|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Feb 4, 2013 16:29:26 GMT
I think Mark means this will be the first time a government could both lose and gain a seat ... It's technically at least 87 years too late for that. 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 National Government saw a few, not least because local Liberal activists turned on the government even before the leaders. Glancing at a table I find: Henley Feb 1932 - a straight Conservative/(Samuelite) Liberal fight, Con hold Dulwich June 1932 - Con/Lab/Lib (just to add to the fun the Labour candidate was the niece of the Liberal leader), Con hold North Cornwall July 1932 - straight Conservative/(Samuelite) Liberal, Lib hold Cadiganshire September 1932 - Con/Lab/Lib, Lib hold (The Samuelites resigned their offices at the start of October 1932 but didn't fully withdraw from supporting the government for another year) Ashford March 1933 - Con/Lab/Lib, Con hold Altrincham June 1933 - Con/Lab/Lib, Con hold (Then the Samuelite Liberals completely left) Ross & Cromarty Feb 1936 - Con/Lab/Lib/National Labour, National Labour gain from Liberal National (who didn't stand their own candidate but instead adopted the Nat Lab). To add to the fun the National Labour candidate was Ramsay MacDonald's son Malcolm and the Conservative candidate Winston Churchill's son Randolph. Oliver Baldwin, son of Stanley, was sent in to bat as a journalist in the contest to add to the fun. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 16:40:18 GMT
If the minimum number of days is 18 the by-election could be held on Thursday 28th February. Then the Lib Dems should seriously consider moving to have it on that date. Any delay in these circumstances will not help. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 4, 2013 16:53:56 GMT
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. I don't think I agree with any of this. Southern suburban areas like Eastleigh were only part of the Blair coalition when they were paired with urban areas, not with rural areas. We don't need to show a recovery here. Coming fourth wouldn't be a disaster, because if that happened nobody would notice. The big story would still be the Conservatives gaining or Lib Dems losing the seat, with negative consequences for the winner, and the second story would be a strong UKIP performance, with associated positive consequences for them. Nobody but the obsessives is going to pay attention to the third story. Look how little the poor Conservative performance in OE&S or the Lib Dem catastrophe in Rotheram affected the narrative. None of that is to say Labour shouldn't try at all. But we won't be the story and there's no likelihood that any significant part of the Eastleigh constituency will end up in a winnable seat for Labour any time soon, so worrying about narratives is not productive. If I were running the campaign, I'd seek to do it on the cheap utilising resources from areas without elections in 2013, and I'd concentrate almost entirely on identified support and areas of demographic strength, seeking to firm up our existing support and grow it by a few percent. Nothing more than that is needed, because anybody who tries to tell the press the big story is Labour's disappointing result isn't going to be quoted except in mockery. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 17:04:04 GMT
Luke Akehurst who normally is spot on with some of his analysis thinks Labour has a chance here by unravelling previously squeezed Labour vote. I would agree if we had polled 15-20% last election but just too far back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Feb 4, 2013 17:10:35 GMT
I don't think I agree with any of this. Southern suburban areas like Eastleigh were only part of the Blair coalition when they were paired with urban areas, not with rural areas. We don't need to show a recovery here. And that applies to you winning, certainly (although I think this could have been an outside chance of a Labour gain in 1997 without a by-election - in terms of the basic make-up of the seat, it reminds me a lot of St Albans). But road testing your appeal in the more urban and more mid-income parts of the seat will be a valuable to see what could work in seats like Watford. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Feb 4, 2013 17:12:57 GMT
This is being done on nothing more scientific than the average change in British by-elections so far this parliament (with the obvious exception of Oldham East and Saddleworth and Bradford West).
Turnout: 30% - 35%
Conservatives 20% - 25%
Labour 15% - 20%
Liberal Democrats 20 - 25%
United Kingdom Independence Party 14% - 18%
In other words, I believe it could be a real four way battle between Con, Lab, Lib Dem and UKIP
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 4, 2013 17:13:47 GMT
If the minimum number of days is 18 the by-election could be held on Thursday 28th February. Then the Lib Dems should seriously consider moving to have it on that date. Any delay in these circumstances will not help. The alternative would be waiting until the local elections in May. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 4, 2013 17:15:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Feb 4, 2013 17:15:44 GMT
I don't think I agree with any of this. Southern suburban areas like Eastleigh were only part of the Blair coalition when they were paired with urban areas, not with rural areas. We don't need to show a recovery here. And that applies to you winning, certainly (although I think this could have been an outside chance of a Labour gain in 1997 without a by-election - in terms of the basic make-up of the seat, it reminds me a lot of St Albans). But road testing your appeal in the more urban and more mid-income parts of the seat will be a valuable to see what could work in seats like Watford. If that needs road-testing, we can do it in Watford. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Feb 4, 2013 17:20:51 GMT
If the minimum number of days is 18 the by-election could be held on Thursday 28th February. It is worth noting that this could be the last "quick" by-election. The recent Electoral Registration and Administration Act, in one of its less controversial provisions, extended the minimum time for parliamentary elections. Currently if the writ is moved on Day 0, Polling Day is between Day 15 and Day 19. Under the new rules polling day will be between Day 23 and Day 27. This will bring the timetable in line with local government elections. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 4, 2013 17:23:47 GMT
Eastleigh is number 337 on the Labour target list, (not 258th as LabourList seem to think), requiring a swing of 29.73%.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Feb 4, 2013 17:29:58 GMT
Rankings (as calculated using official data from the BBC's Election 2010 website)
Conservative target number 57 (swing to gain: 3.60%)
Labour target number 248 (swing to gain: 18.47%)
Liberal Democrat defence number 20 (majority of 7.20%)
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 4, 2013 17:48:57 GMT
Rankings (as calculated using official data from the BBC's Election 2010 website) Conservative target number 57 (swing to gain: 3.60%) Labour target number 248 (swing to gain: 18.47%) Liberal Democrat defence number 20 (majority of 7.20%) There's a slight problem with saying Labour need a swing of 18.47%. Let's see what happens if we apply that swing: Con 39.33% Lab 28.07% LD: 28.06% Labour has overtaken the LDs but the Tories are still on their 2010 percentage of 39.33%. The BBC have forgotten to take into account the need to overtake the second-placed party. That's why the actual swing required is 29.73%. (This is the method used by Rallings & Thrasher). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 17:50:34 GMT
all the parties have something to gain here but two have a lot to lose. I think if the Tories fail to capture the seat the knives will really be out for Cameron. If the LD's lose badly then Clegg will be under severe pressure. UKIP have to prove they gain votes in places with no UKIP success and Labour have to get to 20%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 17:55:20 GMT
This is going to be exciting. There is potential for all four main parties to do well here. The choice of candidates, the way the parties conduct their campaigns and sheer luck is going to be of critical importance.
If we extrapolate the national opinion polls in comparison with 2010, it's looking as though it's going to be close between the LibDems and Tories, with Labour and UKIP enjoying a boost at their expense.
Only the LibDems and Tories have a realistic chance of winning in my view. Whatever the result, it's going to be uncomfortable for the Coalition parties - as nice as it would be to see a Conservative gain, the media is going to find some way or another to turn it into bad news.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 4, 2013 18:10:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Feb 4, 2013 18:22:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:35:50 GMT
Well about time Farage put up eh ? About time in an high profile by election as this will be to see if he has any traction and can attract votes ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2013 18:51:29 GMT
I would be amazed if Farage wins. He would have a better chance in somewhere like New Forest West. There are too many Labour and LibDem inclined voters here.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Feb 4, 2013 18:52:01 GMT
I believe it could be a real four way battle between Con, Lab, Lib Dem and UKIP Sorry Harry, but Two horse race TM between Lib Dems and Con for 1st and 2nd and a similar fight for 3rd/4th between UKIP and Labour |
|
