The Batley & Spen by-election

[NorthOxonian]

Based on past elections, what time would the result be likely to be announced?

This constituency tends to declare around 4-6am (at the 2016 by-election, it declared much earlier, but that was a one off).

 

[Butts]

Is The Women's Equality Party fielding a candidate ?

After a high profile launch they seem to have flopped disastrously in all subsequent Elections.

To Mumsnet/Guardian centred to attract the female proletariat ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Though the two parties in coalition did, between them, see the writing on the wall in terms of where the public were on marriage equality. New Labour on the other hand were scared of the loud minority who were opposed, so we got the sop that was Civil Partnerships instead. Although Tony Blair's secret Catholicism might have been a factor there too.

To be fair, that difference is probably more to do with the 8 years gap between civil partnerships becoming legal in 2005 and gay marriage in 2013. Those were 8 years during which society and people's beliefs around gay rights were evolving very rapidly. There's a limit to how much any Government can go against the grain of, or seek to change, the society it is trying to govern, and civil partnerships were a huge, almost revolutionary, step, back in the day. You do need to make some allowance for change to come in stages.

Meanwhile Galloway can send out gangs armed with eggs to throw at Labour canvassers and nobody bats an eyelid.

And BoJo can describe the Tory candidate as "a fine local candidate" despite him being a Leeds Councillor.

The anti-Labour bias in the media is so thick you can chew it.

That incident with the gangs assaulting Labour canvassers was absolutely despicable, but what on Earth has it got to do with media bias? (As far as I could see, it was reported pretty widely).

Not sure what however Boris describes the Tory candidate has to do with media bias either really.

 

[Typhoon]

To be fair, that difference is probably more to do with the 8 years gap between civil partnerships becoming legal in 2005 and gay marriage in 2013. Those were 8 years during which society and people's beliefs around gay rights were evolving very rapidly. There's a limit to how much any Government can go against the grain of, or seek to change, the society it is trying to govern, and civil partnerships were a huge, almost revolutionary, step, back in the day. You do need to make some allowance for change to come in stages.

2005 - about a decade on from the very controversial story line in Grange Hill, when a teacher was outed as being gay. You would think the world was about to end, the National Viewers and Listeners got on their high horses. You are right, things changed quickly around that time. But if Major was still PM, it would never have happened; I doubt whether Hague would have been able to force it through such was the make up of the Tories at the time; Duncan Smith was certainly hostile, he voted against it and had issued a three line whip against allowing same sex couples (and single people) to adopt, which Labour legislated on in 2002. It needed a Labour government to take it on. The civil partnerships act was passed in 2004, not becoming law until a year later. Of course, true equality was not reached until 2019! It was rather like the minimum wage (and the ordination of women in the Anglican church), start slowly, get people used to the idea, most of the fears are dispelled, then extend (but Labour did not have the chance).

Blair also appointed the first openly gay cabinet minister, he wasn't all bad!

 

[Purple Orange]

2005 - about a decade on from the very controversial story line in Grange Hill, when a teacher was outed as being gay. You would think the world was about to end, the National Viewers and Listeners got on their high horses. You are right, things changed quickly around that time. But if Major was still PM, it would never have happened; I doubt whether Hague would have been able to force it through such was the make up of the Tories at the time; Duncan Smith was certainly hostile, he voted against it and had issued a three line whip against allowing same sex couples (and single people) to adopt, which Labour legislated on in 2002. It needed a Labour government to take it on. The civil partnerships act was passed in 2004, not becoming law until a year later. Of course, true equality was not reached until 2019! It was rather like the minimum wage (and the ordination of women in the Anglican church), start slowly, get people used to the idea, most of the fears are dispelled, then extend (but Labour did not have the chance).

Blair also appointed the first openly gay cabinet minister, he wasn't all bad!

It just makes you think: imagine the positive societal changes that could have happened had Labour won one of those GEs or gone in to coalition government with another party. If Churchill had won the election in 1945, the NHS would never have been established in 1948.

 

[notlob.divad]

Though the two parties Minister in coalition did, between them, see the writing on the wall in terms of where the public were on marriage equality.

There are many in the party who have still not accepted it.

 

[A0wen]

Meanwhile Galloway can send out gangs armed with eggs to throw at Labour canvassers and nobody bats an eyelid.

And BoJo can describe the Tory candidate as "a fine local candidate" despite him being a Leeds Councillor.

The anti-Labour bias in the media is so thick you can chew it.

Sorry - I'm going to call bull**** on the claim its media bias. The story about Labour supporters having eggs thrown at them was reported across the media:

BBC > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57636903
Sky News > https://news.sky.com/story/batley-a...-pelted-with-eggs-and-kicked-in-head-12343613
Metro > https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/28/batl...n-labour-activists-kicked-and-egged-14837780/
The Guardian > https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...y-egged-kicked-batley-and-spen-campaign-trail
Daily Mail > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-attack-regions-mayor-Tracey-Brabin-says.html
The Times > https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ning-during-batley-spen-by-election-sz956tj0h
Daily Mirror > https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/batley-election-dirty-tricks-leaflets-24412482
Independent > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-batley-spen-election-egg-b1873741.html
The Sun > https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15437025/2021-batley-spen-by-election-racism-dirty-tricks-brutal/

Yorkshire Post > https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...n-labour-activists-in-batley-and-spen-3290239
Morning Star > https://morningstaronline.co.uk/art...spen-election-west-yorkshire-have-been-pelted

And there are many more besides.

That's coverage from across the political spectrum of the media - your claim the media has been biased against Labour on this is simply untrue.

 

[Typhoon]

It just makes you think: imagine the positive societal changes that could have happened had Labour won one of those GEs or gone in to coalition government with another party. If Churchill had won the election in 1945, the NHS would never have been established in 1948.

Ok, I get your point but it needed that first step by Labour to get the ball rolling, which the Tories (or in the case of Equal Marriage. the Coalition) built upon and then claimed it as their own.

 

[jfollows]

Ok, I get your point but it needed that first step by Labour to get the ball rolling, which the Tories (or in the case of Equal Marriage. the Coalition) built upon and then claimed it as their own.

I think you're right here.

I didn't vote for Blair and I didn't trust him either, but I took advantage of changes he implemented and in which I believed he genuinely agreed:

• Immigration and indefinite leave to remain for my (same sex) partner in 2000 at reasonable cost and with less onerous requirements than had previously been the case
• My partner became a British citizen with relative ease and not at enormous expense
• We became civil partners

In due course, and I think whilst initiated by non-Conservative members of the coalition, genuinely supported by Cameron who expended political capital with his support, converted our civil partnership to marriage in the first year when it was possible at no cost.

However I don't think any of this would have happened without initiatives by a Labour government. As, also Roy Jenkins was responsible for some 30+ years earlier.

 

[A0wen]

It just makes you think: imagine the positive societal changes that could have happened had Labour won one of those GEs or gone in to coalition government with another party. If Churchill had won the election in 1945, the NHS would never have been established in 1948.

Bit in bold - sorry that's absolute balderdash.

All parties entered into the 1945 General Election committed to introducing a National Health Service. In fact the first white paper presented to parliament on it was done by a Conservative Health Minister, Henry Willink in 1944.

The principle difference between what the Conservatives proposed and what Labour did was Labour wanted fully centralised control with the state owning all the hospitals etc - at that time there were many municipal hospitals, cottage hospitals etc and the Conservative's view was that you didn't need to 'nationalise' those, but instead they could provide facilities and service to the NHS in the same way virtually all GP and dental practises are private partnerships that work for the NHS. On the hospital model, even France (often viewed as far more left wing than the UK) only has state control of about 60% of its hospitals, the remainder are split between pure private and not for profit e.g foundations, mutuals, religious societies etc who provide their services to the French healthcare system.

 

[Purple Orange]

Bit in bold - sorry that's absolute balderdash.

All parties entered into the 1945 General Election committed to introducing a National Health Service. In fact the first white paper presented to parliament on it was done by a Conservative Health Minister, Henry Willink in 1944.

The principle difference between what the Conservatives proposed and what Labour did was Labour wanted fully centralised control with the state owning all the hospitals etc - at that time there were many municipal hospitals, cottage hospitals etc and the Conservative's view was that you didn't need to 'nationalise' those, but instead they could provide facilities and service to the NHS in the same way virtually all GP and dental practises are private partnerships that work for the NHS. On the hospital model, even France (often viewed as far more left wing than the UK) only has state control of about 60% of its hospitals, the remainder are split between pure private and not for profit e.g foundations, mutuals, religious societies etc who provide their services to the French healthcare system.

Sorry but I am going to have to challenge thatbwith the same tone. Nonsense. The Tories opposed the creation of the NHS by voting against it 21 times. Also the model you highlighted is a very cost inefficient model to use.

I’m not sure what France has to do with the issue and why it is ‘left wing’ in a sense of being negative, I don’t know. Ideology over pragmatism.

 

[Gloster]

I don’t want to take this thread off subject, but I must stamp on this. Willink presented the original white paper to Parliament as it was his role as Minister of Health, not because he was a great supporter of the idea. The paper had been pushed by Labour (and Liberal) parties as part of their proposals for post-war recovery and meeting long-term need against the opposition of most of the Conservative Party. Willink may, and I only say may, have been slightly more willing than many others in his party to see some assistance, but come the votes he joined all the other Conservative MPs in voting against it. Some Conservatives were willing to accept a bill if there was still a lot of local control, but most of the party wanted no change and were doing their best to stifle it. There is evidence that if the Conservatives had won in 1945 the matter would have been dropped. It is an example of the way the Conservatives (and they are not the only ones) are trying to rewrite history so they can do what they want with the NHS.

 

[A0wen]

I don’t want to take this thread off subject, but I must stamp on this. Willink presented the original white paper to Parliament as it was his role as Minister of Health, not because he was a great supporter of the idea. The paper had been pushed by Labour (and Liberal) parties as part of their proposals for post-war recovery and meeting long-term need against the opposition of most of the Conservative Party. Willink may, and I only say may, have been slightly more willing than many others in his party to see some assistance, but come the votes he joined all the other Conservative MPs in voting against it. Some Conservatives were willing to accept a bill if there was still a lot of local control, but most of the party wanted no change and were doing their best to stifle it. There is evidence that if the Conservatives had won in 1945 the matter would have been dropped. It is an example of the way the Conservatives (and they are not the only ones) are trying to rewrite history so they can do what they want with the NHS.

It was not just the Conservatives who were against the NHS being set up with the centralised model Bevan used.

Municipals who ran their local hospitals were opposed, notably London County Council which was Labour controlled were against it.

Beveridge, who's report was the pre-cursor to both the welfare state and the NHS stated the way in which the NHS had been created wasn't what he envisaged.

So opposing the creation because of how it was being created was correct - what you simply cannot say is if the Conservatives had won in 1945 that a National Health Service would not have been created, because the evidence doesn't support that, no matter how hard the Labour party and its supporters try to claim it does.

I’m not sure what France has to do with the issue and why it is ‘left wing’ in a sense of being negative, I don’t know. Ideology over pragmatism.

The point is, France is viewed as a more 'left wing' more 'socialist' country than the UK - yet they did not and have not gone for a centralised, nationalised hospital system. Yet they still offer an excellent social healthcare system.

If the NHS as set up by Bevan is such a wonderful solution, would you like to tell us which other countries in Europe (and beyond) have followed the highly centralised model he imposed ? (I'll give you a quick clue, in Europe it's none).

 

[quantinghome]

If the NHS as set up by Bevan is such a wonderful solution, would you like to tell us which other countries in Europe (and beyond) have followed the highly centralised model he imposed ? (I'll give you a quick clue, in Europe it's none).

Unless you've got a clear case to demonstrate it is an objectively worse system, how is that relevant?

I note that despite the mind boggling number of reorganisations the NHS has gone through since its foundation, the principle of hospitals being owned and run by the NHS has been maintained. There would have been ample opportunity for a reforming government to have returned hospitals to the position ex ante.

I also note that the present government is essentially proposing the same centralised model for education.

The point is, France is viewed as a more 'left wing' more 'socialist' country than the UK - yet they did not and have not gone for a centralised, nationalised hospital system. Yet they still offer an excellent social healthcare system.

'Socialist' is a massively wide and diverging term. It covers everything from John Lewis to Stalin and so is more or less useless as a description, particularly when it comes to organisational structures. It's not as if you can order different organisational systems in order of increasing 'socialism'. Equally there are a plethora of management systems used in private companies. It would be daft to say that one is more 'capitalist' than another.

 

[A0wen]

I note that despite the mind boggling number of reorganisations the NHS has gone through since its foundation, the principle of hospitals being owned and run by the NHS has been maintained. There would have been ample opportunity for a reforming government to have returned hospitals to the position ex ante.

Well no, it would be pretty much impossible now. The organisations, like the municipal bodies, charitable bodies and religious bodies who ran such hospitals wound up their operations when the hospitals were nationalised. It killed off the kind of organisations which could have provided this.

It's why the mixed system, such as you see in France or Germany makes so much more sense.

I also note that the present government is essentially proposing the same centralised model for education.

Schools are quite different - and I'm not sure they are proposing that (I speak as a school governor).

Unless you've got a clear case to demonstrate it is an objectively worse system, how is that relevant?

I think there are pros and cons - but what I don't accept is the premise 'The NHS is wonderful' when no other country in the world has copied its highly centralised model.

I'm not advocating the American model - which tends to be the default throwback - but I absolutely think some of the structures and approaches used in some European countries e.g. France, Netherlands, Germany absolutely should be looked at.

 

[quantinghome]

Schools are quite different - and I'm not sure they are proposing that (I speak as a school governor).

Isn't it effectively what happens when a school switches from LEA control to being an Academy? Oversight switches from local level to national via the schools commissioners. Plus the government has imposed a very rigid curriculum, rather than 'letting teachers teach' as every government promises in opposition...

I think there are pros and cons - but what I don't accept is the premise 'The NHS is wonderful' when no other country in the world has copied its highly centralised model.

I'm not advocating the American model - which tends to be the default throwback - but I absolutely think some of the structures and approaches used in some European countries e.g. France, Netherlands, Germany absolutely should be looked at.

Surely it's important to ensure funding and control are held at the same level? One comment above shows the problem when they are split - local councils depend on central government funding to provide local services, government cuts funding, local services are cut, local council gets the blame. I hate to think how the NHS would work out if the organisation is decentralised but still reliant on central government funding.

But probably the biggest problem is that it's not religious and charitable organisations who are pushing for this - it's the American healthcare companies. So even if you wanted to adopt the French system, the people driving this will not allow that outcome.

 

[Busaholic]

It was not just the Conservatives who were against the NHS being set up with the centralised model Bevan used.

Municipals who ran their local hospitals were opposed, notably London County Council which was Labour controlled were against it.

Beveridge, who's report was the pre-cursor to both the welfare state and the NHS stated the way in which the NHS had been created wasn't what he envisaged.

So opposing the creation because of how it was being created was correct - what you simply cannot say is if the Conservatives had won in 1945 that a National Health Service would not have been created, because the evidence doesn't support that, no matter how hard the Labour party and its supporters try to claim it does.



The point is, France is viewed as a more 'left wing' more 'socialist' country than the UK - yet they did not and have not gone for a centralised, nationalised hospital system. Yet they still offer an excellent social healthcare system.

If the NHS as set up by Bevan is such a wonderful solution, would you like to tell us which other countries in Europe (and beyond) have followed the highly centralised model he imposed ? (I'll give you a quick clue, in Europe it's none).

I think it's debatable whether the Conservatives could have been in a position to introduce any form of an NHS by mid 1948, and certainly the level of centralisation obtained by Labour. Aneurin Bevan did an excellent job, but recognised that he wouldn't be able to get the top consultants, etc, to work within the NHS unless he allowed them financial independence i.e. by being allowed to continue working privately for large amounts of money. The socialist purists hated this of course,, but Bevan was a realist who'd seen the pre-war conditions in the Rhonnda Valleys etc and couldn't wait to get rid of them. I think history has proved him right.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whatever happens, the political parties cannot blame the weather, if turnout is not what might have been expected.

 

[JamesT]

From http://www.conservativemanifesto.com/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml

Health
The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.

We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament.

The success of the service will depend on the skill and initiative of doctors, dentists, nurses and other professional people, and in its designing and operation there will be full scope for all the guidance they can give. Wide play must be given to the preferences and enterprise of individuals. Nothing will be done to destroy the close personal relationship between doctor and patient, nor to restrict the patient's free choice of doctor.

The whole service must be so designed that in each area its growth is helped and guided by the influence of a university. Through such a service the medical and allied professions will be enabled to serve the whole nation more effectively than they have yet been able to do. At the same time Medicine will be left free to develop along its own lines, and to achieve preventive as well as curative triumphs. Liberty is an essential condition of scientific progress.

The voluntary hospitals which have led the way in the development of hospital technique will remain free. They will play their part in the new service in friendly partnership with local authority hospitals.

Motherhood must be our special care. There must be a large increase of maternity beds and convalescent homes, and they must be provided in the right places. Mothers must be relieved of onerous duties which at such times so easily cause lasting injury to their health. The National Insurance Scheme will make financial provision for these needs. All proper arrangements, both voluntary and State-aided, must be made for the care of other young children in the family, in order that the energies of the male breadwinner or the kindness of neighbours and relations, which nevertheless must be the mainspring, should not be unduly burdened. Nursery schools and nurseries such as have grown up during the war should be encouraged. On the birth, the proper feeding and the healthy upbringing of a substantially increased number of children, depends the life of Britain and her enduring glory.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isn't it effectively what happens when a school switches from LEA control to being an Academy? Oversight switches from local level to national via the schools commissioners.

Depends on the Academy Trust! If the school is part of a big national chain (like Outwood) then yes of course decisions are going to be made very remotely by the leadership of the Trust.

But there are much more local Trusts as well. The school I'm a governor of formed a trust with three other schools in the same local authority area so our Trust has a very local view!

 

[37424]

So been and voted Labour for the 1st time since 2010. The ballot paper is huge due to the number of candidates I doubt they will be counting them in a hurry. Never experienced so many party activists knocking at my door, even got a Labour party guy offering to give me a lift to the polling station last time I remember that happening was probably when I was a kid around 50 years ago, obviously that was for my mother not myself I remember that as kid as we got a lift in proper big old Rover. Labour have been very active, Tories less so it would seem, Galloway gang were about yesterday but fortunately I was at work, they also had a large old Double Decker bus out and about with Galloway plastered all over it. If the Tories win I expect it will be mainly down to the loss of the Labour vote to Galloway, talk of the devil the Tory party has just turned up a bit too late.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At 1930 today, the betting from the association of bookmakers gave the following odds on the projected winner:-

Conservative............1/5
Labour....................11/4
Workers Party..........33/1
All others either 100/1 or 200/1

 

[brad465]

If the Tories win I expect it will be mainly down to the loss of the Labour vote to Galloway, talk of the devil the Tory party has just turned up a bit too late.

Partly that, but there's also the concept that some Labour voters won't have turned up. Tory apathy played a part in the Lib Dem win in Chesham and Amersham, alongside a de facto progressive alliance, and while some voters will have switched from Labour to Tory in the red wall in 2019, there were Labour voters who abstained then as well.

Like in the local elections, I wouldn't be surprised if apathy would have won in Batley if this was personified.

At 1930 today, the betting from the association of bookmakers gave the following odds on the projected winner:-

Conservative............1/5
Labour....................11/4
Workers Party..........33/1
All others either 100/1 or 200/1

The rumour mill has been in overdrive over who might mount a leadership challenge after an expected Labour loss. Last week Dawn Butler was the figurehead, yesterday and today it's been Angela Rayner. I wouldn't be surprised if a challenge is made, but unless some of Starmer's shadow cabinet mutiny I think he'll be fine, although a close call won't do the party any favours, in the same way over 100 Tory MPs voting for May to go in her leadership challenge didn't settle the issue for her.

 

[Gloster]

It is quite possible that Labour may lose this one, but I don’t think there is much new to read into it about Starmer’s leadership as it has been so poisonous. The Conservatives wisely seem to have kept a low profile, leaving it to the other parties to tear each other to bits; normally, something like Hancock’s behaviour would have been an open goal, but few seem to have been interested. G****e G******y seems to have only been there in order to stir things in a way that damages Labour more than anyone else (and also damages local cohesion). Half of the Labour supporters aren’t doing any good, some because they have no understanding of the electorate and others because they are more interested in undermining Starmer than winning. (There are reports of Labour members feeding useful information to G******y’s camp and the claims about Angela Rayner mounting a challenge seem to have been aimed at disrupting Labour’s campaign at the last minute.) Starmer should not be judged by the result of one atypical by-election (or even three, if you count Hartlepool and Chesham), but he must get around to leading the party, not just being its head.

 

[37424]

Partly that, but there's also the concept that some Labour voters won't have turned up. Tory apathy played a part in the Lib Dem win in Chesham and Amersham, alongside a de facto progressive alliance, and while some voters will have switched from Labour to Tory in the red wall in 2019, there were Labour voters who abstained then as well.

Like in the local elections, I wouldn't be surprised if apathy would have won in Batley if this was personified.


The rumour mill has been in overdrive over who might mount a leadership challenge after an expected Labour loss. Last week Dawn Butler was the figurehead, yesterday and today it's been Angela Rayner. I wouldn't be surprised if a challenge is made, but unless some of Starmer's shadow cabinet mutiny I think he'll be fine, although a close call won't do the party any favours, in the same way over 100 Tory MPs voting for May to go in her leadership challenge didn't settle the issue for her.

Well there is no chance of me voting Labour again if either of those become leader. We need to start seeing what the polices of Starmer Labour are going to be going forward and hopefully it won't include old Labour left wing polices taking us back to the 1970's.

I still think Labour might just scrape home but we will no doubt see very shortly.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Have had a chat to a few friends from this area tonight, not a single one voted for Labour, despite their previous life long voting habits. The sorts of people who until relatively recently would never have voted for anyone other than Labour. I was surprised how well Galloway had resonated.

I'm calling it for the Conservatives, George Galloway in second, and Labour coming in third, but getting their deposit back.

I also strongly suspect the turnout will be low, in the 30% - 40% range.

 

[TheBigD]

Have had a chat to a few friends from this area tonight, not a single one voted for Labour, despite their previous life long voting habits. The sorts of people who until relatively recently would never have voted for anyone other than Labour. I was surprised how well Galloway had resonated.

I'm calling it for the Conservatives, George Galloway in second, and Labour coming in third, but getting their deposit back.

I also strongly suspect the turnout will be low, in the 30% - 40% range.

Did they give their reasons for not voting Labour? And are they different from the two issues you raised up thread?

I suspect Galloway will do reasonably well. He's a canny operator and won a previous by election in Bradford.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Did they give their reasons for not voting Labour? And are they different from the two issues you raised up thread?

I suspect Galloway will do reasonably well. He's a canny operator and won a previous by election in Bradford.

LGBT wasn't even discussed this evening, that's a more generalised view not specific to my own group of friends.

But the general feeling amongst my friends is that Labour have let them down for years, even in opposition, and quite simply, they've had enough of voting for a party which doesn't actually achieve anything. I did note that some of the "old" rhetoric about the Tory party has died down though, the perception of the Conservatives as the ones who closed the mines and shafted the North is not cutting through anymore.

 

[Gloster]

The BBC is reporting the turnout as 47.6%. I suspect that this does not bode well for Labour.

 

[Northern_guard]

Well when I left for the polling station there was none other than Ed Miliband stood on the end of my drive talking to my next door neighbour. Unfortunately by the time I returned he and the other Labour canvassers had gone. A shame as although I dislike where Labour have gone, I am more than happy to engage in sensible discussion with people. I heard him say to my neighbour "May I ask who you voted for?" She replied Lib Dems, and when he asked why he politely said he wanted to know why people weren't voting for them so they could reach out to people.

Some people seem to have just brushed aside George Galloway, but that would be very dangerous. He's played a clever game of whipping up hate with Asian voters who have turned their backs on Labour due to their perceived views on Keir Starmer being a supporter of Israel. I think Labour could suffer significantly here.

Although I did not vote for Labour, I would rather them, or almost anyone win over Galloway. I look forward to the results.