It is not something that Blairite ultras are allowed to say, but I did tell you so.* When that first opinion poll of Glasgow East was published showing Labour 14 points ahead, I explained why this meant the result would be close.
The first poll in Crewe put Labour four points behind the Tories, who went on to win by a 19-point margin.
Fourteen days after the publication of that first Crewe poll, Labour polled eight points lower than ICM recorded and the "Give the Government a Kicking" Party, in this case the Conservatives, came out 6.5 points higher.
Now, apply those changes to last weekend's ICM poll in Glasgow East ... and that puts Labour on 39 per cent and the GGK Party, in this case the SNP, on 39.5 per cent.
This morning's result in Glasgow is the worst possible for Gordon Brown and the best possible for the Labour Party. A margin of 365 votes is so close that it means that, if almost anybody else had been Prime Minister, Labour would have held the seat. The Labour Party may be the nice party, but it is not that nice. Previously I had given Brown up to another 365 days in No 10; this cuts that short.
*Just as I was completely, er, right about Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.
Labour deserted its loyal friends. Labour's friends? Working people. Working people - not people on benefits, managerial types. I used to live in a country where I could buy a house for 3 times salary, children received a reasonable primary education and there was an excellent adult education service. All gone. To add insult to injury working people can be labelled chavs and are regarded as the lowest of the low should they like the occasional ciggie. Always a mistake to let down loyal friends - they might retailiate when you most need them.
Posted by: Carol | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 11:24 AM
Brown on for 35min free tv exposure on Sky News! Another few (hundred) thousand votes lost. If we in Labour can't get rid of him, keep him out of the limelight & in the Bunker.
Posted by: Doug | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 01:03 PM
I think Mr Rentoul, like many other pundits, misunderstands the by election. This wasn't really about Gordon Brown, but about the Labour Party.
Labour has been the establishment in Scotland for the past fifty years, and there is little to show for it. Yestrday's by election was a continuation of last year's Holyrood poll. People have finally realised that you do not HAVE to vote Labour in Scotlasnd.
Does Mr Rentoul really think that Alan Johna=son or David Millib(l)and would have made a difference to the result?
Posted by: allan forrester | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 01:15 PM
Mickey & DES, you've got it wrong - today's not Red Nose Day, so making yourselves look like clowns isn't going to help anyone ;)
And comparing the SNP with Mugabe, Mickey, just makes it clear what a barrel-scrapingly empty argument you've got - and how you haven't one single clue what the horror of living under Mugabe is like.
Let's see, Mugabe is the one who's never been elected, can't win an election, but stays in power anyhow? That would be Bottler Brown, then!!
Posted by: Neil McGowan | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 04:24 PM
Neil I did not comapre the snop alone to mugabe they had help from the tories and MI5 people.
I think the SNP leader may not have known himself what happened, but someone fixed it, I am 1105 sure of this. The local press should look into this. 300 votes my ####
Posted by: Mickey Farrin | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 04:49 PM
Neil what has to happen for you to wonder if a result is a bit funny.
Massive differences bettwen the poll result and neutral company surveys and bookies odds, and a history of voter fraud in the area, plus narrow wins. Hmmm funny that eh!. Wake up.
I am calling for exit polls to be leagl requirement,.
The london mayor election the sliobnon treaty and now this by election did not have exit poll surverys why?
Hmm maybe have youy thoguht youyr on ther weonrg side,. the side that likes to fix votes.
I have a simple rule.
When every there is no exit poll I always claim who ever won did not really win.
Posted by: Mickey Farrin | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 04:58 PM
We in England should expel Scotland from the Union anyway, take back our money and jobs and oil (80% is English according to maritime law). Fact is, many useless desctructive incompetent labour governments have been propped up by Scottish MPs over the years, who need many fewer voters to elect them than in England! So stop moaning SNP twerps about the 'London government' you nationalistic racist english-hating little scotlanders! You have far too much influence on English lives and policy - and then you never stop moaning with your chip on your shoulder and your victim complex cause by your inferiorirty complex. We English should dump you all - starting with the Scottish prime minister - and let you revert to your natural state - which would be something like Albania, with extra skirts and dreadful bagpipes that sound like a cat farting out of its ears. We should also demand a refund for all our help and funding over the years. Agreed? Vote SNP please Scottish people and go your own way if you dare - preferably as far as possible away from the English (who will need paying, y'know, for their generosity over the years). I can't wait for English independence - we would be much MUCH richer without the deadweights in the little countries dragging us down with their constant bleed on our resources.
Posted by: OneWayStreet | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 05:16 PM
:OneWayStreet The scottish and the english are both as bad as eachother. Actually the oil is 90% scottish, according to present borders so I do not know what bizzare figures you use. So I do know why you deserve to be given any money. You sound as bigotted as the SNP. The scots have done a terrible result, I agree but england was just as bad with the crewe result.
Posted by: Mickey Farrin | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 05:47 PM
Mickey - according to maritime law, 80% of north sea oil is English. Look it up. Forget land borders - look at maritime law. The SNP are guilty of telling great big porkie pies to the Scots population who, if independent, would be one helluva lot poorer with many fewer jobs than now - even if they didn't have to repay England for centuries of subsidy.
One reason Brown is so hated is because he is a Scot lording it over the English and presiding over a system whereby the Scots can vote on English affairs but not vice-versa - and the English are paying for extra benefits in Scotland which is unfair and absurd.
NO scot should be in the English parliament anyway - they should go back to Edinburgh and represent their people there - but then they know they would be leaving the world stage and becoming provincial politicians.
Posted by: OneWayStreet | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 06:23 PM
Nope 90% qaccording to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil
I quote from wikipedia.
"The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits."
Posted by: Mickey Farrin | Friday, 25 July 2008 at 10:17 PM
Mickey - Wikipedia is meaningless source: ask a lawyer about maritime law - and the importance of the law at the time of a claim, not some amendment by Scottish moneygrubbing politicians. Moreover, who claimed oil in the first place? The UK. NOT Scotland -and the money spent finding and exploiting it was British - ie 90% English. Therefore the Scottish claim over north sea oil is a fiction and if independence happened, most would belong to England, despite what the SNP or Wikipedia says. If it would be tranferred to Scotland then they would have to pay trillions to the English for it.
Posted by: OneWayStreet | Saturday, 26 July 2008 at 02:48 PM
Rubbish. You have drawn up a fictional border that no legal authority agrees with. It is just give all the north sea to england map it is chilidsh drivel that no sane man agrees with. Your bizzare border would mean that water 100s of km from england and closer to scoland that would be given to england. It has no legal basis. We are not moronic savages who give our water to you.
Recent evidence by Kemp, A.G & Stephen, L (1999) Expenditures and Revenues from the UKCS - Estimating the hypothetical Scottish Shares 1970-2003 North Sea Study Occasional Paper No. 70. Department of Economics. University of Aberdeen.
has tried to estimate hypothetical Scottish shares of North Sea Oil revenue by dividing the UK sector of the North Sea into separate Scottish and UK sectors using the international principle of equidistance as utilised under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - such a convention is used in defining the maritime assets of newly formed states and resolving international maritime disputes. The study by Kemp & Stephen showed that hypothesised Scottish shares of North Sea oil revenue over the period 1970 to 1999, varied to as high as 98% dependent upon the price of oil and offset against taxable profits and the costs of exploration and development.
You have no evidence to back you up. Give me academic evidence for you claim not the claim of little boy who wants to redraw the border to steal another nations oil.
Posted by: Mickey Farin | Saturday, 26 July 2008 at 03:11 PM
It is scotland oil and even your childish redrawn map would not make much of a difference. :
Posted by: Mickey Farin | Saturday, 26 July 2008 at 03:14 PM