i may dislike nwnm - but he's certainly got a point here
He dosent make any sensible point. When it comes to elections Fisher Gate knows what he is talking about- unlike nwnm.
Barryb
respect (non galloway) come 3rd in leyton
- Thread starter nwnm
- Start date
He dosent make any sensible point. When it comes to elections Fisher Gate knows what he is talking about- unlike nwnm.
Barryb
Yeah right - here he is telling militant where they went wrong
“Militant decided to stand Mahmood as 'Real Labour' and portrayed her as a victim of a witch-hunt when in fact she was a functioning member of the Labour Party who was not prevented from participating in Labour Party activity. Mahmood lost, winning only 6.5% of the vote. The right wing then moved against all those who had supported either the 6 'ward labour' candidates or Mahmood in the by-election. Militant began its exit from the Labour Party over that period. One question is whether there was an alternative course of action. I actually spoke from the floor at a big Broad Left meeting (c400 people) after the council elections in May 1991. I argued that the victory of the five had given the left wing legitimacy inside the Labour Party. The Broad Left should demand their reinstatement as members of the Labour Group and take their fight into the Labour Party, I said”
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149970&highlight=real+labour+liverpool&page=3
so all the poor bastards who got witch hunted for being socialists had to do was demand their reinstatement! How incisive - he really is the new lenin
.My reading in the same thread went thus,
"Sorry Fisher Gate - I can’t agree with you on this one.
1) the Broad Left would have been witch hunted out of the Labour Party regardless of whether there was a Real Labour candidate or not. That is how the labour machine worked - then and now.
2) 6.5 % was a bloody good result for someone taking on the LP machine. I think Lesley herself (having seen her speak at the time) and possibly her Militant comrades were over optimistic - predicting victory etc, when the election could have focussed more on the council strike at the time.
3) I actually spent a couple of days in Liverpool at the time, (yes the SWP actually went around campaigning for people to vote for the [militant] Real Labour candidate!) and the scale of the Labour machines witch hunt was incredible. I remember being out with other SWP comrades and being photographed by the bastards. We quickly told them that they couldn’t expel us as we weren’t in their fucking party - and photographed them back!
4) I don’t think it signalled militants exit from the party - it was more of a knee jerk reaction to some right wing bastard who wasn’t fit to clean Eric Heffer’s shoes potentially taking his seat. Clive Heemskerk’s coverage of Walton in the MIR talked about ‘raising the banner of socialism’ in the election to take people back into the Labour Party to fight at some point in the future. I think Militants exit from Labour was quite muddled and very messy on occasions. But it wasn’t a wrong one."
BarryB - are you in the labour party btw?
Yeah right - here he is telling militant where they went wrong
“Militant decided to stand Mahmood as 'Real Labour' and portrayed her as a victim of a witch-hunt when in fact she was a functioning member of the Labour Party who was not prevented from participating in Labour Party activity. Mahmood lost, winning only 6.5% of the vote. The right wing then moved against all those who had supported either the 6 'ward labour' candidates or Mahmood in the by-election. Militant began its exit from the Labour Party over that period. One question is whether there was an alternative course of action. I actually spoke from the floor at a big Broad Left meeting (c400 people) after the council elections in May 1991. I argued that the victory of the five had given the left wing legitimacy inside the Labour Party. The Broad Left should demand their reinstatement as members of the Labour Group and take their fight into the Labour Party, I said”
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149970&highlight=real+labour+liverpool&page=3
so all the poor bastards who got witch hunted for being socialists had to do was demand their reinstatement! How incisive - he really is the new lenin
Sounds like Fisher Gate was talking sense.Unlike you.
BarryB
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
got to say I have always been amazed at the stamina you have for collecting details. It has to be admired, because it is a prerequisite, the collection of facts, for a proper scientific analysis. However, I do have to say reading your posts at times the words "not seeing the woods for trees" spring to mind. Having said that, I had to admit I am far too lazy, ill educated, and inarticulate to really claim high ground. Ask TopDog.
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Yeah right - here he is telling militant where they went wrong
“Militant decided to stand Mahmood as 'Real Labour' and portrayed her as a victim of a witch-hunt when in fact she was a functioning member of the Labour Party who was not prevented from participating in Labour Party activity. Mahmood lost, winning only 6.5% of the vote. The right wing then moved against all those who had supported either the 6 'ward labour' candidates or Mahmood in the by-election. Militant began its exit from the Labour Party over that period. One question is whether there was an alternative course of action. I actually spoke from the floor at a big Broad Left meeting (c400 people) after the council elections in May 1991. I argued that the victory of the five had given the left wing legitimacy inside the Labour Party. The Broad Left should demand their reinstatement as members of the Labour Group and take their fight into the Labour Party, I said”
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=149970&highlight=real+labour+liverpool&page=3
so all the poor bastards who got witch hunted for being socialists had to do was demand their reinstatement! How incisive - he really is the new lenin
My reading in the same thread went thus,
"Sorry Fisher Gate - I can’t agree with you on this one.
1) the Broad Left would have been witch hunted out of the Labour Party regardless of whether there was a Real Labour candidate or not. That is how the labour machine worked - then and now.
2) 6.5 % was a bloody good result for someone taking on the LP machine. I think Lesley herself (having seen her speak at the time) and possibly her Militant comrades were over optimistic - predicting victory etc, when the election could have focussed more on the council strike at the time.
3) I actually spent a couple of days in Liverpool at the time, (yes the SWP actually went around campaigning for people to vote for the [militant] Real Labour candidate!) and the scale of the Labour machines witch hunt was incredible. I remember being out with other SWP comrades and being photographed by the bastards. We quickly told them that they couldn’t expel us as we weren’t in their fucking party - and photographed them back!
4) I don’t think it signalled militants exit from the party - it was more of a knee jerk reaction to some right wing bastard who wasn’t fit to clean Eric Heffer’s shoes potentially taking his seat. Clive Heemskerk’s coverage of Walton in the MIR talked about ‘raising the banner of socialism’ in the election to take people back into the Labour Party to fight at some point in the future. I think Militants exit from Labour was quite muddled and very messy on occasions. But it wasn’t a wrong one."
BarryB - are you in the labour party btw?
6.5% was a crap result considering Militant claimed they could win the seat and that they claimed they were standing on the legacy of Eric Heffer who was very popular, and had won the seat with 64% of the vote four years earlier. The fact that Mahmood had stood for selection as the Labour candidate, been defeated fair and square by Kilfoyle, accepted the result, and then only decided to stand after Heffer died and the Broad Left had won the Council seats, counted badly against her. It was a premature and failed attempt at a split from the Labour Party.
And since you were never in the Labour Party, I do not think you are best placed to advise socialists on the best tactics in fighting the witch-hunt.
Good tactic to try and divert a debate about an election 2 weeks ago - talk about one 17 years ago instead!
It's still the case that 7.2% is worse than 11.5% in a first past the post election.
just showing how shite your analysis was on a less immediate/hot topic and you went for it just like I thought you would
all topics are hot for you anal retentive types
. Now perhaps you could remind me - how many times have respect stood in Leyton ward?Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
Sorry, just realised that's ambiguous.
I meant on one occasion - in 2004.
There were, of course, four seperate ballots on four different voting systems, one AV, two list and one first past the post. All the results are in post #2
http://urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7114005&postcount=2
that was GLA election (and using galloway's name when it still had some standing - pre-big bruvv, pre-pay through the nose speaking tour, pre-split)
Again - this is the first time respect candidate has stood in the ward.....
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
2004 was the first and only time Respect stood in the ward. If Carole Vincent was a Respect candidate, how come it did not say that on her nomination papers or on the ballot paper?
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
There were four elections - two for the GLA (list and constituency member), one for the European Parliament and one for the mayoral election. Detail isn't your strong point is it?
I've used for the basis of comparison with the council by-election GLA constituency member as it was also 'first past the post'. I don't mind if you want to use any of the other systems though, but since they do have an element of 'proportional representation', you are not comparing 'like with like' very precisely.
so you've answered my question that none of them are 'comparing like with like' as it was the first time Leyton ward was contested...... the one 'detail' you ignore in your comparison
Fisher_Gate
Active Member
I am comparing the vote in a single ward of how an SWP-backed candidate did under first past the post election in 2008, against the vote for Respect in 2004 in exactly the same ward also in a first past the post election, against the benchmark of how well Respect did across London in 2004 in a PR election, to see how well the SWP-backed slate is likely to do in 2008.
No comparison can be exact - not least because the electorate changes from one election to the next especially in inner-city areas. However since there were several thousand voters involved on both occasions and as a method for predicting how well the SWP will do on 1st May, it's the best and most scientific poll evidence available.
We'll have to wait until the real poll to see how the SWP 'left' list do in reality. I'm not expecting much.
PS there is one real minor flaw in my comparison, but you haven't worked it out yet! That's because you are stupid and know nothing about these things, despite all your bluster. And I don't intend telling you what it is, because it's more fun to keep you guessing about what it might be.
TremulousTetra
prismatic universe
Willy waver
OMG - you mean he's been using it as a measuring 'tool' and got his centimetres mixed up with his inches?
If thats the case don't anyone go near his forecasts....Fisher_Gate
Active Member
OMG - you mean he's been using it as a measuring 'tool' and got his centimetres mixed up with his inches?
No that's not it ... Keep guessing!
Similar threads
