Eastleigh

[Deleted]

Will Nick visit a few times, I think he has to.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2013 13:31:52 GMT thirdchill said:

This and Corby have generally been the only interesting by-elections this parliament (apart from the UKIP surge in Rotherham). The factors which will affect the result are as follows:

I can understand why we would want to forget Bradford, however .........

[Tangent]

Feb 4, 2013 13:31:32 GMT Andrew_S said:

There is a possible difficulty for Labour, which is that if they try to maximise their vote they'll probably cause the Tories to win, but if they don't bother campaigning properly they may be beaten by UKIP into fourth place.

I think the best strategy would be for them to press on, regardless. Labour has a need to show it recover votes in Southern suburban areas like this. Whoever wins, some part of the Coalition will be damaged, and LDs who lose in Eastleigh and then suffer bigger than expected county losses may start to revolt.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2013 13:35:10 GMT @robin said:

Feb 4, 2013 13:31:52 GMT thirdchill said:

This and Corby have generally been the only interesting by-elections this parliament (apart from the UKIP surge in Rotherham). The factors which will affect the result are as follows:

I can understand why we would want to forget Bradford, however .........

I think UKIP being 2nd in Barnsley was also an interesting result.

[Deleted]

Been reminded by Lewis BAston that of course in the PCC LD's actually topped the poll here so in many ways this could be more embarassing for the Tories than the LD's esp if UKIP bite a lot into the cote. Expect to hear a lot from them on Gay marriage for example and failed referendum promises.

[bungle]

Feb 4, 2013 13:35:24 GMT Tangent said:

Feb 4, 2013 13:31:32 GMT Andrew_S said:

There is a possible difficulty for Labour, which is that if they try to maximise their vote they'll probably cause the Tories to win, but if they don't bother campaigning properly they may be beaten by UKIP into fourth place.

I think the best strategy would be for them to press on, regardless. Labour has a need to show it recover votes in Southern suburban areas like this. Whoever wins, some part of the Coalition will be damaged, and LDs who lose in Eastleigh and then suffer bigger than expected county losses may start to revolt.

I would agree. While Labour needn't worry about winning there is a clear yardstick - between 1992 and 2005 Labour never polled below 20%. Even in 2005 when the ubiquitous barcharts would have flooded the letterboxes showing 'Labour can't win here' still saw Labour poll a respectable 20.6%.

Labour need to set out their expectation narrative and it has to be around a recovery of their vote to at least 17-20% regardless of how Lib Dem/ Tories/UKIP finish. That sort of % is unlikely to see them in fourth place but even if it did the near doubling of their 2010 vote would be the line to push as it is a good counter to those who will claim such a result is a disaster.

Of course I am waiting for the usual suspects (like Shapps or Warsi) to try and claim that anything less than a victory for Labour would be a disaster for Ed Miliband

[johnloony]

Feb 4, 2013 13:34:17 GMT timrollpickering said:

My aunt lives in this constituency and has an accessible letter box so I must warn her to put up a no election leaflets poster.

Why on earth would she want to do that? It would spoil the fun of getting all the leaflets and reading them.

[andrea]

PCC elections in Eastleigh district area (4 wards are in Winchester parliamentary constituency though):

LD 4,180
Ind 3,061
Con 2,788
Lab 2,374
UKIP 1,508
Justice and Anti-Corruption Party 1,412

2012 locals:

LD 9650 (47.3)
Con 4485 (21.9)
Lab 3429 (16.78)
UKIP 2390 (11.7)
Greens 382
Ind 88

4 wards didn't vote. Using the 2011 results for them, I get

LD 13,416 (48.4)
Con 6404 (23.1)
Lab 4170 (15.04)
UKIP 2871 (10.3)
Ind 466
Greens 382

[johnloony]

Feb 4, 2013 13:24:10 GMT @ianrobo said:

I think Mark means this will be the first time a government could both lose and gain a seat ...

I presume this happened in the past where a coalition govt had a seat where the two main contenders were from the coalition. In this case of course Labour can not win unless in a real freak.

I've looked through the list of by-elections in my F.W.S.Craig reference books and I can't find any in which two coalition parties both stood against each other. The almost-universal practice in and around both world wars was that a vacant seat would be defended by the incumbent coalition party.

The nearest equivalent was the by-election in Stockport on 27th March 1920, when there was a double-vacancy in a two-member constituency (caused by the death of one MP and the resignation of the other):

W. Greenwood (Coalition Conservative) 22,847
H. Fildes (Coalition Liberal) 22,386
Sir L.G.C. Money (Labour) 16,042
S.F. Perry (Labour) 14,434
A.A.G. Kindell (Independent*) 5,644
J.J. Terrett (Independent*) 5,443
W. O'Brien (Independent Irish Workers' Republican) 2,336

* supported by Horatio Bottomley

Even this one is less directly comparable than it looks because the previous incumbent MPs (elected unopposed in 1918) were a Coalition Liberal and a Coalition Labour, not a Conservative.

[Deleted]

cheers John and Bungle if we finish 4th even on 20% that is poor however no chance with 20% we would finish fourth

[johnloony]

The last time there was a by-election in Eastleigh, OMRLP was only 169 votes behind UKIP.

[Tangent]

Feb 4, 2013 14:19:19 GMT johnloony said:

Feb 4, 2013 13:24:10 GMT @ianrobo said:

I think Mark means this will be the first time a government could both lose and gain a seat ...

I presume this happened in the past where a coalition govt had a seat where the two main contenders were from the coalition. In this case of course Labour can not win unless in a real freak.

I've looked through the list of by-elections in my F.W.S.Craig reference books and I can't find any in which two coalition parties both stood against each other. The almost-universal practice in and around both world wars was that a vacant seat would be defended by the incumbent coalition party.

The nearest equivalent was the by-election in Stockport on 27th March 1920, when there was a double-vacancy in a two-member constituency (caused by the death of one MP and the resignation of the other):

W. Greenwood (Coalition Conservative) 22,847
H. Fildes (Coalition Liberal) 22,386
Sir L.G.C. Money (Labour) 16,042
S.F. Perry (Labour) 14,434
A.A.G. Kindell (Independent*) 5,644
J.J. Terrett (Independent*) 5,443
W. O'Brien (Independent Irish Workers' Republican) 2,336

* supported by Horatio Bottomley

Even this one is less directly comparable than it looks because the previous incumbent MPs (elected unopposed in 1918) were a Coalition Liberal and a Coalition Labour, not a Conservative.

Ah - Sir Leo Money, whose own political career terminated amid personal scandals.

[mboy]

There is quite likely to be a complex interplay depending on the nature of the Tory candidate. A "moderniser" who supports gay marriage etc could see a bigger drift to UKIP but also a bigger LD drift to Labour. A crust old hard-liner will see a smaller UKIP vote but potentially more Labour tactical voting.

[mboy]

Feb 4, 2013 14:52:26 GMT @boogieeck said:

For Labour second would be a good result. Third mildly disappointing, 4th humiliating. 25% good, 20% mildly disappointing, 15% humiliating but quickly forgotten.

I think those are a bit off. 20% would be a good result for Labour, IMO, and is probably what they are aiming for.

[Deleted]

it should be, it takes us back to 2005 levels. Reading some things Conor Burns is saying (of course he stood there twice) and he thinks Labour vote will be 'coming home'.

[Deleted]

The OMRLP Twitter account suggests they will stand here.

[Deleted]

Feb 4, 2013 14:52:26 GMT @boogieeck said:

For Labour second would be a good result. Third mildly disappointing, 4th humiliating. 25% good, 20% mildly disappointing, 15% humiliating but quickly forgotten.

Lib Dems, hold would be very good, second OKish. Third very bad, fourth a humiliation. 35%+ good, 30% Ok, 25% disappointing, <20% a humiliation.

Conservatives, win very good, 2nd OKish. Third humiliation. 35%+ good, 30% Ok, 25% disappointing,

UKIP, third would be good, 2nd very good. 20% good, 25% very good. <10% disappointing

Congrats Boog on the new job, as the Coalition Expectations Manager.....

I assume you are on performane related pay, a point per headline,, five bad labour headlines post-election excellent, four good, three average, two poor & one gets you the sack.

Remuneration commensurate with results, I hear the average 3 points is worth £60 down in Eastleigh .....

[Tangent]

Feb 4, 2013 14:55:26 GMT mboy said:

There is quite likely to be a complex interplay depending on the nature of the Tory candidate. A "moderniser" who supports gay marriage etc could see a bigger drift to UKIP but also a bigger LD drift to Labour. A crust old hard-liner will see a smaller UKIP vote but potentially more Labour tactical voting.

The best candidate would be someone on the lines of Maria Hutchings, but less flaky: someone who can connect with mid-income voters who are still in reasonably good employment, but feel squeezed by rising prices, and feel disconnected from the government; someone who lacks the well-bred metropolitan gloss associated with Tory modernisers, but also is distant from the ideological preoccupations of the Right. Connecting with women would be particularly important.

[Andrew_S]

If the minimum number of days is 18 the by-election could be held on Thursday 28th February.

[The Bishop]

Feb 4, 2013 14:07:05 GMT bungle said:

Of course I am waiting for the usual suspects (like Shapps or Warsi) to try and claim that anything less than a victory for Labour would be a disaster for Ed Miliband

You missed one DPJ Hodges - indeed, it is quite possible he has claimed that already??