Witney

[thirdchill]

The lib dems did what they needed to do in this seat to make it look like they have a good chance of winning a possible by-election in Richmond. They weren't likely to win so for them it's a very good result.

If the lib dems had got 20% instead of 30% and come a very distant second, then it would have been a different story.

[froome]

Oct 21, 2016 11:26:23 GMT thirdchill said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:17:38 GMT The Bishop said:

I thought having a relatively "big name" candidate might have been worth a point or two extra, tbh. Still, you beat UKIP which isn't bad at all

Think what did it was the Greens (and Labour to an extent) and prevented both from gaining traction was the lib dem campaign. They were easily the best organised of the opposition to the conservatives in this seat, selecting their candidate early and then campaigning very hard throughout the campaign.

Labour's vote was ok, it could have potentially been squeezed a lot more and certainly has done in the past when the lib dem vote has increased significantly.

UKIP's performance was definitely worse than that of the Greens or Labour.

The Green vote declined by 1.5% and the Labour vote by 2%, so neither lost as much to the Lib Dem squeeze as might have been expected, given the scale of their campaign. Our decline is probably in line with local election results this year and was to be expected. It looks mostly a direct switch from Conservative to Lib Dem, with a lot of Conservative voters not turning out at all.

[gwynthegriff]

Oct 21, 2016 11:29:33 GMT thirdchill said:

The lib dems did what they needed to do in this seat to make it look like they have a good chance of winning a possible by-election in Richmond. They weren't likely to win so for them it's a very good result.

If the lib dems had got 20% instead of 30% and come a very distant second, then it would have been a different story.

I think the Lib Dem vote share was always likely to be in the range of 20% to 30%.

The lower end would have been disappointing, the upper end encouraging.

Anything under 20% would have been poor, anything over 30% good.

We got (fractionally) over 30%.

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2016 11:34:57 GMT froome said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:26:23 GMT thirdchill said:

Think what did it was the Greens (and Labour to an extent) and prevented both from gaining traction was the lib dem campaign. They were easily the best organised of the opposition to the conservatives in this seat, selecting their candidate early and then campaigning very hard throughout the campaign.

Labour's vote was ok, it could have potentially been squeezed a lot more and certainly has done in the past when the lib dem vote has increased significantly.

UKIP's performance was definitely worse than that of the Greens or Labour.

The Green vote declined by 1.5% and the Labour vote by 2%, so neither lost as much to the Lib Dem squeeze as might have been expected, given the scale of their campaign. Our decline is probably in line with local election results this year and was to be expected. It looks mostly a direct switch from Conservative to Lib Dem, with a lot of Conservative voters not turning out at all.

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

[greenhert]

Oct 21, 2016 2:33:04 GMT johnloony said:

Oct 21, 2016 2:17:47 GMT greenhert said:

The full results were:

Robert Courts (Conservative) 17,313 (45.1%)
Liz Leffman (Lib Dem) 11,611 (30.2%)
Duncan Enright (Labour) 5,765 (15.0%)
Larry Sanders (Green) 1,363 (3.5%)
Dickie Bird (UKIP) 1,354 (3.5%)
Helen Salisbury (NHAP) 408 (1.1%)
Daniel Skidmore (Ind) 151 (0.4%)
Mad Hatter (OMRLP) 129 (0.33%)
Nicholas Ward (Ind) 93 (0.24%)
David Bishop (BPEP) 61 (0.16%)
Lord Toby Jug (Eccentric) 59 (0.15%)
Winston McKenzie (English Democrats) 52 (0.14%)
Emilia Arno (One Love) 44 (0.11%)
Adam Knight (Ind) 27 (0.07%)

I make it 45.0% not 45.1% (45.021 to be precise) and I think your misprint is 408 for NHA instead of 433

It is-I misheard that result as I was rather tired at the time of the declaration (3.20 am).

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2016 11:51:57 GMT ArmchairCritic said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT @strinity said:

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

They'll be breaking moulds in Cowley Street as we speak

Keep up man, they moved out of Cowley Street years ago.

[andrew111]

Oct 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT @strinity said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:34:57 GMT froome said:

The Green vote declined by 1.5% and the Labour vote by 2%, so neither lost as much to the Lib Dem squeeze as might have been expected, given the scale of their campaign. Our decline is probably in line with local election results this year and was to be expected. It looks mostly a direct switch from Conservative to Lib Dem, with a lot of Conservative voters not turning out at all.

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

It was hard to squeeze the Labour vote starting from 4th place once Labour starting working seriously to preserve it. I saw one tweet counting leaflets who had received 17 from the Lib Dems and 10 from Labour. And the Labour leaflets had archetypal not-to-scale bar charts on them emphasising the Lib Dem 4th place and suggesting closeness of Labour to the Tories in 2015.. That probably kept a few votes Tory as well.. It was noticeable how the Mail and the Express were keen to make Witney into a Con-Lab contest, ignoring the Lib Dems..

[andrew111]

Oct 21, 2016 10:27:15 GMT finsobruce said:

Oct 21, 2016 10:01:57 GMT The Bishop said:

I don't see how there couldn't be, tbh?

As far as Goldsmith's possible motivations are concerned, I expect he is none too kindly disposed towards the Tories after they disposed of him like a piece of soiled toilet paper once he had done party HQ's bidding during the Mayoral election. Indeed, he may still have some dirt to dish on that score.......

Well, if they've fallen out as much as you think they have and they would want to be seen to defend the decision on Heathrow, it would be distinctly odd if they didn't. But anything is possible.

I suspect that would work both ways. The whole Goldsmith candidacy was predicated on a deal that he would stand and hopefully wrest the seat for the LibDems for them and they would allow him to act the maverick whenever he wanted. The same worked for the Mayoral election too. Both sides got something out of it, so neither really have much grounds for complaint IMHO.

The Lib Dems already have a ppc in place for Richmond Park. They are not going to support an independent Zac Goldsmith
twitter.com/sarahjolney1

[finsobruce]

Oct 21, 2016 12:19:51 GMT andrew111 said:

Oct 21, 2016 10:27:15 GMT finsobruce said:

Well, if they've fallen out as much as you think they have and they would want to be seen to defend the decision on Heathrow, it would be distinctly odd if they didn't. But anything is possible.

I suspect that would work both ways. The whole Goldsmith candidacy was predicated on a deal that he would stand and hopefully wrest the seat for the LibDems for them and they would allow him to act the maverick whenever he wanted. The same worked for the Mayoral election too. Both sides got something out of it, so neither really have much grounds for complaint IMHO.

The Lib Dems already have a ppc in place for Richmond Park. They are not going to support an independent Zac Goldsmith
twitter.com/sarahjolney1

Er, I don't think anyone was suggesting they would. That would be completely bizarre. The question is, if Goldsmith resigned and stood as an Indie whether the Tories would stand against him.

[mboy]

Oct 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT @strinity said:

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

You might well be right there. One of the things the left are going to have to come to terms with is to understand that if they want the Tories beaten they have no choice but to rally behind the Lib Dems where the Lib Dems are the challenger. If they'd rather have a Tory win than vote Lib Dem tactically, then they'll get a Tory win. This will be crucial in Richmond Park, where the Lib Dems will need Labour and Green tactical votes to beat the Tories...

[froome]

Oct 21, 2016 12:33:49 GMT mboy said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT @strinity said:

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

You might well be right there. One of the things the left are going to have to come to terms with is to understand that if they want the Tories beaten they have no choice but to rally behind the Lib Dems where the Lib Dems are the challenger. If they'd rather have a Tory win than vote Lib Dem tactically, then they'll get a Tory win. This will be crucial in Richmond Park, where the Lib Dems will need Labour and Green tactical votes to beat the Tories...

Presumably that argument applies also to Witney for Labour, or perhaps you think not?

Anyway, the most enjoyable moment of the Witney campaign was on Radio 4 this morning when the commentator said the Lib Dems not only threw the kitchen sink at it but the dishwasher and all the plumbing as well.

[finsobruce]

Oct 21, 2016 12:33:49 GMT mboy said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT @strinity said:

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

You might well be right there. One of the things the left are going to have to come to terms with is to understand that if they want the Tories beaten they have no choice but to rally behind the Lib Dems where the Lib Dems are the challenger. If they'd rather have a Tory win than vote Lib Dem tactically, then they'll get a Tory win. This will be crucial in Richmond Park, where the Lib Dems will need Labour and Green tactical votes to beat the Tories...

This is not strictly true. When the Lib Dems finally won Richmond in 1997 (having won the GLC seat, and of course control of the council some time before), the Labour vote actually went up.

And in some quarters this will be more difficult as people will point out (as @strinty in pointing out) that "the last time I did that you went into government with the Tories".

[mboy]

Oct 21, 2016 12:40:52 GMT froome said:

Oct 21, 2016 12:33:49 GMT mboy said:

You might well be right there. One of the things the left are going to have to come to terms with is to understand that if they want the Tories beaten they have no choice but to rally behind the Lib Dems where the Lib Dems are the challenger. If they'd rather have a Tory win than vote Lib Dem tactically, then they'll get a Tory win. This will be crucial in Richmond Park, where the Lib Dems will need Labour and Green tactical votes to beat the Tories...

Presumably that argument applies also to Witney for Labour, or perhaps you think not?

Labour self-evidently weren't the challenger in Witney.

In fact, with Corbyn in charge, Labour will not be the challenger in lots of Tory seats.

[Crimson King]

another though
I think it fair to say the Labour vote held up better than it might have done in a classic by election squeeze such as we saw in the past. As has been pointed out there could be a number of reasons for this - the short campaign, starting from 4th, memories of coalition, but I wonder if another could be a Corbyn effect. However much you might dislike him, he obviously speaks to a group of people who follow him with such messianic fervour that they will still vote however pointless that is. Could it be that in less working class seats there will be a small but unshiftable group of idealists who will not be susceptible to squeeze messages, at least until they realise that just because all their FB friends agree with them, the rest of the world doesn't (and some not even then)

[andrew111]

Oct 21, 2016 12:44:10 GMT mboy said:

Oct 21, 2016 12:40:52 GMT froome said:

Presumably that argument applies also to Witney for Labour, or perhaps you think not?

Labour self-evidently weren't the challenger in Witney.

In fact, with Corbyn in charge, Labour will not be the challenger in lots of Tory seats.

I think Labour managed to convince quite a lot of their voters in Witney town and Chipping Norton that they were the challenger...

[mboy]

Oct 21, 2016 12:42:18 GMT finsobruce said:

This is not strictly true. When the Lib Dems finally won Richmond in 1997 (having won the GLC seat, and of course control of the council some time before), the Labour vote actually went up.

No it didnt - it went down and there was no Green candidate (based I presume on projections from the old seats it replaced). ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results )

And in some quarters this will be more difficult as people will point out (as @strinty in pointing out) that "the last time I did that you went into government with the Tories".

Yes, they surely will. And there are probably still some numb-skulls around who haven't yet seen the difference between the Coalition and un-restrained Tories. Perhaps if large number of left-wing activists stopped pushing the lie that the Coalition was no different to un-restrained Tories, then voters would stop acting on the lie?

[andrew111]

Oct 21, 2016 12:45:59 GMT Crimson King said:

another though
I think it fair to say the Labour vote held up better than it might have done in a classic by election squeeze such as we saw in the past. As has been pointed out there could be a number of reasons for this - the short campaign, starting from 4th, memories of coalition, but I wonder if another could be a Corbyn effect. However much you might dislike him, he obviously speaks to a group of people who follow him with such messianic fervour that they will still vote however pointless that is. Could it be that in less working class seats there will be a small but unshiftable group of idealists who will not be susceptible to squeeze messages, at least until they realise that just because all their FB friends agree with them, the rest of the world doesn't (and some not even then)

Supposedly Labour have 1000 members in Witney now - that is a good core vote!

[gwynthegriff]

Oct 21, 2016 12:15:01 GMT andrew111 said:

Oct 21, 2016 11:46:45 GMT @strinity said:

Suggests that despite the recent political tumult, the Lib Dems still have more difficulty winning over centre-left than centre-right voters owing to the coalition legacy. However they achieved a very impressive swing despite that and this result bodes very well for them in affluent southern English seats where left parties are weak, especially places with strong remain votes like Richmond.

It was hard to squeeze the Labour vote starting from 4th place once Labour starting working seriously to preserve it. I saw one tweet counting leaflets who had received 17 from the Lib Dems and 10 from Labour. And the Labour leaflets had archetypal not-to-scale bar charts on them emphasising the Lib Dem 4th place and suggesting closeness of Labour to the Tories in 2015.. That probably kept a few votes Tory as well.. It was noticeable how the Mail and the Express were keen to make Witney into a Con-Lab contest, ignoring the Lib Dems..

Surely that couldn't be the case. My Labour Party friends insist only the Lib Dems indulge in such behaviour.

[finsobruce]

Oct 21, 2016 12:48:42 GMT mboy said:

Oct 21, 2016 12:42:18 GMT finsobruce said:

This is not strictly true. When the Lib Dems finally won Richmond in 1997 (having won the GLC seat, and of course control of the council some time before), the Labour vote actually went up.

No it didnt - it went down and there was no Green candidate. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Park_(UK_Parliament_constituency) )

And in some quarters this will be more difficult as people will point out (as @strinty in pointing out) that "the last time I did that you went into government with the Tories".

Yes, they surely will. And there are probably still some numb-skulls around who haven't yet seen the difference between the Coalition and un-restrained Tories. Perhaps if large number of left-wing activists stopped pushing the lie that the Coalition was no different to un-restrained Tories, then voters would stop acting on the lie?

Ok, I mis-remembered but it went down only by a massive -1.3% which suggests a la Witney that a lot of people didn't budge who "should have done". And perhaps contemplate that Labour actually took some voters away from the Tories who wouldn't vote Lib Dem in a month of sundays.

You seem to think voters can't think for themselves which is interesting. If a "large number of left wing activists" say something and it doesn't resonate with people then they won't act on it will they? You might want to note the reasoned response from Crimson King on this point. And, as you know, I am no fan of Corbyn's leadership.

[Merseymike]

Really can't see what the fuss is about. Labour haven't a prayer here and never will have. The LibDems are clearly more likely to pick up the protest vote at a by election - we don't live in a 2 party system any more even though the electoral system pretends we do.

Frankly this seat will again be monolithically Tory at the General but a reasonable recovery of the LibDems won't harm Labour anyway and could well deprive the Tories of some currently held seats.