Sleaford & North Hykeham

[The Bishop]

Dec 9, 2016 14:10:28 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Dec 9, 2016 12:15:33 GMT @skybluecolu said:

I hope Sarah Olney has enjoyed her week in the sun; she is now every bit as much "yesterday's news" as her predecessor.

Brexit means Brexit and we're going to make a success of it!

Well, let's think about it.

Richmond Park: Pro-Remain electorate but in a seat where demographics ought to make it one of the safest Tory seats anywhere; held in 2015 with 58% of vote.  By-election held due to dispute between party leadership and local MP, with candidate pretending not to be a Tory and an effective electoral pact with UKIP: lost to LDs on a massive swing.

Sleaford & North Hykeham: Pro-Leave electorate and demographically a safe rural Tory seat; held in 2015 with 56% of vote. By-election held due to dispute between party leadership and local MP. Retained with reduced vote share. LD vote share, in a seat with no local history, and while vast bulk of party effort being deployed in Richmond, almost doubled (and with an allegedly terrible candidate if you believe Michael Crick, which I don't, but there it is), leapfrogging Labour to establish ourselves in pole positon as the left-of-centre choice for next election, and breathing down the neck in vote share of UKIP whose vote share is also down despite a lot of guff from their candidate about increasing her vote share and challenging the Tories.

If the Tories think that those are not both bloody good results for the LDs given the circs and nature of the constituencies, and poor (RP) to middling (S&NH) for the Tories then the future for us is going to be very bright indeed.  They are also two by-elections that would not have occurred at all in a party with firm leadership and party discipline.

Last year you had basically a paper candidate in S/NH (as in much if not most of the country) this time you put in a bit of an effort.

That's it, basically, and I wouldn't read much more into it.

Richmond is a much more significant result on all levels.

[Pete Whitehead]

Also, as has been mentioned several times here, there is longstanding Lib Dem strength in North Hykeham so it isn't really true to say that there is 'no local history. Lib Dems were second in this seat in 2010 of course

[Sibboleth]

Dec 9, 2016 11:43:16 GMT justin124 said:

The predictions of a lost Labour deposit circulating at the count were a bit odd given that Labour ended up with twice the required vote.

Rural counts can be a bit weird and it can be hard to keep track of things. Probably people not used to them were freaking out at low Labour returns from parts of the seat and wrongly extrapolating. No mystery.

[tim]

Dec 9, 2016 14:10:28 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Richmond Park: Pro-Remain electorate but in a seat where demographics ought to make it one of the safest Tory seats anywhere; held in 2015 with 58% of vote.  By-election held due to dispute between party leadership and local MP, with candidate pretending not to be a Tory and an effective electoral pact with UKIP: lost to LDs on a massive swing.

Sleaford & North Hykeham: Pro-Leave electorate and demographically a safe rural Tory seat; held in 2015 with 56% of vote. By-election held due to dispute between party leadership and local MP. Retained with reduced vote share. LD vote share, in a seat with no local history, and while vast bulk of party effort being deployed in Richmond, almost doubled (and with an allegedly terrible candidate if you believe Michael Crick, which I don't, but there it is), leapfrogging Labour to establish ourselves in pole positon as the left-of-centre choice for next election, and breathing down the neck in vote share of UKIP whose vote share is also down despite a lot of guff from their candidate about increasing her vote share and challenging the Tories.

If the Tories think that those are not both bloody good results for the LDs given the circs and nature of the constituencies, and poor (RP) to middling (S&NH) for the Tories then the future for us is going to be very bright indeed.  They are also two by-elections that would not have occurred at all in a party with firm leadership and party discipline.

You can argue that Richmond Park OUGHT to be one of the safest tory seats anywhere. But the fact the Lib Dems won it in 1997, 2001 and 2005 shows it clearly is n't.

The Lib Dems also got a minimum of 15% in S & NK in the 1997-2010 general elections so it has a reasonably strong Lib Dem history. Whilst the 11% the LDs gained at this by-election is a recovery it is still below the % they gained in 4 of the last 5 elections. 

[Sibboleth]

Or we could accept that drawing sweeping conclusions from a not particularly seriously contested by-election held in a rural seat in December is probably an error.

[Richard Allen]

This was always going to be a pretty dull and unimportant by-election. The area is both Conservative and conservative and none of the other parties were in any shape to mount a real challenge. There really isn't an awful lot to say about the result or conclusions that we can draw from it.

[gwynthegriff]

Dec 9, 2016 16:33:17 GMT Richard Allen said:

This was always going to be a pretty dull and unimportant by-election. The area is both Conservative and conservative and none of the other parties were in any shape to mount a real challenge. There really isn't an awful lot to say about the result or conclusions that we can draw from it.

On a scale of +3 to -3

Con + / ++ (perhaps I need a scale of 5 )
UKIP -
LD +
Lab --
Lincs Ind ++

[johnloony]

Dec 9, 2016 16:33:17 GMT Richard Allen said:

This was always going to be a pretty dull and unimportant by-election. The area is both Conservative and conservative and none of the other parties were in any shape to mount a real challenge. There really isn't an awful lot to say about the result or conclusions that we can draw from it.

If it had been in a more UKIPish bit of Lincolnshire, and/or if it had had a higher turnout, and/or if it hadn't been in December, it might have been different.

[johnloony]

The difference between 13.5% in 2nd place and 8.8% in 5th place (4.7%) is the smallest such gap since 3.7% in Batley & Spen. Apart from that unusual case, it's the smallest since [insert name here]... I haven't gone through the lists yet but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the smallest ever.

[AdminSTB]

I am surprised how well the Conservative vote held up here, bearing in mind this by-election was brought about by resignation rather than death - and after what we witnessed in Witney and Richmond Park. I was thinking it would be somewhere in the low 40s.

One has to go back to May and June of 1982 to find by-elections where the Conservatives defended parliamentary seats whilst in government with such small decreases in the party's share of the vote. It was -1.3% in Coatbridge & Airdrie, -0.5% in Mitcham and Morden, +0.1% in Beaconsfield. In all cases, Labour lost support to the Liberal-SDP Alliance.

[Adam in Stroud]

Dec 9, 2016 14:29:30 GMT The Bishop said:

Dec 9, 2016 14:10:28 GMT Adam in Stroud said:

Last year you had basically a paper candidate in S/NH (as in much if not most of the country) this time you put in a bit of an effort.

That's it, basically, and I wouldn't read much more into it.

Richmond is a much more significant result on all levels.

Much in that, Bish, and indeed in  tim's post below yours.

But your last sentence is the key one - S/NH does not invalidate RP, because it is the latter that is significant; S/NH is  a bog standard Tory hold in a safe seat. So what?

The other point here is that I think you're right to say that in 2015 we had basically paper candidates in most of the country.  But being able to "put in a bit of an effort" in this constituency and get a score somewhere near to 2010 actually represents a significant turn-round for the LDs achieved in just 18 months.  If you offer me a vote share and MP total*in line with 2010 right now I'd snatch your hand off, and so would the rest of the yellow team 18 months ago. It did after all get us into govt for the first time in almost a century.

Sure, RP was a distinct possibility, it was the by-election I for one praying for; nevertheless after 2015 the swing required was huge.  That's where we are - even in places where we used to be strong, we require huge swings to win and in many of them didn't even finish second. Being able to deliver that swing is pretty significant even in favourable circs, because sometimes the circs will be favourable, that is why we have target seats and a strategy.  Conversely, being able to get back to 2010 levels in places that aren't targets, being able to find proper candidates and get some local activists out is important if we are to present ourselves as a serious party with a national presence.  That's Mark Pack's point about the need for "good third places"

* or say 90% of the MPs, in one with overall reduction of constituencies in the Review

[Andrew_S]

I've seen some Tweets from Labour supporters bigging up the fact that they didn't come fifth.

[Deleted]

Labour's long and slow decine into irrelevancy:

[carlton43]

Dec 9, 2016 17:19:14 GMT AdminSTB said:

I am surprised how well the Conservative vote held up here, bearing in mind this by-election was brought about by resignation rather than death - and after what we witnessed in Witney and Richmond Park. I was thinking it would be somewhere in the low 40s.

One has to go back to May and June of 1982 to find by-elections where the Conservatives defended parliamentary seats whilst in government with such small decreases in the party's share of the vote. It was -1.3% in Coatbridge & Airdrie, -0.5% in Mitcham and Morden, +0.1% in Beaconsfield. In all cases, Labour lost support to the Liberal-SDP Alliance.

Those were the days when the Conservatives were defending Coatbridge & Airdrie with success at a by-election.

[Sibboleth]

At the Barnsley by-election of 2011 the Tories polled their lowest ever share of the vote in the constituency, clearly proving that they were on the road to irrelevance across the nation.

[Foggy]

Dec 9, 2016 19:47:52 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 9, 2016 17:19:14 GMT AdminSTB said:

I am surprised how well the Conservative vote held up here, bearing in mind this by-election was brought about by resignation rather than death - and after what we witnessed in Witney and Richmond Park. I was thinking it would be somewhere in the low 40s.

One has to go back to May and June of 1982 to find by-elections where the Conservatives defended parliamentary seats whilst in government with such small decreases in the party's share of the vote. It was -1.3% in Coatbridge & Airdrie, -0.5% in Mitcham and Morden, +0.1% in Beaconsfield. In all cases, Labour lost support to the Liberal-SDP Alliance.

Those were the days when the Conservatives were defending Coatbridge & Airdrie with success at a by-election.

That does appear quite astonishing nowadays, though there are sound reasons why the Monklands area would've been Tory at the time.

I believe the Labour candidate in Beaconsfield that year was particularly weak. 

[Sibboleth]

Er... they weren't defending Coatbridge & Airdrie; it had a Labour majority of 33% in 1979.

[carlton43]

Dec 9, 2016 19:52:51 GMT Sibboleth said:

At the Barnsley by-election of 2011 the Tories polled their lowest ever share of the vote in the constituency, clearly proving that they were on the road to irrelevance across the nation.

Ah! But there one has to go back to the 80s for the Conservatives to even break through a weak 20%. Since when it has been sub 20. In Sleaford Labour has more recently been over 34%. There is a real difference and you must see that. Not that I care of course and I do note it does not imply irrelevancy nationwide, but it ought to be damn worrying.

[Deleted]

Dec 9, 2016 19:52:51 GMT Sibboleth said:

At the Barnsley by-election of 2011 the Tories polled their lowest ever share of the vote in the constituency, clearly proving that they were on the road to irrelevance across the nation.

Outside of heavily Muslim areas, and possibly Liverpool, Labour have become an irrelevance.

What the hell do they stand for? Are they for or anti immigration? Are they for or anti Brexit?

No-one trusts them on economic issues.

They used to represent the Working Class - now Labour laughs at the Working Class.

They used to be the establishment party in Scotland, even within the present decade.

They used to be the party with the greatest support among the Jewish party - now they're the party of choice for anti-semites.

I believe Corbyn was at yet another Jew-baiting event last night .....

[Sibboleth]

Dec 9, 2016 20:06:25 GMT carlton43 said:

In Sleaford Labour has more recently been over 34%.

At the General Election of 1997, yes.