation we desire. An Independent country first I would agree but that is only the start of the journey.
Ibrox fans – don’t jump on me – I know that they are only one example.
That is why many of us cannot accept that someone has been quietly slipped the secret.
Somebody who assumes his “knowledge” is superior to that of all the hundreds and thousands of the world’s greatest intellects, very many of whom were staunchly religious.
Pray, tell me. How did the universe come about?
faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action.worries me. I don’t want people whose thinking is guided by blind, unquestioning belief in a world view to make decisions for me, I want ethical people open to new ideas, with the ability to think critically as my politicians. What I do not want is people whose decisions will be clouded not only by what is written in an old book but more worryingly by the interpretation others, such as the Pope or an Imman or the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland put on the words written in their particular book.
Quoting sneckedagain:Somebody who assumes his “knowledge” is superior to that of all the hundreds and thousands of the world’s greatest intellects, very many of whom were staunchly religious.
But the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand do they? There have been very many people of great intellect who were atheist, many had to hide this in the days when it meant at least social opprobrium and at worst a painful death. Similarly there are a lot of people of low intellect who are devoutly religious.
Quote:Pray, tell me. How did the universe come about?
Absolutely no idea but, as a scientist, I am sure my colleagues who study physics will, some day, find out. However you are being very selective are you not? You are pointing at the limits of human knowledge and using that to support the assertion of supernatural forces. But these limits change all the time as we learn more and more.
For instance, 200 years ago you may have been asking where life on Earth and the human race came from. We didn’t know then as we don’t know about the beginnings of the universe now. Then along came a man of great intellect called Charles Erasmus Darwin (amongst others). Now we know that the Earth was not created in 7 days, that the life this planet supports took billions of years to evolve and that Homo sapiens sapiens is a part of that process. Nothing to do with two naked teenagers, a magic apple and a talking snake.
This is the difference between faith and reason.
Fr.Bell’s assertion that Quote:faith should be the foundation and guiding principle for our political action.worries me. I don’t want people whose thinking is guided by blind, unquestioning belief in a world view to make decisions for me, I want ethical people open to new ideas, with the ability to think critically as my politicians. What I do not want is people whose decisions will be clouded not only by what is written in an old book but more worryingly by the interpretation others, such as the Pope or an Imman or the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland put on the words written in their particular book.
Perhaps the cleric should not have started off the discussion. It was inevitable that it would create some fireworks.
Who presented any beliefs as facts?
There Is no historical record.