|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 21, 2018 9:44:33 GMT
The sitting MP for Winchester, John Browne, was deselected by the Tories and stood as an independent in 1992, winning 4.7%. Trying to repeat the trick, he stood in 1997 and dropped to 0.5%.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 21, 2018 11:17:38 GMT
A certain Richard Huggett, no less, got twice as many votes as him then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 14:47:17 GMT
Peter Slipper was elected for the Liberal/Nationals in Fisher, Queensland in 2010 with 46.5% of the primary vote (rising to 54.1% on two party preferred). A short and ill fated spell as Speaker later, he restood as an independent in 2013 and managed seventh place with 1.55%.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Feb 21, 2018 18:33:26 GMT
And two other dramatic drops in vote share: * Jonathan Craik-Henderson won Leeds North East for the Conservatives in a 1940 by-election. Facing only Fascist opposition, he took 97.1% of the vote. But in 1945, he lost the seat to Labour, taking only 37.5%. * The ILP won Glasgow Bridgeton in 1945, with 66.4% of the vote. By 1950, their MP had died, and his successor had defected to Labour. The new ILP candidate took only 5.8%. I thought about the Bridgeton one but it doesn't really work, since it wasn't just 66.4% > 5.8%. A by-election took place there in 1946, so it was 66.4% > 34.3% > 5.8%. As I'm sure you'll know, numerous factors led to it. ILP leader Maxton had been elected in 1945 without a Labour candidate. Labour had then stood in the 1946 by-election, finishing a close second to the ILP. All 3 ILP MPs then defected to Labour in 1947 and that, along with the poor ILP result in the Camlachie by-election in 1948, meant the ILP was dead in the water by 1950. |
|
msc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 910 
|
Post by msc on Feb 21, 2018 18:43:15 GMT
* The ILP won Glasgow Bridgeton in 1945, with 66.4% of the vote. By 1950, their MP had died, and his successor had defected to Labour. The new ILP candidate took only 5.8%. The dead MP mentioned above was Jimmy Maxton, Bridgeton MP 1922-45. Big name in his day, and one of Gordon Brown's early heroes, Brown wrote a biography of Maxton in the 80s. The sole dissenting vote in the 1942 Vote of Confidence in the government, though that was partially a contrarian streak (he and Churchill were friendly in private), etc. Also, a family friend! Not one I ever met, given he died some 40 years before my birth. My Great Aunt remembers him ("and his messy hair") chatting to her dad, they lived nearby in Barrhead and she knew the surviving sister until the early 1980s iirc. Biggest family claim to fame on the Maxton link is my great uncle was jailed in 1942 as a conscientious objector, and Jimmy Maxton campaigned for his release, and got it! Sadly he was quite ill by that point, and died aged only 61 of cancer in 1946. He has a memorial garden in Barrhead, but last I saw it, it wasn't kept very well. His successor jumped ship back to Labour (they schismed over Ramsey MacDonald) and I'm told there was a general feeling Maxton would have done the same had he lived. He was friendlier with the lot who took over in the 1940s, and a lot of the policies he "banged on about endlessly" were stuff the 1945-51 Labour government started to implement, ie the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 21, 2018 19:15:21 GMT
His successor jumped ship back to Labour (they schismed over Ramsey MacDonald) Not entirely. The underlying reason for the ILP split from Labour was because they opposed a lot of the measures of the 1929-31 Labour government, but it wasn't anything personal over Ramsay MacDonald. The formal split didn't come until after the National Government was formed, when the Labour Party conference adopted new standing orders for the PLP which would require the ILP not to issue its own whip. At the 1931 election the ILP candidates refused to sign a statement saying they would accept the standing orders and so ran without official Labour Party endorsement. In the new Parliament the ILP formed its separate group and in 1932 the ILP conference resolved to disaffiliate from the Labour Party entirely. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 23, 2018 3:56:49 GMT
His successor jumped ship back to Labour (they schismed over Ramsey MacDonald) Something that the Labour Party continues to do even today. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Feb 23, 2018 4:05:08 GMT
Yes, precisely who I meant.  In the context of 1997, Raymond Robertson’s result was not THAT bad. Yes he was 3rd but he was only 3920 behind Anne Begg. David Shaw lost Dover by 11700 for example. I met Robertson at an event with David Reed, another MP often forgotten by history. He was doing some sort of public affairs thing (perhaps Davıd Boothroyd can shed some light? Robertson I mean, I had professional reasons to come into contact with Reed's team). Sadly I didn't get to ask Reed if he was a bit gutted about Sedgefield being abolished and then recreated, depriving him of a parliamentary career. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 23, 2018 9:16:08 GMT
In the context of 1997, Raymond Robertson’s result was not THAT bad. Yes he was 3rd but he was only 3920 behind Anne Begg. David Shaw lost Dover by 11700 for example. I met Robertson at an event with David Reed, another MP often forgotten by history. He was doing some sort of public affairs thing (perhaps Davıd Boothroyd can shed some light? Robertson I mean, I had professional reasons to come into contact with Reed's team). Sadly I didn't get to ask Reed if he was a bit gutted about Sedgefield being abolished and then recreated, depriving him of a parliamentary career. David Reed (who died last year) was Director of Corporate Communications for Whitbread plc for 15 years so had quite a lot of public affairs involvement. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 23, 2018 10:38:13 GMT
That must be the biggest drop in raw votes too. He went down from 201,556 in 2009 to just 20,006 at the following election. An amusing special type of this sort of thing - it's a bit different because what's lost isn't genuine support - can be the drops that can occur when a party with a small vote bank gets doled out seats by a larger partner in an alliance because every vote helps and then goes it alone next election. E.g. in Tamil Nadu the Left Front were allied with the AIADMK in 2009 but on their own in 2014. They won two seats in the state in 2009. At Coimbatore, P.R. Natarajan of the CPI(M) polled 293,165 (35.6%) in 2009 and 34,197 (3.0%) in 2014, and at Tenkasi P. Lingam of the CPI polled 281,174 (37.7%) in 2009 and 23,528 (2.3%) in 2014. A similar case is United Future in Ōhāriu in New Zealand. In later years Peter Dunne was only scraping through with implicit National support but still getting 13,569 (36.6%) in 2014 (although the list vote had long been tiny). Then he retired in 2017 and the new UF candidate got just 284 (0.71%). |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Feb 23, 2018 11:12:53 GMT
I met Robertson at an event with David Reed, another MP often forgotten by history. He was doing some sort of public affairs thing (perhaps Davıd Boothroyd can shed some light? Robertson I mean, I had professional reasons to come into contact with Reed's team). Sadly I didn't get to ask Reed if he was a bit gutted about Sedgefield being abolished and then recreated, depriving him of a parliamentary career. David Reed (who died last year) was Director of Corporate Communications for Whitbread plc for 15 years so had quite a lot of public affairs involvement. I didn't realise David Reed had died; this appears to have gone unreported online. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Feb 23, 2018 11:16:19 GMT
There must have been some good examples in Canada 1993, surely?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 11:21:03 GMT
An amusing special type of this sort of thing - it's a bit different because what's lost isn't genuine support - can be the drops that can occur when a party with a small vote bank gets doled out seats by a larger partner in an alliance because every vote helps and then goes it alone next election. E.g. in Tamil Nadu the Left Front were allied with the AIADMK in 2009 but on their own in 2014. They won two seats in the state in 2009. At Coimbatore, P.R. Natarajan of the CPI(M) polled 293,165 (35.6%) in 2009 and 34,197 (3.0%) in 2014, and at Tenkasi P. Lingam of the CPI polled 281,174 (37.7%) in 2009 and 23,528 (2.3%) in 2014. A similar case is United Future in Ōhāriu in New Zealand. In later years Peter Dunne was only scraping through with implicit National support but still getting 13,569 (36.6%) in 2014 (although the list vote had long been tiny). Then he retired in 2017 and the new UF candidate got just 284 (0.71%). It does point out a flaw in the MMP electoral system. Essentially: A minor party in New Zealand may gain traction, and may be broadly similar to a major party. Said minor party manages to win an electorate. The party then goes in to decline, losing almost all of its popular support. The broadly similar major party then has two options - properly campaign to get elected in the electorate, which they shouldn't struggle with, but at the risk of losing one of their list seats because of it (since list seats level out electorate seats to increase proportionally, thus more electorates but same votes generally means fewer list seats). Or; The major party can endorse the incumbent minor party candidate, whilst still running their own candidate, so supporters in the electorate can still vote for them in the list vote. The party then gets the same total number of MPs, plus another MP who has broadly similar views, and owes their position as an MP to the major party. This is the same reason why the ACT party in New Zealand still have an MP, and extreme efforts to exploit this effect lead both Italy and Albania to abandon MMP. Germany has rules which prohibit parties from endorsing other candidates, and votes for successful candidates from parties who got less than 5% of list votes (nationwide) aren't counted in the list stage. However, left-of-centre people in Germany can often 'increase the value' of their vote by voting SPD in their constituency and Green in the list, or right-of-centre voters can benefit from voting CDU then FDP. I understand that there were some campaigns for pro-independence voters in Scotland in 2016 to vote SNP in the constituency vote and Green in the regional vote, and I also understand that Labour considered running Co-operative Party lists in parts of Scotland when they were the strongest force there. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Feb 23, 2018 11:24:58 GMT
Yes indeed, pragmaticidealist, an example being Oshawa (which for many years previously had been held by NDP leader Ed Broadbent). Michael Breaugh, who succeeded him as NDP MP, saw his vote share collapse from 44.3% to 14.9%. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 23, 2018 11:28:35 GMT
Yes, precisely who I meant. In the context of 1997, Raymond Robertson’s result was not THAT bad. Yes he was 3rd but he was only 3920 behind Anne Begg. David Shaw lost Dover by 11700 for example. Same with Claire Ward's similar result in Watford come 2010. Objectively speaking, quite a few Labour incumbents did worse than her then. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 23, 2018 11:45:02 GMT
It does point out a flaw in the MMP electoral system. Essentially: A minor party in New Zealand may gain traction, and may be broadly similar to a major party. Said minor party manages to win an electorate. The party then goes in to decline, losing almost all of its popular support. The broadly similar major party then has two options - properly campaign to get elected in the electorate, which they shouldn't struggle with, but at the risk of losing one of their list seats because of it (since list seats level out electorate seats to increase proportionally, thus more electorates but same votes generally means fewer list seats). Or; The major party can endorse the incumbent minor party candidate, whilst still running their own candidate, so supporters in the electorate can still vote for them in the list vote. The party then gets the same total number of MPs, plus another MP who has broadly similar views, and owes their position as an MP to the major party. This is the same reason why the ACT party in New Zealand still have an MP, and extreme efforts to exploit this effect lead both Italy and Albania to abandon MMP. Germany has rules which prohibit parties from endorsing other candidates, and votes for successful candidates from parties who got less than 5% of list votes (nationwide) aren't counted in the list stage. However, left-of-centre people in Germany can often 'increase the value' of their vote by voting SPD in their constituency and Green in the list, or right-of-centre voters can benefit from voting CDU then FDP. I understand that there were some campaigns for pro-independence voters in Scotland in 2016 to vote SNP in the constituency vote and Green in the regional vote, and I also understand that Labour considered running Co-operative Party lists in parts of Scotland when they were the strongest force there. Closer to home Forward Wales tried the similar decoy list trick in 2007 by standing candidates as independents but the votes weren't there. I don't think it's a coincidence that Greens often call the list vote a "second vote", potentially confusing voters into thinking it's a second preference (this is especially likely in London due to the Mayoral ballot). And some parties have sought pacts with bigger parties to get one each to stand for constituencies and lists. IIRC the 1970s Hansard Society report identified the problem and recommended AMS but with a single ballot that would be used for both the constituency and list votes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 12:01:22 GMT
IIRC the 1970s Hansard Society report identified the problem and recommended AMS but with a single ballot that would be used for both the constituency and list votes. The issue there is one of two things can happen: People continue to vote tactically for the constituency stage, which makes the list stage less representative of people's views than it could be People don't vote tactically, and constituency MPs are elected with 'personal mandates' of, perhaps, less than a third of the vote. Of course, this occasionally happens anyway, and even more so on the local level. AV+ solves both of these - the first preference votes can be used to allocate list seats, whilst constituency MPs need 50%+1 mandates (if every vote is transferable). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Feb 23, 2018 12:12:41 GMT
Yes indeed, pragmaticidealist , an example being Oshawa (which for many years previously had been held by NDP leader Ed Broadbent). Michael Breaugh, who succeeded him as NDP MP, saw his vote share collapse from 44.3% to 14.9%. In Charlevoix, previously Brian Mulroney's riding, the PC vote collapsed from 33,000 to under 7,000. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 23, 2018 12:15:54 GMT
Off topic but the LDs went from holding Bradford East in 2010 to getting 1.8% in 2017 which is quite a drop off over two elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 23, 2018 12:16:06 GMT
IIRC the 1970s Hansard Society report identified the problem and recommended AMS but with a single ballot that would be used for both the constituency and list votes. The issue there is one of two things can happen: People continue to vote tactically for the constituency stage, which makes the list stage less representative of people's views than it could be People don't vote tactically, and constituency MPs are elected with 'personal mandates' of, perhaps, less than a third of the vote. Of course, this occasionally happens anyway, and even more so on the local level. AV+ solves both of these - the first preference votes can be used to allocate list seats, whilst constituency MPs need 50%+1 mandates (if every vote is transferable). AMS has thrown up some low winning results already - for instance my London Assembly seat was won with 29.1% in 2004 and I suspect that's not the lowest. Tactical voting & campaigning can and does happen in AV as people try to get the most winnable opponent into the last two by inverting their true preferences so it's not a solution to the first problem. And AV+ offers a massive recipe for voter confusion with preferential & proportional votes flying around (a problem we see in London with SV and AMS list votes at the same time) and doesn't really offer any great benefits to overcome the problem beyond the notional idea that raking in third and fourth choices enhances the mandate. |
|
