Turnout: 24,219 (36.5%) down 19.6% Labour hold
Majority: 11,771 (48.6%) up 18.6%
Swing: 13.3% from LibDem to Lab
Dan Jarvis – Labour 14,724 60.8% up 13.5%
Jane Collins – UKIP 2,953 12.2% up 7.5%
James Hockney – Conservative 1,999 8.3% down 9.0%
Enis Dalton – BNP 1,463 6.0% down 2.9%
Tony Devoy – Independent 1,266 5.2% up 4.6%
Dominic Carman – Liberal Democrat 1,012 4.2% down 13.1%
Kevin Riddiough – English Democrats 544 2.2% N/A
Howling Laud Hope – Monster Raving Loony 198 0.8% N/A
Michael Val Davies – Independent 60 0.2% N/A
British Gazette Comment: The British Electorate have a long and well deserved history of providing the political parties with “upsets.” In this, the good people of Barnsley have been true to form. However, the “shock” result is not the over-riding issue here.
The vast majority of British people will not have made the effort to attend the count to hear the results first hand. In fact most Barnsley folk will not have done so. Most people will have received the result at the hands of the Brussels Brainwashing Commissariat (aka; the BBC). Furthermore they will have received the news whilst watching the BBC1’s 10:00PM News fronted by Fiona Bruce on Friday, 4th March, 2011. This is because most people work for a living and are either leaving work or are travelling home at the time of the 6:00PM News.
The BBC’s actually did the British People a favour by its appallingly biased reportage of the results. For – so far as the national news programme was concerned – they interviewed the 1st placed candidiate (Labour), the 6th placed candidate (Liberal-Democrat) and the third placed candidate (Conservative). They did not however interview any of the others. However, they did interview the 2nd place candidate (UKIP) on the regional news programme afterwards. At no point did they interview the 4th placed candidate (BNP).
At this point readers may be expecting the British Gazette to launch a tirade against the BBC about how biased it is against poor old UKIP. There is no need – that is a given. The important facts to bear in mind here are that it DOES NOT MATTER what party the candidates belonged to. What should have guided the BBC in its reportage is the results themselves. Whether the 2nd placed candidate was a member of UKIP or the Flat Earth party of Middlesex makes NO DIFFERENCE. What the criterion has to be is the results themselves.
There is in fact a procedure for the reporting of lection results: a procedure that the BBC sees fit to adjust according to its own prejudices. This procedure is laid down by the Returning Officer who is the legal officer supervising the election. At the count, following the declaration of the results, the Returning Officer invites each candidate to make a speech to those assembled. These invitations are in a strict order. The Returning Officer invites the winner first, the runner up second, the third placed candidate third and so on. This procedure has to be followed by the state broadcaster the BBC. It does not.
The Barnsley By Election was a legal and constitutional process. It was a public process. In an election the PEOPLE are the masters. An election result is the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. The people speak through the ballot box. Therefore impartial reportage MUST BE GUIDED NOT BY THE PARTY LABLES OF THE CANDIDATES BUT THE RESULT.
THIS DID NOT TAKE PLACE. In that, the BBC have abused the good people of Barnsley. Their voice has NOT been reported.
Are we surprised? Frankly no. To expect the BBC to be impartial is as naive as expecting the Taliban to support the existence of Israel.