|
Post by greenhert on Jul 17, 2023 17:34:24 GMT
Now do Labour (make sure you include Crewe & Nantwich / Cheshire East) Labour majority councils in 1983 which Lab no longer control, IIRC Ashfield Basildon Bolton Carlisle Copeland Derbyshire Great Grimsby Harlow Kingston upon Hull Langbaurgh / Redcar and Cleveland Newcastle-under-Lyme Nuneaton & Bedworth North Warwickshire Northumberland Nottinghamshire Slough Staffordshire Thurrock Watford Welwyn Hatfield Demographic change is responsible in many of these cases, especially Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire which used to have strong mining bases.
|
|
|
Post by michaelarden on Jul 17, 2023 21:02:14 GMT
Labour majority councils in 1983 which Lab no longer control, IIRC Ashfield Basildon Bolton Carlisle Copeland Derbyshire Great Grimsby Harlow Kingston upon Hull Langbaurgh / Redcar and Cleveland Newcastle-under-Lyme Nuneaton & Bedworth North Warwickshire Northumberland Nottinghamshire Slough Staffordshire Thurrock Watford Welwyn Hatfield Demographic change is responsible in many of these cases, especially Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire which used to have strong mining bases. When were Nottingham and Derby made unitary authorities?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jul 17, 2023 21:05:13 GMT
1996 - Stoke likewise. The Conservatives would still have majorities now in Derbyshore and Staffordshire though even with those cities included. Not so in Nottinghamshire with Nottingham included, but I'm pretty sure Labour wouldn't have a majority either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2023 16:33:39 GMT
Turnout in yesterday’s by-elections as a % of 2019 turnout
|
|
Sg1
Conservative
Posts: 1,068
|
Post by Sg1 on Jul 21, 2023 17:03:06 GMT
Turnout in yesterday’s by-elections as a % of 2019 turnout A correlation between turnout and the relative strength of the Conservative vote, suggesting that the Labour / opposition vote motivation in current by elections seems to be consistent and evenly spread. If the pattern carries over to the GE to some extent, then incumbency and single issues could matter more than any election since at least 2010, although I suspect general election turnout will mute this. Perhaps a good reason for Rishi to go for a late autumn / winter election if he's confident in the strength of his incumbents?
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 27, 2023 9:32:49 GMT
Ordinarily I'd post my number crunching over on General Psephology, but I don't yet have access, so here it is for now. As ever, the total votes from those constituencies which have had by-elections in this Parliament, and the total votes from those by-elections. 2019 percentage | 2019 Vote | Party | Place | Party | By-election Vote | By-election Share |
---|
47.47 | 382,273 | Conservative | 1 | Conservative | 163,035 | 35.14 | 33.13 | 266,274 | Labour | 2 | Labour | 140,567 | 30.30 | 10.06 | 81,009 | Liberal Democrats | 3 | Liberal Democrats | 92,008 | 19.83 | 2.72 | 21,878 | Brexit | 4 | Green E&W | 15,390 | 3.32 | 2.51 | 20,191 | Green E&W | 5 | SNP | 10,129 | 2.18 | 2.23 | 17,929 | SNP | 6 | Reform | 10,028 | 2.16 | 0.80 | 6,432 | Heavy Woollen DI | 7 | Workers | 8,264 | 1.78 | 0.34 | 2,768 | Yorkshire | 8 | Ind. S. Lee | 2,904 | 0.63 | 0.16 | 1,251 | UKIP | 9 | Ind. A. Akbar | 2,090 | 0.45 | 0.14 | 1,141 | Shropshire | 10 | Yorkshire | 1,998 | 0.43 |
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,319
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 27, 2023 12:03:16 GMT
This is presumably distorted slightly by Southend West (not a "normal" byelection) being included?
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 27, 2023 14:23:25 GMT
This is presumably distorted slightly by Southend West (not a "normal" byelection) being included? Yes. I've never claimed these are faultless (or for that matter useful). They summarise all the by-elections held and reflect all the votes cast. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by borisminor on Jul 27, 2023 14:35:10 GMT
The results post Batley and Spen would be interesting to look at as it was when Labour's fortunes started to turn, and every by-election since then has shown a swing from Conservative to Labour.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 27, 2023 15:22:25 GMT
This is presumably distorted slightly by Southend West (not a "normal" byelection) being included? When I take out Southend not much changes, there's about 100,000 votes between Conservative and Labour for 2019; only 10,000 votes between them in the by-elections.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,319
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 28, 2023 10:02:54 GMT
This is presumably distorted slightly by Southend West (not a "normal" byelection) being included? Yes. I've never claimed these are faultless (or for that matter useful). They summarise all the by-elections held and reflect all the votes cast. That's all. Sure, it is a useful stat in its own way (very few are totally useless, come to think of it) Still a fair point that non-"normal" byelections (Batley and Spen in 2016 and Haltemprice/Howden in 2008 being other examples) can have a bit of a distorting effect.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 28, 2023 10:36:08 GMT
Yes. I've never claimed these are faultless (or for that matter useful). They summarise all the by-elections held and reflect all the votes cast. That's all. Sure, it is a useful stat in its own way (very few are totally useless, come to think of it) Still a fair point that non-"normal" byelections (Batley and Spen in 2016 and Haltemprice/Howden in 2008 being other examples) can have a bit of a distorting effect. You could produce an alternative set of statistics if you exclude a few outliers, and only include "normal" results, but the problem still remains that it's distorted. Similarly with general elections: in 1951 (for example) the Conservative Party won more seats than Labour, but with fewer votes. It was thus a "wrong winner" election (like February 1974). But if the Conservative Party had had candidates in the four constituencies which it won unopposed, and/or if it had a few more candidates in the places where they had an electoral pact with the Liberal Party, then the Conservative Party might have won a plurality of the votes as well. Or if the Conservative Party had held Tatton in 1997 (i.e. if Labour and Lib Dems had stood normally and split the vote), then the Conservative Party would have made a net gain of 0 seats in 2001 instead of +1. Or if the main GB parties routinely stood in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, the results would be different. In other words, any "tidying up" process of excluding outliers and adjusting actual results moves away from what is "real".
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,319
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 28, 2023 10:45:20 GMT
Sure, it is a useful stat in its own way (very few are totally useless, come to think of it) Still a fair point that non-"normal" byelections (Batley and Spen in 2016 and Haltemprice/Howden in 2008 being other examples) can have a bit of a distorting effect. You could produce an alternative set of statistics if you exclude a few outliers, and only include "normal" results, but the problem still remains that it's distorted. Similarly with general elections: in 1951 (for example) the Conservative Party won more seats than Labour, but with fewer votes. It was thus a "wrong winner" election (like February 1974). But if the Conservative Party had had candidates in the four constituencies which it won unopposed, and/or if it had a few more candidates in the places where they had an electoral pact with the Liberal Party, then the Conservative Party might have won a plurality of the votes as well. Or if the Conservative Party had held Tatton in 1997 (i.e. if Labour and Lib Dems had stood normally and split the vote), then the Conservative Party would have made a net gain of 0 seats in 2001 instead of +1. Or if the main GB parties routinely stood in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, the results would be different. In other words, any "tidying up" process of excluding outliers and adjusting actual results moves away from what is "real". This has been claimed before, but Labour's PV margin was around 230k votes - not trivial. And if you presume Labour contest the unopposed seats (which were in NI, but Labour candidates stood there back then) it becomes even more of a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 28, 2023 11:30:14 GMT
You could produce an alternative set of statistics if you exclude a few outliers, and only include "normal" results, but the problem still remains that it's distorted. Similarly with general elections: in 1951 (for example) the Conservative Party won more seats than Labour, but with fewer votes. It was thus a "wrong winner" election (like February 1974). But if the Conservative Party had had candidates in the four constituencies which it won unopposed, and/or if it had a few more candidates in the places where they had an electoral pact with the Liberal Party, then the Conservative Party might have won a plurality of the votes as well. Or if the Conservative Party had held Tatton in 1997 (i.e. if Labour and Lib Dems had stood normally and split the vote), then the Conservative Party would have made a net gain of 0 seats in 2001 instead of +1. Or if the main GB parties routinely stood in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, the results would be different. In other words, any "tidying up" process of excluding outliers and adjusting actual results moves away from what is "real". This has been claimed before, but Labour's PV margin was around 230k votes - not trivial. And if you presume Labour contest the unopposed seats (which were in NI, but Labour candidates stood there back then) it becomes even more of a stretch. I know it's a bit of a stretch, which is why I wrote "might". Anyway, it's just an example of the general idea that election results are untidy at the edges. Statisticians and psephological analysts might want an election in which every ward or constituency is contested by the same 4 or 5 parties, with no slates missing and no fiddly minor candidates to mess up the numbers. When I become Dictator of the Universe, I will create an alternative Earth in which there is a global law which says that every country has to have the same 5 (or 6 or 7) political parties, with no fringe or regional parties or independent candidates, so that election results can be compared on a consistent and rational basis across different countries as well as different times.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,366
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Jul 28, 2023 12:19:45 GMT
You could produce an alternative set of statistics if you exclude a few outliers, and only include "normal" results, but the problem still remains that it's distorted. Similarly with general elections: in 1951 (for example) the Conservative Party won more seats than Labour, but with fewer votes. It was thus a "wrong winner" election (like February 1974). But if the Conservative Party had had candidates in the four constituencies which it won unopposed, and/or if it had a few more candidates in the places where they had an electoral pact with the Liberal Party, then the Conservative Party might have won a plurality of the votes as well. Or if the Conservative Party had held Tatton in 1997 (i.e. if Labour and Lib Dems had stood normally and split the vote), then the Conservative Party would have made a net gain of 0 seats in 2001 instead of +1. Or if the main GB parties routinely stood in all constituencies in Northern Ireland, the results would be different. In other words, any "tidying up" process of excluding outliers and adjusting actual results moves away from what is "real". This has been claimed before, but Labour's PV margin was around 230k votes - not trivial. And if you presume Labour contest the unopposed seats (which were in NI, but Labour candidates stood there back then) it becomes even more of a stretch. I've read contrary view on whether Lab would have topped PV in 1951 if all seats were contested but the election did evidence Sir David Butler's calculations of a pro Tory electoral system bias at the 1950 election
|
|
|
Post by batman on Jul 29, 2023 11:33:39 GMT
Conservative MP Tom Iremonger polled 19,843 votes in Redbridge, Ilford North in both the February and October general elections of 1974. However, having held the seat with this total in February, he lost the seat to Labour's Millie Miller in October.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Aug 1, 2023 17:20:05 GMT
Putting R&HW into my spreadsheet moves UKIP to 1,880, and 9th overall; only 28 behind their total in the by-elections they've contested.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,901
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 2, 2023 5:09:31 GMT
Putting R&HW into my spreadsheet moves UKIP to 1,880, and 9th overall; only 28 behind their total in the by-elections they've contested. Based on that tally as well I make the following note. In the 2019 general election in these constituencies, Reform UK (formerly Brexit) have a 3,200 vote lead over the Greens, in the by-elections so far (before Rutherglen) the Greens have a 5,000 vote lead over Reform UK (on a 0.76% swing from Reform UK to Green)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 5:55:39 GMT
Given the Rutherglen poll, here are a few Scottish electoral vignettes if memory serves me:
Prior to Rutherglen & Hamilton West, Airdrie & Shotts was the first Scottish Westminster by-election since 2011, IIRC.
Another factoid - the Scottish Conservatives haven't won a Westminster by-election since Edinburgh North in 1973.
Motherwell in 1945 was the SNP's first by-election win following the Scottish National Party's inception in 1934.
The first party fell to third in a Scottish by-election, at Perth & Kinross in 1995. Any other examples of this in Scotland?
There was a by-election for Glasgow, Anniesland for both Holyrood and Westminster after Donald Dewar died.
There was a delightful by-election programme covering Kincardine & Deeside 1991 (a most pretty area of the UK).
David Steel won Roxburgh, Selkirk & Peebles off the Tories in 1965 and the Liberals and Lib Dems held it up to 2015.
Owing to an SNP surge, the Tories' Esmond Wright won Glasgow, Pollok from Labour in '67 (narrowly losing in '70).
Back to Rutherglen, there's an area there called Toryglen, IIRC. Iain Stewart MP fought the Rutherglen SP seat in '99.
The Tories held Glasgow Rutherglen until 1964. Economic decline, council housing, religion waning etc nixed them.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Aug 2, 2023 7:27:00 GMT
Toryglen is in the Langside ward city of Glasgow and the Glasgow Central constituency. It used to be part of the old 'Glasgow Rutherglen'
|
|