Make money on a Labour vote slump in South Staffs?
May 24th, 2005
- Evens on 30% or less looks great value
With less than a month to go before the electors of South Staffordshire get their chance to vote in the 2005 General Election more betting markets have now opened on the poll, incorrectly being described as a by-election, that had to be moved back from May 5th because of the death of the Liberal Democrat candidate.
Even in the 2001 landslide the veteran Tory MP, Patrick Cormack, retained the seat with more than 50.5% of the votes ahead of Labour on 34.2% and the Lib Dems on 11.6%. If ever there was a seat that looks a Conservative certainty it’s this one although there would be nervousness if South Staffordshire was ever the subject of a mid-term by-election.
With Labour nationally having lost one seventh of its 2001 vote three weeks ago and the Lib Dems starting so far behind it is hard to see anything other than an easy Conservative victory. The betting exchange, Betfair, has not even felt it necessary to list Charles Kennedy’s party as one of the options in its market on the outcome.
So the main betting interests are on the size of the majority and how well Labour and the Conservatives will do. Skybet offer these options on the Tory vote share: 55%+ 5/4: 50-55% 13/8: less than 50% 5/2. The evens price on Labour getting a less than 30% of the votes looks really good.
-
All told the chances of Labour getting below the 30% level are much much better than the current odds and we think there’s money to be made. If you want to go for a higher profit at a slightly higher risk take the 5/4 against the Tories getting 55% or more.
Whatever there are profits to be made. Bet now before the price tightens.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I agree the odds on Labour <30% look tempting. However there’s more than “just two weeks to go” - almost a month in fact as the election will be held on 23rd June.
I think there’d only be Tory nervousness about a mid-term by-election in South Staffs. if they were back in government and experiencing mid-term blues (excuse the pun).
What with their net gain of two seats from the LDs on May 5th, I don’t think the Tories would be all that nervous about a by-election in a Tory/LD marginal such as Totnes. If the LDs want to return to the happy days of gaining seats like Romsey in by-elections, they’d be well advised to get rid of policies such as giving prisoners the vote, raising the age of criminal responsibility from ten to twelve, and abolishing mandatory life sentences (we do, after all, have ‘manslaughter’ and ‘diminished responsibility’ to cover circumstances such as battered wives killing their husbands and mercy killings). I suspect there are a lot of existing LD voters (never mind Tory waverers) whose social liberalism is of the ‘live and let live variety’ re. the age of consent civil unions for gay people, but see absolutely no reason to be soft on criminals who make other people’s lives hell.
I would be a bit wary on putting money on a high Conservative vote at this stage . A proliferation of minor party candidates could take votes away from all the main candidates . Let us see the full nominations first .
“If ever there was a seat that looks a Conservative certainty it’s this one although there would be nervousness if South Staffordshire was ever the subject of a mid-term by-election.”
Erm.. and why would that be, pray tell?
BV 1. Thanks for you point. I’ve corrected it.
I think if there were a by-election in Totnes we would probably take it. One of the few Tory targets where LDs did slightly better and with the presumed departure of the incumbent I’d say the odds slightly favoured us.
I wonder if the record for low turn-out (currently held IIRC by whichever seat Hilary Benn sits for) is in danger?
6 - You don’t think the below average Tory performance in Totnes mightn’t have had something to do with the leader of UKIP standing there, rather than any strength on your part?
The Tories would be very nervous about having to defend a seat like Totnes in a by election. Having to deal with two fronts in UKIP and the Lib Dems would not be easy. The turnout should be reasonable in this seat and I predict a reasonably comfortable Tory hold with the Lib Dems moving into 2nd place.
re [2] This seems a surprising ammount of vitriol to pour on the Lib Dems. Also its is quite wrong. Only this morning the Director of Public Prosecutions came out in favour of different degrees of homicide, some of which would not carry mandatory life sentences. I think that this is legally polite way of saying the same thing as the Lib Dems: Judges, not whoever is currently Home Secretary should decide who gets a Life sentence and who does not.
Lib Dems are no more “soft on crime” than either of the other two parties. We just want policies that actually work and defeat crime, rather than the populist political grandstanding favoured by too many of our opponants.
re 2 & 10. Richard’s attack sounds a bit like one of those Labour spin machine-drafted “letters to the editor” that were featured on last night’s Channel 4 film. If not then my apologies Richard and might I suggest that there’s a job for you there joining the Labour team.
AHM - perhaps but the LD vote went up. I personally was surprised by this given the horror show in Torbay, part of which is in Totnes constituency. If there were a by-election I would expect UKIP share to be higher, and the LibDems to win the seat if we fielded the same candidate which given his performance I’m sure we would.
At a GE it would be tougher. Totnes got a lot of resources - I don’t think it will fare quite so well next time.
Things like Mark Oaten’s suggestion that TWOCers be sent go-karting are hostages to fortune, though.
Quite apart from the unusual circs and the incumbency effect, the fact that both the LD (obviously) and the Labour candidate are changing might make a difference.
11 - I agree with what James has said, but in fairness to Richard many of his posts are hardly parrotings of the Labour line.
12 - Perhaps. I think it would be close, of course. Elections in Totnes have been such for the last number of years. If Anthony Steen were to cease to be the member there by some means, much would depend on the candidate we selected to replace him. I believe our prospects for a hold would be good.
I’m not sure what you mean in regard to your final comment on a General Election. Harder for us or harder for you?
13 - That was undeniably not helpful. I think there is a large role for reparative punishments in the community as opposed to prison, but that doesn’t mean rewarding the behaviour. And after all, what about the kids who stay out of trouble but don’t have the opportunity of go-karting?
Thanks for the tip, Mike. I agree–sell the socialists at scoring under 30% looks the value bet. Not for the first time, though–the price has gone. I was offered 10/11, which I accepted, trying to play for a modest monkey. Skybet declined the bet, and offered me less than half; a maximum of £220 to win £200.
Lots of us on here are interested in political betting—its a shame the bookies don’t show similar enthusism.
Harder for us… if Anthony Steen steps down next time then this would in my view be one of the very best chances for a LD gain from Con. Otherwise it will still be tough, though UKIP aren’t going away in this part of the world and could do better next time.
Re. 11, Mike, yes I wouldn’t mind the job the reporter had on last night’s Dispatches.
Re. other posts, the policy of different degrees of homicide (though easily twisted by opponents) I can just about stomach (though I thought it worth mentioning that many of the examples prayed in aid are covered by manslaughter and diminished responsibility). The other policies (including sending TWOCERs go-karting) I genuinely disagree with. I should add that I disagreed with my party’s tactics in the Littleborough and Saddleworth by-election in 95 (particularly when there are people in all three parties, and I believe the Telegraph under Moore’s editorship, who don’t just want a Royal Commission on Cannabis, but say end the futile drug ‘war’, and legalise all hard drugs - just as with alcohol, the consequences of legalisation are not pleasant, but - compared with the consequences of prohibition - are the lesser of two evils).
Re. 15, cheers book value, I’m glad someone has noticed that I’m usually off-message!
Is mention of Totnes simply an example or is there a rumour? There have been rumours about Anthony Steen’s health for years but thankfully he has remained in robust form (I don’t say that as a Tory, just as a fan of people not dying). Whether he will retire next time I do not know - he is one of those labelled by unpleasant young Tory Turks as a “bed blocker” but is actually more active than many half his age.
Actually, I am pretty certain Steen would have lost if Graham Booth rather than Roger Knapman had stood for UKIP. Knapman pulled rank (or Booth couldn’t be bothered) but Booth is a Kingsbridge man and a much more substantial figure on the local stage (although this may have pulled some votes from the Lib Dems as their man, Mike Treleaven, was also a Kingsbridge notable).
If there were a by election (again, heaven forbid), I would strongly back the Lib Dems to win. Treleaven would certainly stand again and is a strong candidate. Knapman or Booth would run strongly. And the Lib Dem by-election machine remains, on all available evidence, much stronger than the Tory one.
And, of course, the original point I was making was that, apart from own disagreement with them (which matters little from the LD point of view, as I’m a Labour Party member who would only cast a second preference vote for the LDs at a General Election out of disagreement with the Green Party’s non-nuclear defence policy,) the policies I’ve mentioned are an albatross round the neck of LD candidates in places like Guildford (which the LDs lost) and decapitation targets (which, in all but one case, the LDS failed to gain). If the LDs like those policies so much that they’re prepared to stick with them regardless of the electoral consequence, then that’s their look-out. I remember, though, that in the past the LDs have shown a pragmatic willingness to ditch electoral albatrosses such as putting VAT on children’s clothes (or was that when they were still known as the SLDs?)
As for vitriol, I’m nowhere near as vitriolic as Sarah J!
20 - We haven’t had a competitive Tory byelection in some time now, and certainly not since Lynton Crosby’s advent and the changes he made to our campaign apparatus. I think you are basing that assumption on evidence several years out of date. Remember, the Lib Dems were fairly confident of ousting Anthony Steen at the General Election, and the one before it for that matter - they weren’t quite able to match their bravado in either instance, were they?
Anthony Steen is never going to be a high flyer in ministerial terms, but he’s a hard working MP who’s popular with his constituents. He really has done very well to hold on in the last three elections given the big vote for the Referndum Party and UKIP on each occasion. He is robustly eurosceptic, which is very sensible in that constituency.
I think a by-election would be a very tough fight. UKIP would poll well (but might just as easily take votes from the Lib Dems as the Tories), and a Green candidate might also pull crucial votes away from the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems obviously have a formidable by-election machine, but the Conservatives seem to have got their act together in marginal seats, and just as important, have got out of the habit of thinking the Lib Dems are unbeatable.
23 - Some of us never thought the Lib Dems were unbeatable, Sean.
If there was a by-election in Totnes it wouldn’t be against Steen who, as Sean points out, is an asset. The Lib Dems would have a campaign run personally by Chris Rennard who, for all the criticisms over General Election strategy versus the Tories, remains the undisputed by-election king. The broad Lib Dem membership buy into the whole by-election concept in a way the Tories don’t - they genuinely love it in a way which is both rather tragic and effective. The Lib Dems would also effectively have incumbancy advantage in the form of a strong candidate who is well known in a fair bit of the constituency and has stood before. I personally don’t think it would even be particularly close. But let’s hope the theory is never tested.
26 - Steen’s son was the Tory candidate in Liverpool Wavertree last time. Perhaps they could pass the torch in Totnes…
12 - Horror show in Torbay? More like classic tactical unwind… Sanders won by about a dozen votes in 97; As a result Labour voters came over tactically in large numbers in 01. Some of these went home in 05, hence the reduced majority. But Marcus failed to raise the Tory share. Torbay will surely need a more effective Labour squeeze again next time.
Could someone please tell me why the thread has turned to discussing Totnes rather than South Staffordshire?
Have I missed something?
28 - Post 2 - although that’s probably not much of an explanation
Probably because South Staffs is going to be a total non-event? Can’t see any enthusiasm for it locally and Patrick Cormack will walk it anyway. The best thing about South Staffs is the non-standard non-corporate issue ‘cormack cares’ signs that dot the road verges. No ‘Are you thinking…. here!
re. 30, far less of a concern to the local constabulary than Keith Speed’s ‘Speed!’ signs dotted by road verges at one GE in Ashford. Apparently too many motorists took the message literally….Almost as good as ‘Breed for Cornwall’ in Cornwall SE (except that procreation is legal).
Mike Smithson–I find your comments on the channel 4 Labour ‘Dirty Tricks prgramme’ amazing.
You call the dirty tricks manipulation most people would call it lies and deceipt.
‘there was a lot at stake’ so its ok to lie ?
Next you will be submitting an article asking why so few people engage in politics and are in fact turned off,when this is raised again just have a good look at the crap you wrote regarding the channel 4 documentary.
I guess as highlighted by the documentary you must be a paid up member of the Labour party to support such garbage and dishonesty.
Rubbish. We all know Mike is a true blue Tory
33. Book Value, he’s a swing voter undecided between Veritas, BNP and the Communist Party of Britain.
A fully paid up member of the political class, more like.
32-It was a handout from Labour central office from one of Smithson’s cronies,the same underhand garbage that we saw in in film last night.
Where is Nick Palmer,to embarrassed to make any comments,or maybe he asked Smithson to publish it.
lol.
Re. 36, pretty unlikely, when Mike is a well-known Liberal Democrat (in fact, he was the LD parliamentary candidate for Bedfordshire North in 92).
Before Johann Hari writes another handwringing piece saying how we shouldn’t mock chavs, maybe he’d like to move to my street, which was awoken this morning at twenty to one by some braindead kappa slapper trying to get the attention of whoever lives at no 24 by not knocking (as any half-sociable person would do) but by screech-whistling and bawling ‘Tony!’
What a pity the inhabitants of no 24 didn’t get sent down after the armed police raid (Heckler and Koch MP5 submachine guns and all) there two years ago - then their various scummy mates could visit them in prison.
38-Whatever his political affiliation is I think it was an awful piece of prose trying to justify in a rather pathetic way that underhand,sleaze and deceit are OK as ‘there was a lot a stake’.
Is it no wonder so many people are turned off politics and on this site we have an idiot saying its all ok.
38-Not difficult to see why this wally was rejected by both the electors of Bedfordshire North and I guess the Liberal party as they obviously had no use for his crass comments either.
Don Chas and Jim. Is this a spot the difference competition? You all parade your moral indignation within half an hour of each other on the wrong thread. Either your’re the same person (probably Printz as well) and your Masonic evening has been cancelled or you’re Christopher Soames and I claim my £5!
Chas & all 32. I’ve been involved in politics in some form or anothyer for a long time and the reality is that all sides use every means to make themselves appear more acceptable to the general public.
Phoney letters to the editor are nothing new & what we saw last night was pretty tame. The guilt here lies not with the political parties or the spinners but with lazy journalists and editors who do not scrutinise things enough. They are also sometimes responsible for phoney letters. Twice in the past year I have been called by a respectable national newspaper asking if I could send them a letter on a particular topic. When I said I was busy they said they would write it for me. All they wanted was for me to sign it so it could go above an apparently independent name.
The journalists covering the election knew full well what Labour was doing and, too often, they put their desire for a story and maintaining good relations ahead of the close scrutiny that they should carry out.
The other aspects of the programme were just about stage management. To me, and I’ve worked in the PR business, there was absolutely nothing new in the programme.
I also note that Chas, Don and Jim’s comments all have the same IP address.
Would this newspaper be the Times? I always found it funny, how every so often they would print a letter from an ordinary member of the public, saying and I paraphrase “This was the last straw…” and they would either be leaving the Conservative party or refusing to vote for them. BTW, I am not saying that letters of this type are always fake. There are always plenty in the newspapers around the time of leadership contests, but usually none there after, which is what makes me suspicious.
Anyway Mike, what views did they want you to express?
Re. 44, and often local newspapers (particularly if they’re part of the Northcliffe Empire) will be biased towards one party (no prizes for guessing which, if the local paper is owned by the Northcliffe Group!) and print such ’scripted’ letters by one party, but pull ones written by the other party. There is, of course, also the bogus ban on ‘political letters’ on the last edition before election day (but, strangely enough, letters advancing a Conservative point of view will mysteriously sneak through).
And such biased local papers will often ’solicit’ letters from well-known activists (or letter writers with a right-wing agenda).
Off topic but does anyone know why Aldc have the Norfolk CC Town Close seat by-election, which is being held on Thursday, as a Labour defending seat when it was won by the Lib Dems in the 2001 county council election?
Has there been another by-election since then or did the councillor defect?
Tone on another thread said the Greens “will almost certainly win the by-election in Norwich this Thursday. ”
No you can’t be thinking what I’m thinking?
Re. 48, I was similarly mystified when the BBC had a caption on screen on the night of May 5th saying that Stoke had a Labour Mayor who was seeking re-election. In fact, Stoke had an Independent Mayor seeking re-election! I fired off an e-mail to tell them this, and within five minutes they had the right information up.
As suspected the “outraged” Don, Chas and Jim turn out to be the same person. How ironic that while he is morally outraged by Labour dirty tricks he performs one of his own!
Very sporting of you Mike to give him the time of day. I wouldn’t. And isn’t it interesting how the most morally outraged are so often the most dishonest?
49 - Richard - my post was really only intended to wind the Lib Dems up,in good fun of course,the message behind it however is that the Greens are a bigger threat to them than they seem to realise.I will await the result of the by-election with some interest
I put a small (and, to be honest, rather pointless) bet on a Conservative hold in South Staffordshire at 1.2 a short time ago. The best you can get on Betfair now is 1.04.
In any case, what’s wrong with parties telling their activists how to put their point of view to the media? Next we’ll see complaints that the people coming round to ask how you’d vote were actually - the horror - following a script provided by the local party!
54 - To be more correct, South Staffs is not a by-election, but a re-run. The difference is what parties can spend. At a Parliamentary By election, the legal maximum is around £100,000. However, at a re-run, the Party whose candidate died can only spend the normal amount - about £10,500. If a party faught the seat at the GE, they can spend only double, but must include in the return anything they spent the first time round. While this may sound a bit boring - it will stop a by-election spend bandwagon - which could affect the result.
Iain [52] - it isn’t pointless to put money on a certainty - I’ll assume you bet £10 and stand to make £1.50 or so after deductions, which is 15% in a month, no bank will give you that! And then you Tories wonder why you’re still not trusted with the economy
It seems that the proposed changes concerning MPs performances (and other parts of the proposed changes in the tory party) didn’t go down well with MPs (certainly not a surprise).
Could this slow down the change of the leadership contest’s rules too?
Anyway, while we are on the subject- Isn’t it rather underhand to “go undercover” as a journalist. Pot calling kettle, perhaps, all “in the national interest” of course
The nightmare in Torbay I referred to was not Adrian Sanders performance but the local council and its habit of coming up with eye-catching ways to lose votes. I actually thought Marcus Wood had a bit of a chance there though expected a LD hold.
Richard - in my part of the world the local newspaper is Northcliffe owned and is very generous towards the Labour party in Exeter, perhaps unsurprisingly given one of their former employees is the MP and he has not shame about saying how marvellous it is.
The local paper for Devon as a whole is also Northcliffe - and is staunchly conservative and Eurosceptic as you might expect.
IIRC, the Tories haven’t won a by-election, not even one where they held the seat, since about 1987 or so when William Hague won. And that time there was both a ‘Liberal’ and an ‘Alliance’ candidate or something both coming a close second.
Nonetheless it’s difficult to disagree that this will be a walkover, despite the very impressive Lib Dem by-election machine. Might Labour get a bit of a boost from being recent winners, just as the Tories went up in the polls after the 1992 GE win? I’m sure that will be outweighed by the Lib Dem leaflet effect though.
And as for election spending limits, no party respected the by-election spend limits when they were the same as the general election spend limits, for certainly decades before the rules were changes. So I don’t expect anyone to obey the limits this time round either.
“And that time there was both a ‘Liberal’ and an ‘Alliance’ candidate or something both coming a close second”.
In that 1989 by-election, the SDP came 2,600-odd votes behind Hague, with what would become the LDs garnering 11,000 votes in third place.
And, of course, the Tories held both Uxbridge and Beckenham in the 1997 Parliament.
And Kensington and Chelsea. They also held Eddisbury as well. They have not won one, since they took Mitcham and Morden in the early 80s though, which is more troubling.
They held Eddisbury too.
We gained Ayr a few years back in a Scottish Parliament by-election as well.
Richard - 50 - Further to my reply at 52 I did as you suggested and emailed aldc asking why they had the defending seat as Labour.They sent a prompt and efficient reply saying there was confusion over ward boundary changes but after discussion they were altering it to Lib Dem being the defender.Your advice worked.
Vino - I have no idea why the LDs consider Town Close a Labour seat. It is made up from the two halves of the old St Stephens Ward (a safe Labour seat formerly held by their leader) and the old Town Close Ward (a safe LibDem seat). But because of ther massive boundry shifts, it is impossible to tell who might or might not have won this new seat back in 2001. More like the LDs not liking to admit they’ve lost a seat (they did hold it in the 2004 City elections). For what its worth I think this by-election has now moved to being more three ways, with the LibDems, Greens and Tories slugging it out. No sign of Labour really, despite having a strong local candidate.
68 - Tone - Thanks,I tend to follow local by-elections with some interest trying to see if my theories of how the electorate are viewing issues agrees with the voting pattern.It’s good fun not to be taken too seriously,I’ve a lot of time for the Green Party(except like Lorcan I can’t understand/don’t agree with their policy on nuclear power)and wish them well.
Thanks again for the insight.
69. Vino, it wasn’t me who questioned the Green policy on nuclear power. I think it was Richard who said he wouldn’t vote Green in a parliamentary election because of their unilateral nuclear disarmament policy.
I live in the neighbouring ward and can tell you the LD’s, Lab and Greens are all putting a strong effort in. Will be interesting to see whether the Labour fight back against the Liberal Democrats in Norwich continues!
70 - sorry Lorcan - I thought it was you but one of the posters when discussing the Greens said something(which I completely agreed with) about their ,in his view, silly attitude to nuclear power
Thanks for that Will, I live in Town Close and will certianly be voting tomorrow. So far today I have had a green and COnservative leaflet and a knock from the Tories. I await anything (at all) from Labour and have had plenty of gumpf from the LibDems, although their candidate from “far away” Hellesdon won’t help!
Any thoughts about the Freedom party?
Presumably their campaign material will make much of their county council result in which they got 36% of the vote, breathing down the necks of the Tories in South Staffs?
Could they make a breaththrough and have a showing better than Kilroy?
Could they come 4th?
What effect might they have on the other parties?
http://www.freedompartyuk.net
A BNP splinter aren’t they?
I think that betting on the Conservatives getting more than 55% may be more than a ’slightly higher risk’ than Labour to get less than 30%.
The Conservative vote share in the West Midlands rose by only 0.1% between 2001 and 2005.
In similar constituencies bordering the West Midlands conurbation (e.g. Aldridge-Brownhills, Bromsgrove) the Conservative vote share fell.
The Conservatives have the advantage of a respected incumbent but there are signs over the last few days that Howard’s decision to hang on and change the leadership election rules is starting to reopen old divisions in the party.
UKIP got an above average vote share here in 2001 (as did the Referendum Party in 1997) and did well in neighbouring constituencies in 2005. ‘No’ votes in the French and Dutch referendums could bring the European issue back into focus which would probably boost UKIP further.
The right wing Freedom Party have a district councillor in Womborne who got 2360 voites and came within 100 of winning the county council division on May 5th. This is one of the more working-class parts of the constituency, so they may take at least as many votes from Labour as the Conservatives.
My view: Con 45-50%, Lab 25-30%, LD 15-20%, Others 5-10%. Turnout 40-45%.
Of course much could change over the next four weeks, but I have put a few quid on the Conservatives to get less than 50% at 5/2.
All in all it is probably fairly dull as (non) by-elections go - safe Tory seat - no new candidate - no mid term effects to influence one way or the other, low spending limits to lower the pizazz value of a good by-election romp. What are the odds on the result being exactly the same as 2001?
Tone & Will - any news of the result?
Norfolk CC Town Close result - a win for the Greens from Lib Dems .
Town Close: C HULL (G) 1151, M Toye (LD) 958, D Fullman (Lab) 606, J Wyatt (C) 470. Maj: 193.
Interesting take a look at this Vino
http://www.elections.norfolk.gov.uk/fla_index.asp
click on the Norwich area and look at the extent the Lib Dems were seen off by the Greens and Labour, and with Town Close the Conservatives came 4th in 5 wards out of the 10 which will make up Norwich South next time and only managed 2nd in 2.
Yes, this result was a bit of a surprise, but then you reap what you sow.
The Greens fought a very positive campaign here, at times too many issues. Their leaflets were wordy and almost unreadable but they threw everything into it. You couldn’t move yesterday without bumping into a green canvasser.
The LibDems judged this very badly. All their leaflets banged on about the Greens can’t win here, vote LibDem to keep Labour out. They did work hard, loads of leaflets and canvassing but at the end of the day everybody here knew that it was LD vs Green.
In the end, the Tories were the hatchett-men. All their leaflets pointed out that the LibDem candidate didn’t even live in Norwich and was riding on the back of Town Close to win a seat. Nasty, negative stuff, that almost certainly did for the LibDem candidate. The Tories, however, didn’t work like they did at the GE and only got out their core vote in this ward.
How Labour got that many is beyond me, they must have ran an excellent below-the-radar campaign as I didn’t see hide-nor-hair of them.
A great result for the Greens, good for Labour, so-so for the Tories and crushing for the LibDems. But! The big question is, with Wensum sure to fall next year to the Greens and Lakenham/University bouncing back for Labour, could we see Labour regain control of Norwich by the LibDems losing the city seat to the Greens?
The other result was an easy Conservative hold in a marginal seat in Hexham, with a big swing to the Conservatives - surprising in view of the general election result in that seat.
Re: 62-66: By-elections are fascinating things and I know we’ve discussed counterfactual scenarios as well in this Forum. Both Portillo and Hague first entered Parliament vis by-elections. Portillo took the South gate seat after the previous incumbent (Peter Sain le Berry I believe) was killed in the Brighton bomb. Had the bomb not happened, Portillo wouldn’t probably have got in to Parliament before 1987, if then (he had failed diastrously in 1983). William Hague won Richmond in 1989 because the Lib Dems and SDP ran against each other. Clearly, had the Owenite candidate won, it would have made life much harder for the Lib Dems. Conversely, if Hague hadn’t won, he wouldn’t have entered Parliament until 1992 at the earliest and would have been in no position to run as a Tory leadership candidate in 1997. This means either Peter Lilley or Michael Howard becomes leader and so it goes….
Many by-election losers do make it into Parliament such as one Tony Blair for example.
Labour has a core vote even in Nelson where I haven’t seen anything of Labour other than a couple of leaflets just before the election they polled over 800. What is interesting in the council results held on the same day as the general is that the Greens polled 16% alot more than the 7% they got in the general. Labour on the other hand polled quite a bit less suggesting people voted Green locally and Labour nationally. The Green strategy of going ‘left’ of Labour seems to work locally.
As for the Tories sounds like their campaign carried on where it left off in the G.E. all anti Lib Dem, they must be pretty demoralised after the G.E. they ran a strong campaign more than the seat warranted and still lost votes finishing in 3rd.
Indeed Will, I agree with you fully ref. voting Labour nationally vs voting Green locally. The Greens only do well where the Labour campaings are moribund. Why are the Greens not taking on Uni or Lakenham? Because Labour are doing well. Wensum, Nelson, Town Close and Mancroft (plus in an odd way Bowthorpe) are all good Green choices to pick off the Labour vote before heading for the LibDems.
As for the Tory campaign I’d beg to differ. The pre-election Tory campaign was very effectivly anti-LD but the GE campaign itslef was surprisingly positive - they had a good candidate to shout about and did it.
If the Tories hadn’t run that campaign and, essentially more or less, the Tory vote held up then the LibDems would have taken Clarke’s scalp. The Tory candidate lost 500 or so votes from 2001. Nationwide similar seats would have seen the Tories plummet a few thousand allowing the LibDems to win. The Conservatives will now fight tooth and nail for city seats next time, to what success I don’t know.
Interestingly I believe the LibDems could have won this seat if either:
(1) The Tories put up a worse candidate / campaign
(2) They chose a better candidate themselves - the whole Suffolk / Ipswcih thing did for the LibDem guy.
I’m sure the Tories are feeling down but they always seem to bounce back, unlike the LibDems whose campaigns get worse each time they lose the previous ones. Who’ll be the first to get out a post-by-election leaflet in Town Close? I’ll let you know!
80 - Will - agree with you -very interesting,thanks to you and Tone for putting the personal/underlying issues re the by-election
Back to South Staffs.
Spending limits will have to be observed, because of the change of candidates understand Labour and the Liberal Democrats are limited to about £12K, Conservatives and presumably UKIP and Freedom Party can reach £24K. Limits will have to be followed, can you imagine someone winning and overspending, the reaction particularly if it was a close result.
However a close result is unlikely. Possibly there may be a higher than expected UKIP or Freedom Party Result. Veritas standing as well? This seat had a very good UKIP result in the 2004 European Elections. A very good second. Perhaps they should not be underestimated what with the current Conservative leadership, which to some people seems to be chaotic and undignified.
This might be an election for people to go for fourth type parties.
Conservative, Freedom and UKIP have an advantage in organisation, people know who the candidates are, they have been in effect campaigning for six weeks, leaflets and names up on lamp post. The Green victory in Norwich may add credence to this fourth party syndrome. However Hexham has a closer link to South Staffs than a fully urban Norwich County Council Town seat? The Hexham result was clouded I suggest because the Independant did not stand this time and had I think 24% last time.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are coming in very late in relative terms, money restrictions may prevent the leaflet barrage and they will have difficulty competing across such a sizeable seat. Labour will concentrate presumably on the eastern side Cheslyn Hay, Featherstone etc. Difficult to know where the Lib Dems will target, their County Council performance across the constituency was poor and Patrick Cormack is so well known. However they consistently suprise whether winning Withington on a huge swing or dropping back in their more traditional southern county areas.
So perhaps some betting options should be open, they might come second, but they would require a sizeable shift from Labour, with Labour abstentions as well as getting their own core vote out.
Then there is UKIP! Also it is summer and the Lib Dem student support
is free of exams and as at Hodge Hill and Leicester South last year will no doubt be there working hard on the ground.
Patrick Cormack should win comfortably, I say should.
The Conservatives should win this seat OK, but others will get a better showing than if it had been done at the General Election. Look out for the pecking order of UKIP, English democrats, and Freedom Party.