By-elections - 16th October

[neilm]

I'm working on a range of 38 to 43.

[middleenglander]

Oct 17, 2014 13:21:42 GMT carlton43 said:

For Middlenglander.

Firstly and importantly. Thanks for this enormously useful and entertaining thread. It enriches our week and informs us with a statistical record of great value, so thanks.

May I make a suggestion that you drop the phrase 'From Nowhere' and substitute 'New Candidature' or 'Renewed Candidature'? If we apply that to today's results, the former would be appropriate for Medworth and the latter for Whissendine.

What is the basis of the swing philosophy for computing swing between parties, especially in muti-seat wards and where the position between the top 3 0r 4 parties is quite volatile?

"From nowhere" is a phrase used elsewhere to describe the same circumstances. There is a practical issue in that whatever phrase is used needs to be around a dozen characters otherwise it will not readily fit into the box and may mean the required number of columns is constrained.

The concept of swing was popularised, I believe, by Bob McKenzie in the late 1950's / early 1960's when most elections were between 2 main candidates. It has been adapted overtime but does have limitations in multi-party circumstances.

Also in multi-seat elections, shares can be calculated using either the votes of the top candidate for each party or the average votes. I show both calculations where appropriate which in some instances can produce significant differences.

Swing is the difference between the shares of the parties in two elections divided by 2. For example, in the current election Party A polls 60% and Party B 40% whereas in the previous election Party B polled 55% and Party A 45%: Party A's share has increased by 15% and Party B has fallen by 15% so the swing is (15% plus 15%) divided by 2 = 15%.

Add in Party C in the current election with 5%, reducing Party A's share by 5% to 55%, whereas it did not contest the earlier election. The swing is now (10% plus 15%) divided by 2 = 12½%.

The concept is most meaningful in relatively stable elections where the winner and runner-up are the same two parties in both elections although not necessarily in the same order. However, where the winner or runner-up did not contest the previous election the concept, certainly to my mind, is not meaningful, for a number of reasons including no-one will ever know what the shares would have been if they had indeed stood. We have had a number of recent elections where this has occured, largely involving UKIP. I also find it not particularly meaningful where someone comes from a poor third or fourth to either win the seat or a good second whilst the previous winner falls way back.

All in all it is a bit of a judgement when to quote the swing.

[Merseymike]

Oct 17, 2014 13:48:16 GMT Tangent said:

Oct 17, 2014 11:09:52 GMT The Bishop said:

I think very few people are predicting a LibDem "wipeout" in terms of MPs now.

What *should* worry them is the genuine possibility that they will effectively have ceased to exist outside a few dozen fiefdoms.

That's something which might be not so much of a problem in the long term. As long as an alternative force among the nationalists or minor parties manages to capture their voter base permanently, they might have a good chance of gaining most of the ground back by the end of the decade, given the right circumstances.

I think their problem could be that their activists were their councillors and they have effectively disappeared in many areas

[Sibboleth]

Oct 17, 2014 7:20:13 GMT hempie said:

It looks like a pretty poor night overall for Labour, down just about everywhere apart from Thurrock where they must be relieved to have withstood the UKIP challenge.

A pretty poor night for Labour apart from where they did well. Logical.

[Pete Whitehead]

They contested 8 by-elections and their vote was down in every one of them compared with the previous time they fought the seat with the single exception of Thurrock where it was up slightly. In a number of cases their vote share was down by half or more. And they lost one of the three seats they were defending on a massive swing. I can't see much to quibble about in Hempie's statement - it was a very poor night overall with one exception

[Tangent]

Oct 17, 2014 17:01:41 GMT Merseymike said:

Oct 17, 2014 13:48:16 GMT Tangent said:

That's something which might be not so much of a problem in the long term. As long as an alternative force among the nationalists or minor parties manages to capture their voter base permanently, they might have a good chance of gaining most of the ground back by the end of the decade, given the right circumstances.

I think their problem could be that their activists were their councillors and they have effectively disappeared in many areas

A lot depends on whether these kinds of people are going to sit on their hands and wait for a party they can support, or get sucked into another party. A coherent breakaway from the party, to the Liberals, or more realistically, to a Green party that emphasised social liberalism with a green edge, might have been much more damaging, even without support from existing MPs.

[timmullen1]

Oct 17, 2014 19:30:47 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

They contested 8 by-elections and their vote was down in every one of them compared with the previous time they fought the seat with the single exception of Thurrock where it was up slightly. In a number of cases their vote share was down by half or more. And they lost one of the three seats they were defending on a massive swing. I can't see much to quibble about in Hempie's statement - it was a very poor night overall with one exception

I do think you have to look beyond the headline numbers and take into account local issues. Andrew flagged up in his preview the potential loss in York, pointing out chaos in the local party, added to which the local issues referred to above, and the fact this was a LibDem fortress until 2011.

As for Bolton, I think a roughly 6% drop in vote share from May wasn't overly disappointing given it was the third time in 10 months the electors had been asked to vote.

I'm a long-time friend of an ex-Rossendale Councillor who quit Labour after 2010 partly in frustration at the local Party's refusal to work in Wards which they didn't already hold, so the decline there is likely attributable to a sheer lack of work. I'd also put into the debate that even my friend, who's very much on the Bennite/Skinner wing of Labour, concedes that Jake Berry has been a very good and effective constituency MP who she thinks will survive next year on the basis of his constituency work.

I'd willingly concede the Sheppey result looks bad, but, on the flip side, Kent Labour does seem to be piling into Rochester and Strood in large numbers (even The Daily Telegraph admitted we were the only people knocking on doors during a visit to the constituency last week), so again maybe there was a lack of work put into the council seat.

[The Bishop]

Also there was a small Tory-Labour swing in Rossendale overall, nonetheless.

UKIP must be kicking themselves at not standing a candidate in Conwy, btw......

[Deleted]

Oct 19, 2014 9:05:03 GMT timmullen1 said:

Oct 17, 2014 19:30:47 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

They contested 8 by-elections and their vote was down in every one of them compared with the previous time they fought the seat with the single exception of Thurrock where it was up slightly. In a number of cases their vote share was down by half or more. And they lost one of the three seats they were defending on a massive swing. I can't see much to quibble about in Hempie's statement - it was a very poor night overall with one exception

I do think you have to look beyond the headline numbers and take into account local issues. Andrew flagged up in his preview the potential loss in York, pointing out chaos in the local party, added to which the local issues referred to above, and the fact this was a LibDem fortress until 2011.

As for Bolton, I think a roughly 6% drop in vote share from May wasn't overly disappointing given it was the third time in 10 months the electors had been asked to vote.

I'm a long-time friend of an ex-Rossendale Councillor who quit Labour after 2010 partly in frustration at the local Party's refusal to work in Wards which they didn't already hold, so the decline there is likely attributable to a sheer lack of work. I'd also put into the debate that even my friend, who's very much on the Bennite/Skinner wing of Labour, concedes that Jake Berry has been a very good and effective constituency MP who she thinks will survive next year on the basis of his constituency work.

I'd willingly concede the Sheppey result looks bad, but, on the flip side, Kent Labour does seem to be piling into Rochester and Strood in large numbers (even The Daily Telegraph admitted we were the only people knocking on doors during a visit to the constituency last week), so again maybe there was a lack of work put into the council seat.

Lol! You are doing the bare minimum in Rochester. Far less than Con or UKIP. You can get 113/1 on a labour win, which shows how seriously they are taking a seat they won in 2005. The reverse argument applies. On those grounds you should have done better.

I also don't see why there being multiple election should harm labours vote share in Bolton. Turnout maybe, but why it would effect one party more than another is not clear.

[The Bishop]

Labour's share in Bolton was very similar to the by-election in the same ward late last year.

It was a closer result because (as in H&M) UKIP corralled the anti-Labour vote, aided (as there) by some rather dubious campaigning.

[carlton43]

Oct 19, 2014 9:51:50 GMT The Bishop said:

Labour's share in Bolton was very similar to the by-election in the same ward late last year.

It was a closer result because (as in H&M) UKIP corralled the anti-Labour vote, aided (as there) by some rather dubious campaigning.

But as the opposition party in waiting with a coalition riven by disputes and the lead government party partially under the cosh from UKIP, why do you think your results are not considerably more robust than they appear in recent by-elections. At the same point in the previous election cycle the Conservatives were much stronger than you are now. 

[The Bishop]

Actually their council by-election results in the run in to the GE (autumn 2009 onwards) weren't that great, though this is mainly going from memory.

[carlton43]

Oct 19, 2014 12:56:17 GMT The Bishop said:

Actually their council by-election results in the run in to the GE (autumn 2009 onwards) weren't that great, though this is mainly going from memory.

OK!  Me too, as to memory. Ignore the comparison. Why are Labour not performing much better?

[thirdchill]

Oct 19, 2014 13:19:45 GMT carlton43 said:

Oct 19, 2014 12:56:17 GMT The Bishop said:

Actually their council by-election results in the run in to the GE (autumn 2009 onwards) weren't that great, though this is mainly going from memory.

OK!  Me too, as to memory. Ignore the comparison. Why are Labour not performing much better?

The other factor that has to be remembered is that it gets more difficult to gain local by-elections as a party does well in local elections. Labour's results in 2011 were ok and their results in 2012 were good. It is harder to hold marginal local by-election seats or to win new ones which were last contested when the party was doing well.

This partly explains bish's point about the conservatives having a poorer run in local by-elections after 2009. A lot of seats were won at a 'high point' so winning new ones or keeping hold of ones gained becomes more difficult. The party has to be polling higher to progress further.

This might also explain UKIP's difficult in holding a number of seats at local by-elections. UKIP seem to be having more success at gaining seats in local by-elections than holding ones they've already won.

[Pimpernal]

Some huge rot is being talked about by the media with regards to party efforts in Rochester and Strood.
I was estimate the 3 main parties had c500 people between them out there yesterday.
They would have been in various bands, and except for those getting their faces in photos at campaign offices most would be hard to spot.
Both UKIP and the Tories were working in Hoo yesterday - yet I didn't see a single Tory despite being there several hours. Equally - no troy probably saw me or my team.
Labour were out in the constituency too in considerable numbers - there may not be much central cash going into the campaign but the foot soldiers are certainly out and active.
Given the nature of the constituency and the large number of sizeable villages, it could be quite easy for any media bod to visit, see one party busily working away and yet not see another party active at all - that wouldn't mean they weren't busy though.
Anything above 20/1 on Labour is a ridiculous price imho...

[gwynthegriff]

Oct 19, 2014 13:19:45 GMT carlton43 said:

Oct 19, 2014 12:56:17 GMT The Bishop said:

Actually their council by-election results in the run in to the GE (autumn 2009 onwards) weren't that great, though this is mainly going from memory.

OK!  Me too, as to memory. Ignore the comparison. Why are Labour not performing much better?

1. Because the mood is anti-politics rather than anti-government?
2. Because Labour is short of impressive leadership?

[Pete Whitehead]

Labour complacency is fine with me (and one reason I'm reasonably relaxed about us not winning H&M). Might be worthwhile pointing out here that in Thurrock, in the one ward Labour are generally considered to have done well in holding (and it seems we must be reminded it was actually a hold - the way some Labour supporters (not here) have been going on you'd think they'd gained the seat), their vote share and winning margin were both lower than they were in May 2010 which was not exactly one of Thurrock Labour party's finest hours

[johnloony]

Oct 5, 2014 7:53:00 GMT finsobruce said:

Oct 5, 2014 7:31:18 GMT maxque said:

Sam Kelly (English Democrats - “Putting England First!”)

Klop! 

I presume you mean

Tler!

[Deleted]

'tler !!