Op-ed: Having stayed up into the wee small hours to watch the Stoke Central and Copeland by-election results Thursday as they came in this brief report is relatively late in the day.
So first the result.
The Labour Party held Stoke Central but lost Copeland to a Tory candidate.
The world and its wife has already had their say and the knives are out for Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn but the big loser is UKip and its party leader Paul Nuttall.
This woman is watching BBC daily politics as she writes and first things first the Labour MP for Cumbria John Woodcock is sharing his twopenneth.
Mr Woodcock, like Jamie Reed who quit Copeland triggering the by-election, has been vocally against Jeremy Corbyn from day one. Obviously then this woman wonders what he and others of the same mind said on the doorstep campaigning in Copeland.
To be fair Mr Woodcock Friday did not lay the blame at Corbyn's door but he hardly put in a reassuring performance.
So a few thoughts from a Labour Party voter, supporter and party member.
BRexit, Article 50 and immigration
Both Stoke and Copeland voted heavily to leave the European Union in last year's referendum.
Old new Labour
In the last week old new Labour stalwarts, and some would say fat cats, John McTernan, Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson received a great deal of mainstream publicity and it was all about the UK staying part of the EU.
Hardly a vote winner in two BRexit supporting constituencies.
Timing of Article 50 debate
The debate held so close to these two elections drip fed uncertainty about Labour's European intentions. Clive Lewis resigning his shadow cabinet position because of the Article 50 vote was picked up by the mainstream media who ran with it as negative spin.
The two MPs who resigned in Stoke and Copeland
Tristram Hunt and Jamie Reed opted to trigger by elections on the same day. That left the Labour Party defending two constituencies on same day. Both these men were supporters of old new Labour. Both often appeared to be in the wrong political party.
Appointment of election candidates
Other parties were already campaigning on the ground by the time Labour had selected its candidates. They were selected locally which means candidates suit the constituency Labour party but not necessarily the residents.
So the Labour Party needs to fine tune its selection process and speed it up.
Voters need to see a candidate when a campaign starts not just a party. They need to know who wants their votes.
Does UKip have any relevance in 2017?
Paul Nuttall was the candidate that kept on giving in Stoke. He may claim there was a dirty campaign against him but he was shown to be a liar more than once. Having failed to win various elections previously Mr Nuttall must surely be considering his position as a would be MP? He remains an MEP and party leader but for how much longer?
In Copeland the Tory vote was up and UKip vote down. It appears a straight transfer of UKip to Tory helped the Conservative candidate win.
Boundary changes in 2010 brought traditional Tory voters into the Copeland constituency and the Labour majority was cut. This means those quoting old voting history in Copeland forget that is not relevant in 2017.
Further planned boundary changes will continue this trend shoring up the Tory vote. Here in Hull West and Hessle similar changes are planned.
Progressive alliances are back in the room following Thursday's by elections. Some believe it is the only way to beat the Tories in 2017 and beyond.
The labour party needs to:
But when Copeland, an area where the local hospital is under threat, goes blue we need to toughen up and focus as a priority.
WE all need a kick up the bum and the reboot button reset.
By elections are often protest votes against the government. Thursday it seems a majority of voters in Copeland and Stoke expressed they are content with unelected PM Theresa May and her government.
We need to ask them why.
Was it all about BRexit and Sellafield jobs in Copeland?
If you believe the media hype the Labour Party is in danger of imploding; they suggest that if the Labour Party fails to win seats it will lose its power-base and become something of a minor player in British politics.
But our political system needs a political party of the left. Just how far over to the left of politics is debatable but we certainly have too many right-wing political parties already.
The Lib Dems are way over to the right of politics though they try to present themselves as more centrist. But never forget they sat alongside a slashing Tory government for five years. A government that slashed budgets using austerity as an excuse but that was a lie.
At the end of the coalition's time in office the country's debt had increased.
The rise of UKip has also hit Labour heartlands but was that simply an EU issue?
Now that the UK is leaving the European Union will some floating voters drift back to the Labour Party?
In truth it could be UKip that is about to implode post the EU referendum.
One thing we should never forget is that UKip is an alternative Conservative Party as right-wing as they come. Stacked to the rafters with Tories who jumped ship a Tory government with a UKip opposition would be a one-party State and a right-wing one at that.
Farage talked the talk and so does his successor Paul Nuttall but do they walk the walk?
In the run up to the May 2014 European elections we asked can you trust Ukip and concluded NO.
Fast forward to 2017 and they are as untrustworthy as ever.
Ahead of the May 2014 elections Sky News revealed the results of a poll which indicated that voters were switching to UKIP as they did not trust mainstream political parties in the UK.
Polls are a bit of a mixed bag as so much depends on how many people took part, the cross section of pollsters and how many participants took the poll seriously but UKip were fairly successful in the May EU elections. It did not translate to general election wins in 2015 but enough success to weaken the Labour vote.
But all that aside this writer wonders what makes disillusioned voters think that they can trust UKIP?
Yes mainstream political parties have a poor track record on some issues but you can never please all of the people all of the time.
We all know that Tory PM David Cameron barely opened his mouth without uttering a lie and that too many political parties have been touched by sleaze following the expenses scandal but what makes people feel that UKIP are any different?
Voters can probably trust UKIP to bring back hunting, privatise the NHS and maybe even overturn the smoking ban but what about the many other issues?
It's ironic that those turning to UKIP as a trustworthy party ignore the fact that people such as Neil and Christine Hamilton are now Ukip supporters. Neil is actually a UKip MP.
Remember this political married couple, turned celebrity appearing in Christmas pantomimes in the UK, and we do not mean Parliament? Mostyn Neil Hamilton became involved in a political scandal known as the cash-for-questions affair, and temporarily quit politics before joining forces with Ukip.
Ultimately, as Ukip became a recognised political party, rather than just a bunch of fruitcakes, to quote David Cameron, party leader Nigel Farage cleared out embarrassments to UKIP and the Hamiltons were moved on.
The Guardian reported in 2014 "Hamilton has been dropped as Ukip's campaigns director. With questions having been raised about Nigel Farage's use of EU allowances over the past few weeks – allegations that Farage calls "outrageous" – an Observer report suggests that Hamilton's demotion stems from fears his reputation might leave Ukip vulnerable to sleaze allegations.
There's also the small matter of Hamilton's comments about the party's main donor, Paul Sykes, at Ukip's conference in February. "So far, we haven't seen the colour of his money," he told the Observer."
Hardly reassuring as the Hamilton's are now part of UKIP.
"Ukip Is Party For 'Decent BNP Supporters', said Deputy Chair Neil Hamilton" before his earlier demise.
UKIP trusters also forget that disillusioned Tory MPS are part of UKIP and swelling its number of candidates. That means those politicians that they do not trust, form part of a party which they choose to trust.
Confused? You and me both.
Farage previously advised Ukip supporters to vote Tory in constituencies where Ukip have no chance of winning calling it tactical voting but as he was a Tory before parting company on a disagreement over Europe he is just reinforcing the view that Ukip is the alternative Tory party of the UK.
Farage was the so-called intelligent and personable front of Ukip but there were many who believed he simply made up many of his "facts".
Remember his BRexit cash for the NHS promises?
His successor Paul Nuttall is now standing in the Stoke Central byelection but he also appears to be economical with the truth.
So without labouring the point, no pun intended, why would any potential voter feel Ukip is trustworthy as opposed to the other mainstream political parties?
Sources and related reading:
Op-ed; Paul Nuttall UKip party leader is standing in the Stoke Central by-election on February 23.
He is already leader of a political party and an MEP but he plans to keep all three roles if he is elected to represent Stoke Central.
Mr Nuttall is already facing accusations of lying and Saturday there could be more getting thrown into the mix.
When Nuttall officially declared his intention to stand in the Stoke Central byelection his place of residence was not in the constituency.
Channel 4's news bloodhound Michael Crick caught up with Nuttall as he was moving into a property in Stoke. This meant as Crick pointed out that Nuttall had falsely declared an address on his election papers.
Saturday the Guardian is reporting Nuttall has had to move out of that property having allegedly received hate mail, two attempted break ins at the property and people trying to take photos through the windows.
All of those allegations may or may not be true.
If they are true and it is not more UKip fake news "who done it" matters.
Was it an "inside job" or two or rather UKip election tactics?
The upshot is that Nuttall has "had to" move out. The returning officer for the byelection has been informed of the move but Nuttall should still be under investigation for his original false address declaration.
Whether he had actually ever moved in is debatable.
He claims those in the media who published his new Stoke address are in part to blame.
UKip may now try for some political opportunism on the campaign trail in Stoke.
But Mr Nuttall is spinning a tangled web of deceit.
Saturday there are also allegations that he lied about being at the tragic Hillsborough football match of 1989.
Nuttall has previously supported privatisation of the NHS though prefers now to say he has changed his mind.
So can you trust Paul Nuttall?
One word springs to mind - NO.
Paul Nuttall moved house over safety fears, says UKip
Ukip leader Paul Nuttall denies lying about being at Hillsborough disaster
Paul Nuttall UKip party leader and Stoke Central candidate
Paul Nuttall like Trump backs waterboarding
Paul Nuttall is the current leader of UKip. He is an MEP and is standing for MP in Stoke Central a seat left vacant when Tristram Hunt Labour quit for lucrative pastures new.
So if he wins that election he may be an MEP, Party Leader and MP. In theory he could hold all three positions in a money or power grab.
Yes he does not like the EU but is happy to rake the money in.
Like former UKip Party leader Nigel Farage Nuttall is quick to complain about the EU gravy train extolling the virtues of the UK leaving the EU but he is just another hypocrite.
As a UKip man leaving the EU may have had little to do with excessive and costly European bureaucracy and all to do with immigration and right wing policies.
Nuttall is a practising Catholic. He was born in Bootle Liverpool in 1976.
His semi Liverpudlian northern accent may appeal to some working and middle class voters or have the reverse effect.
In March 2015 Nuttall stated that "Twelve per cent of Catholics have already indicated that they are going to vote, or have already voted, UKIP. On moral issues, we, more than any other political party, are more in line with Catholic thought. Whether it's on gender-choice, abortion or same-sex marriage, we are absolutely 100 per cent behind the Catholic Church."
He is anti-abortion and is a member of the United Kingdom's largest pro-life organisation founded in January 1967.
He is in favour of the death penalty reportedly for serial and child killers.
He claims to support the NHS but check out footage at the end of the report for his true view.
His LGBT views are a mixed bag. "Upon becoming UKIP leader, Nuttall faced criticism from Daily Politics presenter Jo Coburn over a lack of diversity in his appointments of all-white men to prominent positions within UKIP. Nuttall accused Coburn of "splitting hairs" as "I've literally appointed three people. If you want diversity, Peter Whittle, my deputy, is an open homosexual."
In 2014 he made the following controversial Tweet. "Tuesday is Emmeline Pankhurst Day, and whilst I am not going to throw myself in front of a horse to make my point about British democracy on this occasion, this is a vitally important constitutional matter and perhaps we should throw Sturgeon in front of a hunt horse as part of the commemorations."
He is trying to portray himself as a genial bloke, man of the people, but he is not.
UKip has its roots in the Tory Party. Check out their existing MPs, those who crossed the floor of the House of Commons from the Tory benches. They have gained ground on one or two issues the EU and immigration.
Sadly they have had some success winning over former Labour voters. They have used similar tactics to Trump in the USA. They claim to be outside of the establishment but are bank rolled by millionaire Aaron Banks and a few other fat cats.
David Cameron once referred to UKip as a party of fruit cakes, closet racists and loons.
Is Nuttall an honest man and worth your vote?
Currently UKip and Nuttall are using BRexit for political opportunism.
Theresa May and the Tory Party are ultimately responsible for deep divisions across the country caused by the EU referendum. Yet they are sitting pretty.
In 2015 demonising Laour Party leader Ed Miliband worked wonders and allowed the Tory Party to win the election.
Be very careful how you vote but make sure you use your vote.
UKip and Tory supporters will vote; make sure you do too.
Pres. Trump has said he will not rule out a return to waterboarding and Saturday UKip leader Paul Nuttall has followed suit.
Nuttall is standing as UKip candidate for Stoke Central the BRexit capital of the UK.
At time of writing UKip has few elected MPs at Westminster and those that are crossed the floor quitting the Tory Party and joining the alternative Tory Party UKip some time back.
So why are intelligent people concerned about a posisble return to water boarding?
Watch the following footage but bear in mind that waterboarding took place in a controlled environment. The real thing will be much more brutal.
Here is an idea - No boss or person in power should authorise anything they have not personally experienced.
People can die when undergoing water boarding. Yet in the past it has been used on suspects in Guantanamo Bay; suspects who ultimately were never allowed a trial.
If Trump, Nuttall and other right wing extremists believe the end justifies the means they need to consider what helped breed a new generation of terrorists.
The Dily Mirror reports "Mr Nuttall, who put himself forward to contest the upcoming Stoke-on-Trent by-election, said he would be “OK” with use of the torture method, which simulates the experience of drowning, if it ensured lives were saved."
What a stupid man Nuttal must be.
"If it ensured lives were saved?" How does that one work Paul?
It is 2017 but in some ways civilisation is going backwards. When will we be bringing back ducking stools, the public stocks and more? I think most of us can think of at least two candidates for the stocks.