|
|
Post by southernliberal on Oct 16, 2021 14:36:13 GMT
I'm not local to Surrey so have no idea if there are local factors but do have a few observations on that Con gain/Lib Dem loss
Firstly, this isn't in one of our target parliamentary constituencies in Surrey - in some of our main target constituencies in the county (Guildford, Esher and Walton etc) we have had much more impressive recent local by-elections over the last few months:
Cranleigh East (Waverley) by-election result:
LDEM: 56.8% (+12.0)
CON: 43.2% (+4.1)
Liberal Democrat HOLD.
No Lab (-16.1) as prev.
Cobham and Downside (Elmbridge) result:
LDEM: 49.8% (+18.4)
CON: 43.5% (-3.9)
GRN: 3.0% (+3.0)
LAB: 2.6% (-6.1)
REFUK: 1.1% (+1.1)
Liberal Democrat GAIN Conservative
No UKIP (-12.5) as prev.
Secondly, it should be noted that our vote share didn't actually drop by much, it seems what may have happened is that some 2019 UKIP voters moved over to the Tories in the by-election. Unlike much of Surrey, Surrey Heath constituency actually narrowly voted for Brexit (52% Leave) unlike our main targets which are much more strongly remain - Esher and Walton (58% Remain), Guilford (59% Remain) - so is much less fertile ground than other parts of Surrey.
Thirdly and finally, this is actually our second by-election loss in Surrey Heath Borough this year - we lost another seat in another by-election in May in Bagshot ward. I think there may be potentially some local issues with the LP that means it has not built up as strong a by-election fighting machine, for whatever reason, as neighbouring Surrey constituencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Oct 16, 2021 14:57:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 16, 2021 15:18:26 GMT
I'm not local to Surrey so have no idea if there are local factors but do have a few observations on that Con gain/Lib Dem loss Firstly, this isn't in one of our target parliamentary constituencies in Surrey - in some of our main target constituencies in the county (Guildford, Esher and Walton etc) we have had much more impressive recent local by-elections over the last few months: Cranleigh East (Waverley) by-election result: LDEM: 56.8% (+12.0) CON: 43.2% (+4.1) Liberal Democrat HOLD. No Lab (-16.1) as prev. Cobham and Downside (Elmbridge) result: LDEM: 49.8% (+18.4) CON: 43.5% (-3.9) GRN: 3.0% (+3.0) LAB: 2.6% (-6.1) REFUK: 1.1% (+1.1) Liberal Democrat GAIN Conservative No UKIP (-12.5) as prev. Secondly, it should be noted that our vote share didn't actually drop by much, it seems what may have happened is that some 2019 UKIP voters moved over to the Tories in the by-election. Unlike much of Surrey, Surrey Heath constituency actually narrowly voted for Brexit (52% Leave) unlike our main targets which are much more strongly remain - Esher and Walton (58% Remain), Guilford (59% Remain) - so is much less fertile ground than other parts of Surrey. Thirdly and finally, this is actually our second by-election loss in Surrey Heath Borough this year - we lost another seat in another by-election in May in Bagshot ward. I think there may be potentially some local issues with the LP that means it has not built up as strong a by-election fighting machine, for whatever reason, as neighbouring Surrey constituencies. Most of this is fair comment but as Tony Otim has already pointed out, there was only one UKIP candidate for three seats in 2019 so many of the more Tory inclined voters who cast one vote for them would likely as not have used their other two votes for the various Conservative candidates |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 16, 2021 15:50:26 GMT
Has any authority ever published a multi-member election result in such detail as to list the totals for every individual combination of votes? It would be interesting to see hard figures on just how much voters ticket split, plump in the absence of a full slate and all the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 16, 2021 16:23:45 GMT
I'm not local to Surrey so have no idea if there are local factors but do have a few observations on that Con gain/Lib Dem loss Firstly, this isn't in one of our target parliamentary constituencies in Surrey - in some of our main target constituencies in the county (Guildford, Esher and Walton etc) we have had much more impressive recent local by-elections over the last few months: Cranleigh East (Waverley) by-election result: LDEM: 56.8% (+12.0) CON: 43.2% (+4.1) Liberal Democrat HOLD. No Lab (-16.1) as prev. Cobham and Downside (Elmbridge) result: LDEM: 49.8% (+18.4) CON: 43.5% (-3.9) GRN: 3.0% (+3.0) LAB: 2.6% (-6.1) REFUK: 1.1% (+1.1) Liberal Democrat GAIN Conservative No UKIP (-12.5) as prev. Secondly, it should be noted that our vote share didn't actually drop by much, it seems what may have happened is that some 2019 UKIP voters moved over to the Tories in the by-election. Unlike much of Surrey, Surrey Heath constituency actually narrowly voted for Brexit (52% Leave) unlike our main targets which are much more strongly remain - Esher and Walton (58% Remain), Guilford (59% Remain) - so is much less fertile ground than other parts of Surrey. Thirdly and finally, this is actually our second by-election loss in Surrey Heath Borough this year - we lost another seat in another by-election in May in Bagshot ward. I think there may be potentially some local issues with the LP that means it has not built up as strong a by-election fighting machine, for whatever reason, as neighbouring Surrey constituencies. Most of this is fair comment but as Tony Otim has already pointed out, there was only one UKIP candidate for three seats in 2019 so many of the more Tory inclined voters who cast one vote for them would likely as not have used their other two votes for the various Conservative candidates True, but the main thing is that the Tory national vote was definitely below 30% on local election day 2019, and in freefall so could well have been as low as 25%. Lots of people spoiled their ballots that day, and I bet plenty only cast one vote (or one UKIP and one Pirate). |
|
|
|
Post by southernliberal on Oct 16, 2021 16:30:11 GMT
I'm not local to Surrey so have no idea if there are local factors but do have a few observations on that Con gain/Lib Dem loss Firstly, this isn't in one of our target parliamentary constituencies in Surrey - in some of our main target constituencies in the county (Guildford, Esher and Walton etc) we have had much more impressive recent local by-elections over the last few months: Cranleigh East (Waverley) by-election result: LDEM: 56.8% (+12.0) CON: 43.2% (+4.1) Liberal Democrat HOLD. No Lab (-16.1) as prev. Cobham and Downside (Elmbridge) result: LDEM: 49.8% (+18.4) CON: 43.5% (-3.9) GRN: 3.0% (+3.0) LAB: 2.6% (-6.1) REFUK: 1.1% (+1.1) Liberal Democrat GAIN Conservative No UKIP (-12.5) as prev. Secondly, it should be noted that our vote share didn't actually drop by much, it seems what may have happened is that some 2019 UKIP voters moved over to the Tories in the by-election. Unlike much of Surrey, Surrey Heath constituency actually narrowly voted for Brexit (52% Leave) unlike our main targets which are much more strongly remain - Esher and Walton (58% Remain), Guilford (59% Remain) - so is much less fertile ground than other parts of Surrey. Thirdly and finally, this is actually our second by-election loss in Surrey Heath Borough this year - we lost another seat in another by-election in May in Bagshot ward. I think there may be potentially some local issues with the LP that means it has not built up as strong a by-election fighting machine, for whatever reason, as neighbouring Surrey constituencies. Most of this is fair comment but as Tony Otim has already pointed out, there was only one UKIP candidate for three seats in 2019 so many of the more Tory inclined voters who cast one vote for them would likely as not have used their other two votes for the various Conservative candidates This is a fair point. One other thing I also didn't mention however is that Labour have not normal ran a candidate in this ward - neither 2019 nor 2015 had a single Labour candidate here. It's not completely unreasonable to imagine that, without the Labour candidate getting their 76 votes, the Lib Dems would have got the 20 more votes needed to win. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 16, 2021 16:34:21 GMT
Most of this is fair comment but as Tony Otim has already pointed out, there was only one UKIP candidate for three seats in 2019 so many of the more Tory inclined voters who cast one vote for them would likely as not have used their other two votes for the various Conservative candidates This is a fair point. One other thing I also didn't mention however is that Labour have not normal ran a candidate in this ward - neither 2019 nor 2015 had a single Labour candidate here. It's not completely unreasonable to imagine that, without the Labour candidate getting their 76 votes, the Lib Dems would have got the 20 more votes needed to win. There are a lot of wards in Southern England, like Frimley Green, where if there are 3 candidates - Con, LD and Lab or Green then the Conservatives win and if there are 3 candidates Con, LD, UKIP or a.n.other right wing party then the Lib Dem’s win. I would put quite a lot of South West England in that category. If Labour or the Greens had stood in Cranleigh recently, then that would very likely have been very close. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Oct 16, 2021 19:28:55 GMT
Has any authority ever published a multi-member election result in such detail as to list the totals for every individual combination of votes? It would be interesting to see hard figures on just how much voters ticket split, plump in the absence of a full slate and all the rest. Scottish local STV elections do. There is a file with rows saying things like "7 4 1 5 0" This means 7 people voted for candidate 4 as first preference, candidate 1 as second preference, candidate 5 as third and then made no more preferences. |
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067 
|
Post by Toylyyev on Oct 16, 2021 19:30:08 GMT
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,901
|
Post by Tony Otim on Oct 16, 2021 21:10:33 GMT
But I think Tim was asking about multi-member FPTP elections and split ticket voting, which would be fascinating to see a breakdown of, but I don't think it is ever published that I'm aware of.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,558
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 17, 2021 11:07:09 GMT
There have been some breakdowns published of multi-vacancy election results at the parliamentary election level, e.g. this page from F.W.S. Craig's book of 1918-1950:  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 17, 2021 11:09:51 GMT
It's a lot easier to count two-member FPTP elections this way than it is three-member ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 17, 2021 11:22:25 GMT
I've had that book for about 20 years and was wondering why I hadn't ever seen that appendix - the reason is I don't have it in mine and as mine is 1918-49 it isn't actually 'that' book but presumably an earlier addition
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 18, 2021 4:58:27 GMT
There have been some breakdowns published of multi-vacancy election results at the parliamentary election level, e.g. this page from F.W.S. Craig's book of 1918-1950: how many of the two member seats is that available for? |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Oct 18, 2021 7:25:52 GMT
how many of the two member seats is that available for? 1st ed, 1974, has as Appendix 1, page 595, information on the following 2-member seats: City of London Bath Blackburn Bolton Brighton Derby Devonport Halifax Ipswich Leicester Newcastle Upon Tyne Northampton Norwich Oldham Plymouth Portsmouth Preston Southampton Stockport Sunderland York Merthyr Tydfil Dundee For a minority of these constituencies Craig is unable to present a full analysis. British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949, revised ed, 1977, has as Appendix 2, page 685, information on: City of London Blackburn Bolton Brighton Derby Norwich Oldham Preston Southampton Stockport Sunderland Dundee Antrim Down Fermanagh and Tyrone Again, for a minority of these Craig was only able to present a partial analysis. |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Oct 18, 2021 7:33:46 GMT
I've had that book for about 20 years and was wondering why I hadn't ever seen that appendix - the reason is I don't have it in mine and as mine is 1918-49 it isn't actually 'that' book but presumably an earlier addition The first edition of British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 was published in 1969. Presumably that is the edition you have? In his preface to the revised edition of 1977 Craig states: "I have included analysis of the voting in the two-member constituencies and the detailed figures of the single transferable vote elections in the multi-member University constituencies." Omitted from the revised edition was an appendix in the 1969 first edition entitled 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945'. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2021 7:51:27 GMT
I've had that book for about 20 years and was wondering why I hadn't ever seen that appendix - the reason is I don't have it in mine and as mine is 1918-49 it isn't actually 'that' book but presumably an earlier addition The first edition of British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 was published in 1969. Presumably that is the edition you have? In his preface to the revised edition of 1977 Craig states: "I have included analysis of the voting in the two-member constituencies and the detailed figures of the single transferable vote elections in the multi-member University constituencies." Omitted from the revised edition was an appendix in the 1969 first edition entitled 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945'. That is some comfort to me as 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945' is something I have found more useful in the past than I would have the thing about plumpers (interesting as that is) |
|
ColinJ
Labour
Living in the Past
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by ColinJ on Oct 18, 2021 7:57:55 GMT
The first edition of British Parliamentary Election Results 1918-1949 was published in 1969. Presumably that is the edition you have? In his preface to the revised edition of 1977 Craig states: "I have included analysis of the voting in the two-member constituencies and the detailed figures of the single transferable vote elections in the multi-member University constituencies." Omitted from the revised edition was an appendix in the 1969 first edition entitled 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945'. That is some comfort to me as 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945' is something I have found more useful in the past than I would have the thing about plumpers (interesting as that is) You must be relieved to know that your copy is not missing a whole section due to an error at the binders. I once owned a copy of the Bible with a section of the Book of Job missing, due to a binding mistake. As it was Job, perhaps that was no bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2021 8:32:13 GMT
That is some comfort to me as 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945' is something I have found more useful in the past than I would have the thing about plumpers (interesting as that is) You must be relieved to know that your copy is not missing a whole section due to an error at the binders. I once owned a copy of the Bible with a section of the Book of Job missing, due to a binding mistake. As it was Job, perhaps that was no bad thing. I wasn't massively losing sleep over it tbh  |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by iang on Oct 18, 2021 9:52:29 GMT
That is some comfort to me as 'The Redistribution of Seats in 1945' is something I have found more useful in the past than I would have the thing about plumpers (interesting as that is) You must be relieved to know that your copy is not missing a whole section due to an error at the binders. I once owned a copy of the Bible with a section of the Book of Job missing, due to a binding mistake. As it was Job, perhaps that was no bad thing. There was once a Jacobean (I think) translation of the Bible that missed one word from the relevant commandment and thus on the highest authority commanded "Thou shalt commit adultery" |
|
