Conclusions from last night's byelections

[greenhert]

Jul 21, 2023 18:45:13 GMT nodealbrexiteer said:

shares can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_1974_United_Kingdom_general_election_in_Scotland

The Liberals did not contest quite a few Scottish seats that year even though this was at a time when the Celtic fringe was still their heartland.

[stodge]

I find it curious swings of 29% and 24% can be simply written off as a "strike among Conservative voters".

We don't know how those who didn't vote would have voted. The fact is they didn't vote - while it may be true that doesn't suggest a ringing endorsement for the opposition, it hardly screams confidence in the Government either.

Labour won a seat with a big swing in a by-election - that's not something they've done in recent times.

The Liberal Democrats won a Conservative seat with a swing close to 30% - that's something they have done in recent times.

Yes, we know there won't be swings of that nature at the election but past elections have shown big swings are possible.

I think what we have seen is the creation of Conservative "islands" - towns (often but not always where there is no strong LD or Green alternative) where the Conservative vote is and remains robust - core, heartland places which will always be Conservative no matter what. I'd offer places like Dartford and Dudley, Walsall perhaps as well where there is a residual anti-Labour presence.

In other areas there is much more volatility - my only theory is the immediate juxtaposition of economic circumstances where wealthy and deprived areas are in geographically close proximity. In Uxbridge, the relatively deprioved southern part of Hillingdon (around Hayes & Harlington) is near to the wealthier areas of Uxbridge itself - there's similar in Croydon where the northern areas of Thornton Heath and Selhurst are close to Purley and Coulsdon but economically a world away.

[greenhert]

Jul 21, 2023 20:14:12 GMT stodge said:

I find it curious swings of 29% and 24% can be simply written off as a "strike among Conservative voters".

We don't know how those who didn't vote would have voted. The fact is they didn't vote - while it may be true that doesn't suggest a ringing endorsement for the opposition, it hardly screams confidence in the Government either.

Labour won a seat with a big swing in a by-election - that's not something they've done in recent times.

The Liberal Democrats won a Conservative seat with a swing close to 30% - that's something they have done in recent times.

Yes, we know there won't be swings of that nature at the election but past elections have shown big swings are possible.

I think what we have seen is the creation of Conservative "islands" - towns (often but not always where there is no strong LD or Green alternative) where the Conservative vote is and remains robust - core, heartland places which will always be Conservative no matter what. I'd offer places like Dartford and Dudley, Walsall perhaps as well where there is a residual anti-Labour presence.

In other areas there is much more volatility - my only theory is the immediate juxtaposition of economic circumstances where wealthy and deprived areas are in geographically close proximity. In Uxbridge, the relatively deprioved southern part of Hillingdon (around Hayes & Harlington) is near to the wealthier areas of Uxbridge itself - there's similar in Croydon where the northern areas of Thornton Heath and Selhurst are close to Purley and Coulsdon but economically a world away.

This applies to the vast majority of towns in Lincolnshire as well. 

[greenchristian]

Jul 21, 2023 18:58:23 GMT woollyliberal said:

So Labour's vote went down in Uxbridge? I've seen some blaming the Lib Dems for Labour's defeat. Labour's defeat is them not turning out their own supporters.

Lower turnout means that almost everyone's vote goes down in any given byelecton.

[woollyliberal]

Jul 21, 2023 20:25:13 GMT greenchristian said:

Jul 21, 2023 18:58:23 GMT woollyliberal said:

So Labour's vote went down in Uxbridge? I've seen some blaming the Lib Dems for Labour's defeat. Labour's defeat is them not turning out their own supporters.

Lower turnout means that almost everyone's vote goes down in any given byelecton.

Look at the table in the first post of this thread. It shows Labour's vote going up in Selby and the Lib Dem vote going up in Somerton. It shows Labour's vote going down in Uxbridge.

[graham]

Jul 21, 2023 20:14:12 GMT stodge said:

I find it curious swings of 29% and 24% can be simply written off as a "strike among Conservative voters".

We don't know how those who didn't vote would have voted. The fact is they didn't vote - while it may be true that doesn't suggest a ringing endorsement for the opposition, it hardly screams confidence in the Government either.

Labour won a seat with a big swing in a by-election - that's not something they've done in recent times.

The Liberal Democrats won a Conservative seat with a swing close to 30% - that's something they have done in recent times.

Yes, we know there won't be swings of that nature at the election but past elections have shown big swings are possible.

I think what we have seen is the creation of Conservative "islands" - towns (often but not always where there is no strong LD or Green alternative) where the Conservative vote is and remains robust - core, heartland places which will always be Conservative no matter what. I'd offer places like Dartford and Dudley, Walsall perhaps as well where there is a residual anti-Labour presence.

In other areas there is much more volatility - my only theory is the immediate juxtaposition of economic circumstances where wealthy and deprived areas are in geographically close proximity. In Uxbridge, the relatively deprioved southern part of Hillingdon (around Hayes & Harlington) is near to the wealthier areas of Uxbridge itself - there's similar in Croydon where the northern areas of Thornton Heath and Selhurst are close to Purley and Coulsdon but economically a world away.

Dartford, Dudley and Walsall were Labour strongholds until a few years ago.

[tonyhill]

Thank you for the analysis middleenglander, and can I say how much I miss your weekly tables on the local by-election results, especially as not being on Twitter there are occasional results where I can't even see the figures.

[batman]

Jul 21, 2023 23:57:18 GMT graham said:

Jul 21, 2023 20:14:12 GMT stodge said:

I find it curious swings of 29% and 24% can be simply written off as a "strike among Conservative voters".

We don't know how those who didn't vote would have voted. The fact is they didn't vote - while it may be true that doesn't suggest a ringing endorsement for the opposition, it hardly screams confidence in the Government either.

Labour won a seat with a big swing in a by-election - that's not something they've done in recent times.

The Liberal Democrats won a Conservative seat with a swing close to 30% - that's something they have done in recent times.

Yes, we know there won't be swings of that nature at the election but past elections have shown big swings are possible.

I think what we have seen is the creation of Conservative "islands" - towns (often but not always where there is no strong LD or Green alternative) where the Conservative vote is and remains robust - core, heartland places which will always be Conservative no matter what. I'd offer places like Dartford and Dudley, Walsall perhaps as well where there is a residual anti-Labour presence.

In other areas there is much more volatility - my only theory is the immediate juxtaposition of economic circumstances where wealthy and deprived areas are in geographically close proximity. In Uxbridge, the relatively deprioved southern part of Hillingdon (around Hayes & Harlington) is near to the wealthier areas of Uxbridge itself - there's similar in Croydon where the northern areas of Thornton Heath and Selhurst are close to Purley and Coulsdon but economically a world away.

Dartford, Dudley and Walsall were Labour strongholds until a few years ago.

it's a long time since Dartford was a Labour stronghold. You have to go back to at least the 1960s for that, and it was indeed lost in 1970. Dudley & Walsall have been Labour strongholds more recently

[wallington]

I don't think the Uxbridge and South Ruislip result was terrible for Labour, they still managed roughly a 7% swing from the Conservatives. It has hardly a great victory for the Conservatives, maybe ULEZ did make the difference in the end between a Conservative hold or a Labour gain. It's equally valid that Labour's back tracking on the 2 child limit on child benefit may have turned off some voters in Uxbridge over the last few days, the childish "Sir Kid Starver" was trending on social media, and as Donald Trump showed... stupid nicknames stick, valid or not.  The results may show that Labour cannot rely on the fact a certain demographic will turnout and vote for them no matter what, the more they water down policy platform and move more to the right on economic issues and offer less hope to younger voters on issues like the environment and housing, they are not automatically going to pick up these votes. Labour need to not just live in the past, 2023 is not 1997, offering more of the same is not going to be a vote winner, especially to those who don't even remember Blair.  

[swanarcadian]

For what it’s worth, which may actually be a fair bit, the 24% swing to Labour was more than Mid Staffordshire in 1990 of 21%, and less than Dudley West in 1994 of 29%.
Overall I think Labour are on course to win the next general election, but it’s not going to be the massive landslide being forecast by many at the moment. The gap is going to narrow.
Uxbridge & South Ruislip shows us that local factors, incumbency, campaigning quality and demographics are going to play a much stronger part than it did in 1997, when virtually all Conservative MPs vulnerable to 10% swings were swept away indiscriminately on the national tide.

[carlton43]

Jul 22, 2023 8:20:55 GMT wallington said:

I don't think the Uxbridge and South Ruislip result was terrible for Labour, they still managed roughly a 7% swing from the Conservatives. It has hardly a great victory for the Conservatives, maybe ULEZ did make the difference in the end between a Conservative hold or a Labour gain. It's equally valid that Labour's back tracking on the 2 child limit on child benefit may have turned off some voters in Uxbridge over the last few days, the childish "Sir Kid Starver" was trending on social media, and as Donald Trump showed... stupid nicknames stick, valid or not.  The results may show that Labour cannot rely on the fact a certain demographic will turnout and vote for them no matter what, the more they water down policy platform and move more to the right on economic issues and offer less hope to younger voters on issues like the environment and housing, they are not automatically going to pick up these votes. Labour need to not just live in the past, 2023 is not 1997, offering more of the same is not going to be a vote winner, especially to those who don't even remember Blair.  

Of course it was a terrible result for Labour.  A party purporting to be riding high in the polls.  A party seemingly 14-20 points ahead of the Conservatives.  A party facing a burnt out husk of a government that has motored through 5-PMs in short order and got virtually every decision for 5-years totally wrong.  And crucially a government unable and unwilling to take most decisions at all.  A party full of deviants and perverts and crooks continually being called to account, suspended, expelled or rejected.  And in a period of 13-long-years of sore misrule.  And in a constituency written off as an inevitable Labour win at the next GE by virtully everyone on this Forum for the past couple of years.  But given the open goal opportunity of a by-election after the disgraced MP and sacked PM resigns in a fractious and febrile atmosphere of compete and utter disintegration.  Perfect opportunity.  Heaven sent opportunity.  Very, very lucky opportunity.  A big victory should have been certain.


BUT NO!!  They contrive to cock up this open goal ready made perfect situation and BLOODY WELL LOSE!!
What a load of absolute wankers they must be to have LOST that by-election.  That must have been actually quite difficult to lose, even if they wanted to lose.  I can't quite see how they snatched the LOSS from the very jaws of VICTORY, but they did.  The next GE is far from a certainty my friends if they can't win Uxbridge.  Mark these words NOW!!


And as for this Forum of psephologists and obsessives and anoraks?  Did you all use your experience, your intelligence, your incisive analysis and show up the fault in the pundits (about whom many of you are so rude) and get it all spot on?  Will DID YOU?   Hours of blather and speculation, analysis and prognostication leading to 103,  YES 103 WRONG ANSWERS!  

[jakegb]

Jul 22, 2023 9:36:33 GMT swanarcadian said:

For what it’s worth, which may actually be a fair bit, the 24% swing to Labour was more than Mid Staffordshire in 1990 of 21%, and less than Dudley West in 1994 of 29%.
Overall I think Labour are on course to win the next general election, but it’s not going to be the massive landslide being forecast by many at the moment. The gap is going to narrow.
Uxbridge & South Ruislip shows us that local factors, incumbency, campaigning quality and demographics are going to play a much stronger part than it did in 1997, when virtually all Conservative MPs vulnerable to 10% swings were swept away indiscriminately on the national tide.

Very good analysis. 
Clearly the Tories got the campaigning right here - Steve Tuckwell seems a strong fit for the constituency too. 

Although the Tories have held Uxbridge (+ predecessor seats) for decades, it's hardly been rock solid for them. Even in 2019, Johnson's winning margin was not huge (still well short of a 5 digit majority). Even with the cloud of ULEZ, Labour should have done a lot better (if national opinion polls are to be believed). 

[The Bishop]

Labour might still have won Uxbridge had students been in term time (as they could well be whenever the GE is called)

They would likely have eked out a win on the pre-2010 boundaries as well - given all the past history it just seems that we are a bit cursed there.

[Pete Whitehead]

"We would have won if only a bunch of foreign nationals hadn't returned home permanently to India, Nigeria etc - how unfair that the composition of the UK parliament should be so affected"

[graham]

Jul 22, 2023 7:27:13 GMT batman said:

Jul 21, 2023 23:57:18 GMT graham said:

Dartford, Dudley and Walsall were Labour strongholds until a few years ago.

it's a long time since Dartford was a Labour stronghold. You have to go back to at least the 1960s for that, and it was indeed lost in 1970. Dudley & Walsall have been Labour strongholds more recently

Though Sydney Irving did regain Dartford for Labour in Feb 1974 before losing again in 1979.

[graham]

Jul 22, 2023 9:36:33 GMT swanarcadian said:

For what it’s worth, which may actually be a fair bit, the 24% swing to Labour was more than Mid Staffordshire in 1990 of 21%, and less than Dudley West in 1994 of 29%.
Overall I think Labour are on course to win the next general election, but it’s not going to be the massive landslide being forecast by many at the moment. The gap is going to narrow.
Uxbridge & South Ruislip shows us that local factors, incumbency, campaigning quality and demographics are going to play a much stronger part than it did in 1997, when virtually all Conservative MPs vulnerable to 10% swings were swept away indiscriminately on the national tide.

Even in 1997 Labour failed to pick up seats it had won in the past - Uxbridge being an obvious example given the seat was Labour-held 1966 - 70 and before 1959. Another was Aldridge Brownhills which was Labour Feb 74 - 79.

[Deleted]

Jul 22, 2023 11:40:04 GMT graham said:

Jul 22, 2023 9:36:33 GMT swanarcadian said:

For what it’s worth, which may actually be a fair bit, the 24% swing to Labour was more than Mid Staffordshire in 1990 of 21%, and less than Dudley West in 1994 of 29%.
Overall I think Labour are on course to win the next general election, but it’s not going to be the massive landslide being forecast by many at the moment. The gap is going to narrow.
Uxbridge & South Ruislip shows us that local factors, incumbency, campaigning quality and demographics are going to play a much stronger part than it did in 1997, when virtually all Conservative MPs vulnerable to 10% swings were swept away indiscriminately on the national tide.

Even in 1997 Labour failed to pick up seats it had won in the past - Uxbridge being an obvious example given the seat was Labour-held 1966 - 70 and before 1959. Another was Aldridge Brownhills which was Labour Feb 74 - 79.

And Meriden. And North Norfolk. Both were Labour in 1964.

[graham]

Jul 22, 2023 11:50:23 GMT @weld said:

Jul 22, 2023 11:40:04 GMT graham said:

Even in 1997 Labour failed to pick up seats it had won in the past - Uxbridge being an obvious example given the seat was Labour-held 1966 - 70 and before 1959. Another was Aldridge Brownhills which was Labour Feb 74 - 79.

And Meriden. And North Norfolk. Both were Labour in 1964.

Yes - but those seats had very different boundaries whereas Uxbridge and Aldridge Brownhills were pretty well unchanged.

[johnloony]

Jul 22, 2023 9:36:33 GMT swanarcadian said:

For what it’s worth, which may actually be a fair bit, the 24% swing to Labour was more than Mid Staffordshire in 1990 of 21%, and less than Dudley West in 1994 of 29%.
Overall I think Labour are on course to win the next general election, but it’s not going to be the massive landslide being forecast by many at the moment. The gap is going to narrow.
Uxbridge & South Ruislip shows us that local factors, incumbency, campaigning quality and demographics are going to play a much stronger part than it did in 1997, when virtually all Conservative MPs vulnerable to 10% swings were swept away indiscriminately on the national tide.

Never in the field of predictive psephology were so few referred to as so many

[Merseymike]

Perhaps the local wards in Uxbridge and South Ruislip still won - and looks like Tory expectations? It doesn't seem more winners for Labour?